Reston 20/20 Letter to Governor McAuliffe Proposing Amendments to General Assembly Proffer Restrictions Bills

The following letter is Reston 20/20's response to the General Assembly's legislation to limit local governments ability to negotiate proffers for new development as presented here on Reston 20/20's blog.

   Ltr to Governor McAuliffe Re Proffer Restrictions

Developers buy General Assembly vote to limit residential development proffers.

In a matter of a few very short, very quiet weeks early in this session, both houses of the Virginia General Assembly have passed by large margins slightly different versions of a bill that would limit the role of developer proffers in offsetting the massive impact their residential development will have on transportation, schools, parks, the environment, and more.  It may not affect development of FAR 4.0 or more around Metro stations.  While the bill language still needs to be resolved between the two houses, there is little doubt that the bill will be sent to the Governor within days.

Just for the record:

• Dick Saslaw, a Fairfax County Democratic Senator, was a CO-SPONSOR of the bill in the Senate and voted FOR it.
• Janet Howell, Reston's state senator, voted FOR the bill.
• Ken Plum, Reston's state delegate, voted FOR the bill.

You can see how little our representatives think about their constituents and the impact of developer profiteering by shifting the huge infrastructure cost load--$2.6 billion in Reston station area streets alone--to local taxpayers.

Here is the lede on the most recent news report about this bill:

Forty years ago, when development was booming Fairfax County, government leaders at the Massey Building had an idea: Create a system to make demands on builders so they would have to pay for traffic improvements and sewer upgrades. Over time, though, that system expanded and developers started offering things themselves, such as providing computers to local schools or forking over cash to an affordable housing fund. 

The problem, some Virginia lawmakers say, is that the costs of those proffers — a system that was institutionalized statewide in the late 1970s — are often passed on to homebuyers. And business leaders say the system represents little more than extortion, hitting businesses for uniform cash contributions regardless of a project's size. . . .

Yet it provides absolutely no justification for why existing homeowners should pay for the needed improvements caused by the building of new residences.

Here is the language of the Senate bill passed this morning:

SENATE BILL NO. 549 FLOOR AMENDMENT IN THE NATURE OF A SUBSTITUTE (Proposed by Senator Obenshain on February 5, 2016)

A BILL to amend the Code of Virginia by adding a section numbered 15.2-2303.4, relating to conditional zoning.

Be it enacted by the General Assembly of Virginia:

1. That the Code of Virginia is amended by adding a section numbered 15.2-2303.4 as follows:

§ 15.2-2303.4. Provisions applicable to certain conditional rezoning proffers.

A. For purposes of this section, unless the context requires a different meaning:

"New residential development" means any construction or building expansion on residentially zoned property, including a residential component of a mixed-use development, that results in either one or more additional residential dwelling units or, otherwise, fewer residential dwelling units, beyond what may be permitted by right under the then-existing zoning of the property, when such new residential development requires a rezoning or proffer condition amendment.

"New residential use" means any use of residentially zoned property that requires a rezoning or proffer condition amendment.

"Offsite proffer" means a proffer addressing an impact outside the boundaries of the property to be developed and shall include all cash proffers.

"Onsite proffer" means a proffer addressing an impact within the boundaries of the property to be developed and shall not include any cash proffers.

"Proffer condition amendment" means an amendment to an existing proffer statement applicable to a property or properties.

"Public facilities" means public transportation facilities, public safety facilities, public school facilities, or public parks.

"Public facility improvement" means an offsite public transportation facility improvement, a public safety facility improvement, a public school facility improvement, or an improvement to or construction of a public park. No public facility improvement shall include any operating expense of an existing public facility, such as ordinary maintenance or repair, or any capital improvement to an existing public facility, such as a renovation or technology upgrade, that does not expand the capacity of such facility.

"Public safety facility improvement" means construction of new law-enforcement, fire, emergency medical, and rescue facilities or expansion of existing public safety facilities, to include all buildings, structures, parking, and other costs directly related thereto.

"Public school facility improvement" means construction of new primary and secondary public schools or expansion of existing primary and secondary public schools, to include all buildings, structures, parking, and other costs directly related thereto.

"Public transportation facility improvement" means (i) construction of new roads; (ii) improvement or expansion of existing roads and related appurtenances as required by applicable standards of the Virginia Department of Transportation, or the applicable standards of a locality; and (iii) construction, improvement, or expansion of buildings, structures, parking, and other facilities directly related to transit.

"Residentially zoned property" means property zoned or proposed to be zoned for either single-family or multifamily housing.

B. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, general or special, no locality shall (i) request or accept any unreasonable proffer, as described in subsection C, in connection with a rezoning or a proffer condition amendment as a condition of approval of a new residential development or new residential use or (ii) deny any rezoning application or proffer condition amendment for a new residential development or new residential use where such denial is based in whole or in part on an applicant's failure or refusal to submit, or remain subject to, an unreasonable proffer.

C. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, general or special, (i) as used in this chapter, a proffer, or proffer condition amendment, whether onsite or offsite, offered voluntarily pursuant to § 15.2-2297, 15.2-2298, 15.2-2303, or 15.2-2303.1, shall be deemed unreasonable unless it addresses an impact that is specifically attributable to a proposed new residential development or other new residential use applied for and (ii) an offsite proffer shall be deemed unreasonable pursuant to subdivision (i) unless it addresses an impact to an offsite public facility, such that (a) the new residential development or new residential use creates a need, or an identifiable portion of a need, for one or more public facility improvements in excess of existing public facility capacity at the time of the rezoning or proffer condition amendment and (b) each such new residential development or new residential use applied for receives a direct and material benefit from a proffer made with respect to any such public facility improvements.

D. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, general or special:

1. Actions brought to contest the action of a locality in violation of this section shall be brought only by the aggrieved applicant or the owner of the property subject to a rezoning or proffer condition amendment pursuant to subsection F of § 15.2-2285.

2. In any action in which a locality has denied a rezoning or an amendment to an existing proffer and the aggrieved applicant proves by a preponderance of the evidence that it refused or failed to submit or remain subject to an unreasonable proffer that it has proven was suggested, requested, or required, formally or informally, by the locality, the court shall presume, absent clear and convincing evidence to the contrary, that such refusal or failure was the controlling basis for the denial.

3. In any successful action brought pursuant to this section contesting an action of a locality in violation of this section, the applicant may be entitled to an award of reasonable attorney fees and costs as well as compensatory damages and to an order remanding the matter to the governing body with a direction to approve the rezoning or proffer condition amendment without the inclusion of any unreasonable proffer. If the locality fails or refuses to approve the rezoning or proffer condition amendment within a reasonable time not to exceed 90 days from the date of the court's order to do so, the court shall enjoin the locality from interfering with the use of the property as applied for without the unreasonable proffer. Upon remand to the local governing body pursuant to this subsection, the requirements of § 15.2-2204 shall not apply.

E. The provisions of this section shall not apply to any new residential development or new residential use occurring in an approved area comprehensive plan that allows a density of at least 4.0 floor area ratio in a portion of a revitalization area that encompasses mass transit as defined in § 33.2-100 and mixed use development or in such a plan that allows additional density within one-quarter mile of an existing or planned Metrorail station or an approved area of a service district created pursuant to § 15.2-2400 which area encompasses an existing or planned Metrorail station.

2. That this act shall not be construed to affect any proffer related to a nonresidential development or use and shall be construed as supplementary to any existing provisions limiting or curtailing proffers or proffer condition amendments for new residential development or new residential use that are consistent with its terms, and shall be construed to supersede any existing statutory provision with respect to proffers or proffer condition amendments for new residential development or new residential use that are inconsistent with its terms.

3. That this act is prospective only and shall not be construed to apply to any proffer accepted prior to the date of enactment or to any proffer condition amendment amending a proffer accepted prior to such date.

Here is the House version of the bill passed last week:

  HOUSE BILL NO. 770

AMENDMENT IN THE NATURE OF A SUBSTITUTE (Proposed by the House Committee on Counties, Cities and Towns) (Patron Prior to Substitute--Delegate Gilbert) House Amendments in [ ] -- February 3, 2016

A BILL to amend the Code of Virginia by adding sections numbered 15.2-2303.4 and 15.2-2303.5, relating to conditional zoning.

Be it enacted by the General Assembly of Virginia:

1. That the Code of Virginia is amended by adding sections numbered 15.2-2303.4 and 15.2-2303.5 as follows:

§ 15.2-2303.4. Provisions applicable to all conditional rezoning proffers.

A. For purposes of this section, unless the context requires a different meaning:

"New residential development" means any construction or building expansion on residentially zoned property, including a residential component of a mixed-use development, that results in either one or more additional residential dwelling units or, otherwise, fewer residential dwelling units, beyond what may be permitted by right under the then-existing zoning of the property, when such new residential development requires a rezoning or proffer condition amendment.

"New residential use" means any use of residentially zoned property that requires a rezoning or proffer condition amendment.

"Offsite proffer" means a proffer addressing an impact outside the boundaries of the property to be developed and shall include all cash proffers.

"Onsite proffer" means a proffer addressing an impact within the boundaries of the property to be developed and shall not include any cash proffers.

"Proffer condition amendment" means an amendment to an existing proffer statement applicable to a property or properties.

"Public facilities" means public transportation facilities, public safety facilities, public school facilities, or public parks.

"Public facility improvement" means an offsite public transportation facility improvement, a public safety facility improvement, a public school facility improvement, or an improvement to or construction of a public park. No public facility improvement shall include any operating expense of an existing public facility, such as ordinary maintenance or repair, or any capital improvement to an existing public facility, such as a renovation or technology upgrade, that does not expand the capacity of such facility.

"Public safety facility improvement" means construction of new law-enforcement, fire, emergency medical, and rescue facilities or expansion of existing public safety facilities, to include all buildings, structures, parking, and other costs directly related thereto.

"Public school facility improvement" means construction of new primary and secondary public schools or expansion of existing primary and secondary public schools, to include all buildings, structures, parking, and other costs directly related thereto.

"Public transportation facility improvement" means (i) construction of new roads; (ii) improvement or expansion of existing roads and related appurtenances as required by applicable standards of the Virginia Department of Transportation, or the applicable standards of a locality; and (iii) construction, improvement, or expansion of buildings, structures, parking, and other facilities directly related to transit.

"Residentially zoned property" means property zoned or proposed to be zoned for either single-family or multifamily housing.

B. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, general or special, no locality shall (i) request or accept any unreasonable proffer, as described in subsection C, in connection with a rezoning or a proffer condition amendment as a condition of approval of a new residential development or new residential use or (ii) deny any rezoning application or proffer condition amendment for a new residential development or new residential use where such denial is based in whole or in part on an applicant's failure or refusal to submit, or remain subject to, an unreasonable proffer.

C. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, general or special, (i) as used in this chapter, a proffer, or proffer condition amendment, whether onsite or offsite, offered voluntarily pursuant to § 15.2-2297, 15.2-2298, 15.2-2303, or 15.2-2303.1, shall be deemed unreasonable unless it addresses an impact that is specifically attributable to a proposed new residential development or other new residential use applied for and (ii) an offsite proffer shall be deemed unreasonable pursuant to subdivision (i) unless it addresses an impact to an offsite public facility, such that (a) the new residential development or new residential use creates a need, or an identifiable portion of a need, for one or more public facility improvements in excess of existing public facility capacity at the time of the rezoning or proffer condition amendment and (b) each such new residential development or new residential use applied for receives a direct and material benefit from a proffer made with respect to any such public facility improvements.

D. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, general or special:

1. Actions brought to contest the action of a locality in violation of this section shall be brought only by the aggrieved applicant or the owner of the property subject to a rezoning or proffer condition amendment pursuant to subsection F of § 15.2-2285.

2. In any action in which a locality has denied a rezoning or an amendment to an existing proffer and the aggrieved applicant proves by a preponderance of the evidence that it refused or failed to submit or remain subject to an unreasonable proffer that it has proven was suggested, requested, or required, formally or informally, by the locality, the court shall presume, absent clear and convincing evidence to the contrary, that such refusal or failure was the controlling basis for the denial.

3. In any successful action brought pursuant to this section contesting an action of a locality in violation of this section, the applicant shall be entitled to an award of reasonable attorney fees and costs [ as well as compensatory damages ] and to an order remanding the matter to the governing body with a direction to approve the rezoning or proffer condition amendment without the inclusion of any unreasonable proffer. If the locality fails or refuses to approve the rezoning or proffer condition amendment within a reasonable time not to exceed 90 days from the date of the court's order to do so, the court shall enjoin the locality from interfering with the use of the property as applied for without the unreasonable proffer. Upon remand to the local governing body pursuant to this subsection, the requirements of § 15.2-2204 shall not apply.

E. This section shall not apply to any new residential development or new residential use occurring in an approved area comprehensive plan that allows unlimited density within one-quarter mile of an existing or planned Metrorail station.

§ 15.2-2303.5. Certain conditional rezoning proffers prohibited.

Notwithstanding any provision of subdivision A 3 of § 15.2-2286 or § 36-98, no locality shall impose or require, as part of a rezoning or proffer condition amendment, limitations on or requirements for such matters as building materials, finishes, methods of construction, or design features on a new residential development or new residential use as defined in § 15.2-2303.4 unless such new residential development or new residential use is located within a historic district designated pursuant to § 15.2-2306, a redevelopment or rehabilitation district for which a locality provides an exemption from taxation pursuant to § 58.1-3219.4, or an economic revitalization zone created pursuant to § 15.2-1129.2. In addition, this section shall not apply if the new residential development or new residential use is located within a state-designated or federally designated airport noise attenuation zone, is in close proximity to a military base or large commercial or industrial operation, or is located within a flood zone in which applicable regulations allow for the use of flood-proofing construction methods to minimize the risk of flood-related damages, provided that any such limitation or requirement is specifically directed to flood or noise mitigation, respectively.

2. That this act shall not be construed to effect any proffer related to a nonresidential development or use and shall be construed as supplementary to any existing provisions limiting or curtailing proffers or proffer condition amendments for new residential development or new residential use that are consistent with its terms, and shall be construed to supersede any existing statutory provision with respect to proffers or proffer condition amendments for new residential development or new residential use that are inconsistent with its terms.

3. That this act is prospective only and shall not be construed to apply to any proffer accepted prior to the date of enactment or to any proffer condition amendment amending a proffer accepted prior to such date.

Developers may not have to pay for the burden their development places on Virginia communities, local governments.

Fairfax County state senator Richard Saslaw, a Democrat no less, is co-sponsoring a bill in the Virginia Assembly that would restrict local governments' ability to negotiate proffers with developers to build the infrastructure needed to support that construction according to an article in The Roanoke Times.  Here are some excerpts:

Bills that would limit proffers alarm local governments

Posted: Monday, February 1, 2016 4:06 pm

By Graham Moomaw Richmond Times-Dispatch

RICHMOND — Legislation working its way through the General Assembly would make it more difficult for local governments to force developers to pay for public infrastructure or change building plans, a prospect that has caused alarm among some local officials who fear it could limit sharply their ability to manage growth.

Bills have been introduced in both chambers to dramatically reshape the proffer system, which allows localities to extract cash payments and other concessions from home builders through the residential rezoning process.

The legislation would prohibit localities from making zoning decisions tied to “unreasonable” proffers; virtually eliminate localities’ ability to request changes to building materials or designs through the proffer system; and require more proof that new residents would strain services such as schools, roads or parks.

The legislation is backed by the Home Builders Association of Virginia, which says its aim is to restore fairness to a practice described by critics as “legalized extortion.” . . .

Under the legislation, localities would be able to require proffers only for schools, roads, parks and public-safety facilities such as police and fire stations. Parks were covered through an amendment to the bill, which would prevent localities from attempting to get developers to pay for museums, libraries and community centers.

The proposed law would allow proffers to be used only to cover costs “specifically attributable” to a development project, a higher bar than the “reasonably related” and “roughly proportional” standards currently in use.

“We think those terms are vague and loose and have been defined by the local governments to mean whatever they want them to mean,” Toalson said.

Henrico only uses architectural proffers, but other localities in the Richmond area have cash-proffer policies that bring in revenue to help in responding to growth. . . .

The full article is here.

From our perspective, developers' contributions to the communities in which they build fall far short of the offsetting the impact of their construction.  If they did, in fact, meet the full impact, we would not have congested roads nor overcrowded schools to start with. 

Even more weird from our perspective is why a Democratic Senator from Fairfax County would be sponsoring a bill that would make it more difficult for our financially-challenged County government to generate the revenues needed to make Fairfax a livable county.  Did Saslaw not get the word that Fairfax needs revenues?  Does he not realize that fewer proffers will likely mean higher property tax rates in the county?  Or does he just not care because he is so well financed by the developer community?

Apparently developers are just not making enough money and don't owe their communities anything for the opportunity to make their profits. 

Virginia politicians react to E-ZPass Express Lane fines, KMSP-TV, Fox 5 News, Minneapolis, MN, February 2, 2015

By Emily Miller, FOX 5 Chief Investigative Reporter

RICHMOND, Va. - We have exposed tens of thousands of dollars in fines drivers have been hit with for accidentally missing tolls on their E-ZPass Express Lanes in Virginia. The company that operates those lanes, Transurban, responded to our story by capping the fines and fees at $2,500, but many commuters say that is still too much.

Almost everyone I have interviewed in this series of reports has asked me why the state lawmakers haven't stepped in to help them.

“You wonder if these lawmakers realize that they signed up for this type of extortion when they signed up with this partnership with this company,” said Lisa Stanglin. . .

So, why the silence in Richmond?

Could it be that Transurban has spent almost $2.5 billion to build the E-ZPass lanes on the Beltway and I-95?

Or is it because Transurban gives political money? Unlike federal campaign laws, Virginia allows corporations to give directly to candidates. Also, Virginia has no limits on donations from corporations.

The non-partisan Virginia Public Access Project tracks money in politics.

According to their reports, Transurban has given almost half of a million dollars -- $445,710 to state politicians in the last ten years. Sixty percent of the donations went to Republicans while 40 percent went to Democrats. The Republicans are in control of the state legislature. . . .

Click here to read the rest of this story and see the video--and others like it by the same investigative reporter.

Just one question:  Where are the scores of Washington-area reporters, especially the dozens in Northern Virginia?  This is a major issue begging for public--and legislative--attention that will make Transurban's outrageous extortion disappear.  Ideally, it will lead to state control over all tolling of publicly used roads, including the Greenway.

Judge's ruling puts Virginia road projects in jeopardy, Washington Examiner, May 20, 2013

By Liz Essley

A Virginia judge's ruling threatens to jeopardize the way Virginia is using private companies to run the Beltway Express Lanes and build similar lanes on Interstate 95.

Portsmouth Circuit Court Judge James A. Cales said in an oral ruling earlier this month that he thought Virginia's tolls on the Midtown Tunnel set as part of a $2.1 billion deal with a private company were unconstitutional, since part of the revenue was going to the firm and constituted an illegal tax. Cales also questioned Virginia's public-private partnership law, saying the General Assembly can't hand over its duty to set tolls to unelected bodies. . .

The judge's ruling also could affect the Dulles Toll Road, since it questions tolls set by unelected bodies. The unelected Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority board sets the tolls for the Dulles Toll Road. . . .

Click here for the rest of this article.  

If this stands, it would certainly change the equation for Dulles tolls because no legislator would vote for the toll increases now planned by MWAA to finance Silver Line construction.  It is, however, a significant possibility that the judge's ruling will be overturned by the Virginia Supreme Court. 

Fairfax officials fear Silver Line funding in jeopardy, WTOP radio, February 12, 2013

By Hank Silverberg

FAIRFAX, Va. - There's more at stake for Northern Virginia in the General Assembly's debate over how to pay for roads and public transit than just the price of gas or sales taxes.

For area commuters, the end result could take even more from their wallets if lawmakers eliminate funding for the second phase of the Metrorail extension to Dulles International Airport.

Construction continues on the first phase of the 23-mile Silver Line, which now towers over Tysons Corner. The line is set to open to passengers later this year.

But the fate of the $2.8 billion second phase depends largely on $300 million from the state plus funding from tolls collected on the Dulles Toll Road and local taxes.

Local leaders, like Fairfax County Board of Supervisors Chair Sharon Bulova, are trying not to think about what will happen if there's no money from Richmond. . . .

Click here to read the rest of this article. 

Va. lawmakers consider buying Greenway, backing Dulles Toll Road debt, Washington Examiner, January 13, 2013

By Liz Essley

Virginia lawmakers are considering creative and potentially expensive ways to keep tolls low on two roads they don't control: the Dulles Greenway and the Dulles Toll Road.

State leaders are now negotiating to buy the privately owned Greenway, a toll road west of Washington Dulles International Airport. And the General Assembly is considering legislation that would allow the state to borrow money through a bond issue to pay for the road's purchase and upkeep.

"I have to be able to negotiate an acceptable deal in terms of what we pay for it," said Del. Joe May, R-Leesburg, who is leading the push to buy the road. "I'm optimistic we're going to find a deal that works for both sides." . . .

It is far from clear how these proposals will be received by Republicans from beyond northern Virginia on the House of Delegates Transportation Committee that May chairs or more broadly in the House of Delegates.  It also appears to extend far beyond what Gov. McDonnell is willing to do for toll road relief in northern Virginia as well.

If nothing else, the two bills are an opportunity for the Republicans to better position their candidates in the General Assembly and statewide offices for election this November if we may be so cynical.  Nonetheless, we wish Republican delegates May and Minchew, both from Loudoun County, the best in moving forward with this proposal to relieve the tremendous financial burden Greenway and Dulles toll road users will face in the years ahead.

Click here for the full article. 

UPDATED: Va. lawmakers turn cold shoulder to Fairfax transportation pleas, Washington Examiner, December 11, 2012

UPDATE:  Here's Reston Patch's take on lack of state support for local road funding.  Here is how the article begins:

Fairfax County’s transportation needs loomed heavily over a joint meeting of county supervisors and representatives from the Virginia State Senate and General Assembly Tuesday night.

Officials sat down to discuss priorities for the legislature’s fast-approaching 2013 session, and the county’s widely publicized road funding woes—a $3 billion need for road projects and improvements over the next decade—took center stage. The county faces a $300 million per year funding shortfall for the next 10 years.

“I know that we’re all aware Fairfax County and the Commonwealth are facing a transportation crisis,” said Sharon Bulova, chairman of the Fairfax County Board of Supervisors.

Fairfax County’s 10-year needs lie in the redevelopment of Tysons Corner, traffic-calming measures as a result of the Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) process and transit projects for Dulles Rail and South County.

But nobody is quite sure where the money will come from. The Commonwealth’s Secondary Road Program, from which the county used to get $29 million annually, is dry. . . .

Click here for the rest of Patch's article.

By Taylor Holland

Virginia is unlikely to give Fairfax County any money to bridge the county's $3 billion transportation funding gap, based on the response the County Board of Supervisors received to its pitch for those funds Tuesday.

Board members spoke for nearly an hour on the county's self-dubbed "transportation crisis" to members of Fairfax County's delegation to the General Assembly, only to learn that lawmakers are divided on the topic and expect no transportation-related funding to come from the state next year.

"We cannot afford to take any more money out of the general fund," said Sen. Dick Saslaw, D-Springfield. "I mean not one penny."

Some legislators proposed possibly raising the gas tax or increasing sales taxes by 0.5 percent, but Saslaw said he wasn't confident that would pass . . . .

Click here to read the rest of the article.

Our take:  Fairfax County's own state legislators are unwilling to push hard to win additional state money for the county to address the $3 billion deficit in its transportation fund.  Is this how they represent the county's interests in Richmond?  No wonder we have a county-wide transportation funding crisis. 

On the other hand, the state will be more than happy to take all the added income tax revenues the new jobs in Tysons and the Dulles Corridor generate because of their rail-related urbanizing development.  Who knows where they will spend it, but apparently not in Fairfax and not on transportation.

"Stuck in Neutral," Virginia Senate Finance Committee Briefing on Transportation Funding Issues, November 14, 2012

The briefing presented to the Virginia Senate Finance Committee below highlights the serious transportation requirements the state faces and the funding challenges to meet them.  It identifies a number of alternative ways funding could be provided to meet the challenges.

VA Transp Funding Brief

New calls for Va. to pay $200m more for Dulles Rail, Washington Examiner, December 3, 2012

By Steve Contorno

A Northern Virginia Republican lawmaker joined a group of Democrats lobbying Gov. Bob McDonnell to provide more state funding for a new Metrorail line to Washington Dulles International Airport.

Sen. Dick Black, R-Leesburg, was among the Republican legislators who earlier this year defeated a Democratic proposal to increase state funding for the Silver Line. But he is now asking McDonnell for $200 million to ease pressure on Dulles Toll Road drivers, who are expected to provide most of the $6 billion rail line's funding.

"I'm concerned that the current financing plan will load commuters with such exorbitant tolls that it will force traffic from the Dulles Toll Road, resulting in increased congestion on all surrounding roads," Black wrote to McDonnell. . . .

Click here to read the rest of this article.  

It is extremely important to the future of Dulles tolls that financing of the the Silver Line becomes a bi-partisan issue for the state.  Neither party will win supporters if they fail to help ease the huge increases anticipated in Dulles Toll Road charges.  

Video: "Reston: Is It the End of the Silver Line," Reston Impact, Host John Lovaas with Terry Maynard

In this one-hour interview, Reston Impact host John Lovaas and RCA Board member Terry Maynard discuss the status, prospects, and issues in the the completion of the Metrorail Silver Line.

Virginia Transportation Funding for Tidewater Virginia

If you've ever wondered what people are complaining about locally when they say Tidewater Virginia gets all the transportation funding while NoVa gets nothing, you absolutely have to read this article in TollRoadsNews.

Here are the key points:

• VDOT and a public-private partnership (P3) consortium known as "ERC" are all giddy about lining up $2.1 billion in financing for building a new tunnel in the Norfolk-Plymouth area--the SECOND such tunnel--plus a series of connections to area interstates, rehabilitating an old tunnel, and more.  "The project not only involves building a tunnel, but improving the transportation network in the region," said VDOT commissioner Greg Whirley.  Well, there you go!

• And to take any possible sting out of inconveniences these projects might cause (those poor suffering people), the good ol' Governor has stepped up "make the project more acceptable to locals:
  - toll collection delays from later this year to early 2014 funded by $100m from state transport funds
  - no tolls for local trips on the MLK Extension toll expressway whose construction is part of the project linking the Midtown Tunnel and West Norfolk Bridge (VA164) to I-264. Local trips are vehicles entering or exiting the MLK extension at London Boulevard or High Street (see map nearby) at the northern end of the project."
  Earlier the McDonnell administration had allocated money (ed:  specifically, more than $300 million)to reduce tolls by 40% as compared to those in the January 2010 interim agreement with the P3 partnership."

•  Oh, yeah, and there is a $422 million federal TIFIA loan that goes along with all that. 

And what is NoVa getting for the most important transportation infrastructure development project in the region since the beltway:  The good ol' Governor may allow us to have $150 million dribbled out over three years to delay the doubling and tripling of tolls on the Dulles Toll Road IF MWAA plays nice and doesn't insist on a PLA. 

You just have to read this article--there is much more to this story--to believe the outrageous gall of Richmond's politicians, but please take your blood pressure medicine first if you use it. 

You can not make this stuff up!

ONLY $150 MILLION STATE MONEY FOR METRORAIL IN JUST PASSED SENATE BUDGET BILL

Senator Colgan abandons the Democrats' effort to garner $450 million funding for Metrorail.  

This from the Richmond Post-Dispatch: 

UPDATE: Senate approves two-year budget

Credit: BOB BROWN/TIMES-DISPATCH

Sen. Charles J. Colgan, D-Prince William, left, and Sen. Walter A. Stosch, R-Henrico, chairman of the Senate Finance committee, confer before the State Senate voted to pass a budget.

By: Jim Nolan | Times-Dispatch
Published: April 18, 2012
Updated: April 18, 2012 - 5:40 PM

UPDATE:

In a swift legislative turnaround, the Virginia Senate today abruptly passed the two-year, $85 billion state budget that Senate Democrats had derailed less than 24 hours ago in a dispute over toll mitigation for the Dulles Metrorail project in Northern Virginia.

Sen. Charles J. Colgan, D-Prince William, the Senate's longest-serving member, sided with 20 Republicans in the evenly divided chamber to guarantee passage of the spending plan. The bill, which the House of Delegates had approved Tuesday  now heads to Gov. Bob McDonnell.

"I didn't feel very good about not having a budget," Colgan said in an interview minutes after the vote on the budget bill. The measure came up suddenly during today's reconvened session in which lawmakers consider the governor's amendments and vetoes of legislation passed during the regular session that ended March 10. The Senate voted on the budget without discussion.

Colgan's defection from the other Democrats took a number in the chamber by surprise, but the senior senator said it shouldn't have -- noting that he had made his intentions clear throughout the day. "They should have known," he said.

The vote also followed failed attempts by Senate negotiators to reconfigure transportation funding to ease the burden of tolls. That caused Democrats to reject the plan Tuesday. . .

Click here for the rest of the article.  

Virginia Budget Blocked in Tie

AP is reporting that the Virginia budget died in a tie vote minutes ago.

Editorial: Dulles rail line is Gov. McDonnell’s transportation test, Washington Post, April, 16, 2012

By Editorial Board, Published: April 16

SIX YEARS AGO, then-Virginia Gov. Timothy M. Kaine (D) jump-started the Metro system’s Silver Line extension to Dulles International Airport and points west, a massive project whose first phase is chugging toward an on-time, on-budget finish. Will Mr. Kaine’s successor, Robert F. McDonnell, now kill it halfway to completion?

That’s the question facing Mr. McDonnell (R) in the wake of his decision to deny critical funding to Dulles rail, one of the nation’s biggest infrastructure ventures. Even though it is vital to the Washington region’s economic vigor, to the airport’s success and to Virginia’s future, the state has all but turned its back on helping to pay for it. . . .

Click here to read the rest of this editorial.  

McDonnell, legislators continue to battle over transportation, Washington Post, April 13, 2012

By Anita Kumar

Gov. Bob McDonnell’s administration said 40 transportation projects across the state would be gutted if the legislature included another $300 million in bonding for the extension of Metrorail to Dulles International Airport.

The projects include three in Northern Virginia — Route 1 widening in Prince William County, and the interchange at Route 659 and the Battlefield Parkway extension in Loudoun County. . .

. . . Senate Democrats on Thursday began a petition to ask supporters to “tell Governor McDonnell that the sky-high tolls in his budget are unacceptable.”

“Governor Bob McDonnell’s band-aid transportation gimmicks are taking Virginia backwards,’’ Sens. Richard Saslaw (D-Fairfax) and Don McEachin (D-Henrico) said in an e-mail. “By signing this petition, you'll send Governor McDonnell the message that he must put money into Virginia's budget for these projects to reduce the amount families and businesses will have to pay in tolls.’’ . . .

Click here for the rest of this article.

PLEASE CLICK ON THE "PETITION" AND SIGN IT TO HELP GARNER NEEDED STATE FUNDING FOR METRORAIL SO DULLES TOLL ROAD USERS ARE PAYING LESS THAT $3.2 BILLION OF THE $6 BILLION CONSTRUCTION PROJECT.  

Fairfax chamber wants Dulles rail money in Va. state budget, Washington Post, April 3, 2012

 By Laura Vozzella

As state budget negotiators continued to work on a spending plan Tuesday, the Fairfax County Chamber of Commerce voiced hope that it would include $300 million for the Metro-to-Dulles rail project.

Jim Corcoran, president of the Fairfax Chamber, issued a statement applauding the state Senate for approving a plan that includes the money for the next phase of the Silver Line project.

“Rail to Dulles continues to be a top priority of the Fairfax Chamber and the Northern Virginia business community and we’re happy to see this critical project one step closer to completion,” he said. . . .

Click here to read the rest of this article.  

Dulles Metro could bog down Va. budget plan, Washington Times, March 27, 2012

Project funding emerges as key sticking point

By David Sherfinski

RICHMOND — Virginia’s two-year, $85 billion spending plan is finally in a conference committee, but funding for the Dulles Metrorail is emerging as a key sticking point that could drag out the already-extended session even further.

As expected, the Virginia House of Delegates on Tuesday rejected amendments the Senate approved Monday, which include $300 million in bonds to help control the rising costs of tolls on the Dulles Toll Road that are being used to pay for the second phase of the 23-mile extension of Metrorail to Washington Dulles International Airport. . . .

Click here for the rest of this major Times article, including quotes from Sen. Janet Howell, who sits on the Conference Committee between the two houses.