Dulles Toll Road users shoulder an increasing share of Silver Line’s costs, Washington Post, July 12, 2014

By Lori Aratani and Mary Pat Flaherty July 12 at 7:26 PM

Dulles Toll Road users are shouldering nearly half of the costs of Metro’s soon-to-open Silver Line, a far bigger share than originally predicted.

Those drivers also face the biggest exposure for any additional cost overruns or delays on the rail line set to open July 26 — seven months late and $150 million over budget.

Commuters are vulnerable because tolls are the one share of the Silver Line project’s funding formula that is not capped at a fixed dollar amount or percentage of the final tab.

Since construction began five years ago, there have been five toll increases that spiked a common round trip from $2.50 to $7 or, viewed as a monthly tab for typical weekday commuters, from $50 to $140.

The impact of the line’s rising costs has been painfully apparent to drivers who use the road regularly. Yet the significance of rising tolls as a main funding source drew less public attention than heated intrastate political battles and engineering skirmishes over tunnels. . . .

Click here to read the rest of this article. 

While the increases in tolls on the Dulles Toll Road and their role in financing the Silver Line are not news to toll road commuters or Reston 2020 blog readers, their importance can not be ignored and we appreciate the Post picking up on this unfair and inequitable assignment of Metrorail costs to those who will or can not use the Silver Line for their purposes.

Although former Fairfax Board of Supervisors Chairman Kate Hanley is quoted as being "amazed" by the role highway tolls play in financing the rail line, the Fairfax Board under her successor, Gerry Connolly,, was specifically responsible for promoting and approving the 2007 "Funding Partners Agreement" that set this arrangement in place without so much as a public hearing. 

Without TIFIA funding--which is clearly a possibility as the Highway Trust Fund dries up in the next month without Congressional action--CDMSmith forecast that tolls would rise to $18 full toll each way by 2050 (about $7-$8 in today's dollars).  With TIFIA funding, tolls will still rise to about $12 each way, meaning an annual toll bill of about $4,800 for Dulles Toll Road users. 

And just for clarity, we would note that MWAA is paying only 4.1% of the rail construction costs (about $240 million)--less than half what it will cost to build the station at Dulles Airport and the rail line across Airport property ($587 million according to MWAA's April 2011 cost analysis).  And, oh yeah, MWAA will be leasing its land along the Silver Line to developers at a huge profit in the years ahead.  Fair, reasonable???

Of course, now Congressman Connolly is singing a different tune as he practically broke his arm patting himself on the back for his role in garnering a TIFIA funding commitment for the Silver Line.  While we appreciate his efforts along with those of Rep. Frank Wolf and Virginia Senators Warner and Kaine to gain this reduced-cost funding commitment, we know--and so do they--that this financial arrangement is unfair, inequitable, and quite possibly imprudent in the long term--even if TIFIA comes through. 

Before we sign off here, we will reiterate again that Reston 2020--and most Restonians--welcome the arrival of the Silver Line in Reston and its future extension into Loudoun County.  We believe it will be an important ingredient in the continuing economic health of our community.

We do, however, continue to object in the strongest possible terms to the abominable financial arrangements that force people who are not be able to use the Silver Line for any reasonable purpose to pay the largest share of its construction cost.  It is a disgrace and a mockery of sound public policy. 

Reston 2020 Ideas for the Phase 2 Reston Master Plan, July 11, 2014

   Ideas for Development of the Phase 2 Reston Master Plan

Column: Changing of the Guard at Reston Citizens Association, John Lovaas, Reston Connection, July 9, 2014

Some extracts from John Lovaas' column on the new RCA Board of Directors and their predecessors:

The recent Reston Citizens Association (RCA) Board election, although it received little media coverage, was an important event for Reston. RCA Board members who provided the energy and intellectual leadership to inform and advocate for the community on critical issues have stepped down. In particular, we’ll miss President Colin Mills who provided a steady flow of thoughtful reporting and commentary on vital issues like the Byzantine master plan process (Phase 1) and the county’s stealth plan to eviscerate Reston Regional Library. Terry Maynard, with Dick Rogers, did extensive research and analyses involving as many as 60 volunteers during the master plan process. Their extraordinary analytical effort was of such high quality that major American think tanks, like Brookings would likely be proud to put their covers on their work, useful and timely information Reston readers got free from RCA. . .

Over the years, RCA has had its ups and downs, depending largely on the skill, energy and commitment of its volunteer Board. In recent years, leadership has been strong. RCA has advocated effectively for the community, been a source of independent information and a watchdog both of government and the Reston Association (e.g., new RA facilities and land swaps). . .

New RCA President Sridhar Ganesan, with a financial and operations management background, is new to community work. But, I am impressed with his grasp of RCA, community dynamics, and commitment to give priority to Phase 2 of the Master Plan process, providing community input on library reform, strong support for accessibility improvement and candidate forums. Vice President John Hanley, passionate activist Tammi Petrine, and Rescue Reston leader Connie Hartke provide needed leadership continuity on the Board. I wish the entire Board all the best. Reston needs a strong, independent RCA.

Click here for the full article.

Letter: County Falling Behind on Its Housing Goals, Michelle Krocker, Reston Connection, July 8, 2014

Below is a letter from Michelle Krocker, Executive Director Northern Virginia Affordable Housing Alliance, and a friend of the Reston Citizens Association and its Reston 2020 Committee, published in this week's Reston Connection.  As longstanding supporters of Bob Simon's vision of providing housing for all in Reston, both RCA and Reston 2020 have been enthusiastic in principle to the adoption of a residential studio unit (RSU) zoning ordinance conditioned only by some basic protections for existing neighborhoods.  We certainly recognize the many complexities that effort encountered.  We at Reston 2020 regret that these concerns could not be addressed constructively and the RSU proposal has been shelved.  We hope that the lessons learned in this process will stimulate a renewed County effort to assure housing for all county-wide, especially in Reston.

Here is Michelle's letter:

On June 9, the Residential Studio Committee of the Fairfax County Planning Commission voted to recommend that the review of the Zoning Ordinance Amendment for Residential Studio Units be tabled. This recommendation will be voted on by the full Planning Commission at its July 24 meeting and it is almost certain that it will be adopted. After months of committee hearings and community meetings throughout the county, the RSU amendment will be quietly put to rest.

What were the factors that defeated this proposal? They were many and varied, including:

• virulent community opposition;
• fear of overcrowding, which is a real issue in some parts of the county;
• an abject lack of knowledge by the larger community about the issue of housing affordability — who needs it, current housing costs, income levels of the workforce, the impacts on our quality of life;
• a zoning ordinance that didn't allow the flexibility needed to develop these units;
• absence of leadership from the Board of Supervisors in communicating the county's growing unmet housing needs and helping to shepherd a community discussion that was balanced and respectful.

Is Fairfax County committed to providing housing that is affordable for all its residents?

While the Board of Supervisors unanimously adopted the Ten Year Plan to End Homelessness in 2007 and the Blueprint for Housing in 2010, they have done very little in the ensuing years to provide the resources needed to implement these plans. In 2009, when the county reduced the Penny Fund for Housing to a half cent, the financial resources to leverage private capital to preserve and develop new affordable housing were lost (the remaining half cent is used to pay the debt service on the bonds issued for the Wedgewood Apartments acquisition). From 2005 to 2009, the One Penny Fund preserved over 2,200 units of affordable housing. Since 2009, the number of new or preserved units serving households earning less than $64,000 or 60 percent of area median income has declined significantly.

The FY2015 Housing and Community Development budget provides $5 million for new construction or a preservation project of 120 units, and approximately $3 million for Bridging Affordability, a rental subsidy for households moving out of homelessness. This is a paltry amount of funding for a county of this size and wealth. As has been famously said, "show me your budget and I'll show you your priorities."

Other policies to provide funding for housing have been studied and tabled by the Board of Supervisors, the most recent being the “3-2-1 policy” which would secure a contribution from commercial development in transit and high density areas of the county to support the development of workforce housing. This policy is currently in place for the Tysons redevelopment area, but board members felt that if applied to other areas of the county, it could deter new commercial development which has slowed down in the last few years. However, both Arlington and Alexandria have commercial development fee policies in place, and the result has been a significant increase in resources for affordable housing with no apparent impact on commercial development.

The unwillingness to adopt new, proven funding strategies, combined with minimal local investment in housing programs means that the county is falling farther and farther behind in meeting the goals for the 10 Year Plan and the Blueprint for Housing. How can homelessness be addressed in a meaningful way if the stock of affordable housing isn't growing? How does Fairfax County ensure that there is housing in its communities for the workforce in the retail, hospitality, health care, public sector and entry level jobs? How does the county promote the development of stable, affordable housing for homeless children, youth aging out of foster care, persons with special needs, seniors on fixed incomes and low wage working people?

The final motion on the RSU amendment at the June 9 meeting included a recommendation stating that "there be a broader community dialogue about affordable housing, including a discussion on how best to provide for a range of housing opportunities .... that will serve the county's current and future residents at all income levels." The Alliance enthusiastically endorses this recommendation, and believes the time for discussion is now. An honest community discussion would hopefully break down some of the barriers of mistrust and misunderstanding surrounding housing, and engage more members of the community in building consensus for solutions.

The growing shortage of affordable housing and the severe cost burden for an increasing percentage of the county's population is not unique to Fairfax County. This is a challenge that threatens the vitality and sustainability of the entire region, and some jurisdictions have made progress in increasing their affordable housing stock through a variety of financial and land use tools. As the largest jurisdiction and the engine of job growth for the region, Fairfax County should be the leader in addressing the housing issue. Instead, they are lagging far behind due to negligible investments and the absence of vision to address the unmet housing needs of its residents both today and in the future.

RCA Election: Sridhar Ganesan Elected President Together With New Board Members

Reston Citizens Association (RCA) today announced the election of Sridhar Ganesan, who was elected to RCA’s Board from Reston’s North Point District, as President and the election of four other directors to its Board for the year 2014-15.

 

John Hanley, Hunters Woods District director, was re-elected by the Board as RCA’s Vice President, a position that he has held for the past two years. Board Member Nick Georgas was elected as Secretary and Joe Leighton was reelected to the position of Treasurer.

 

Incumbent Hunters Woods District Director Constance Hartke was re-elected to the Board.

 

Dennis Hays was elected to the Board as an At Large Director.

 

Hank Schonzeit joined the Board as a new Director from Town Center/Lake Anne/Tall Oaks District, while Robin Hogan also joined the board as a new Director from South Lakes District.

The Silver Line has a TIFIA funding commitment, but what if there isn't any?

OK, it's called the "Highway Trust Fund" and it's going belly up as early as August if Congress doesn't act to fund it.  And "TIFIA" funds, even those for mass transit projects, come from the Highway Trust Fund.  But there's more...

Here is how Kriston Capps at CityLab reports the situation:

 The Obama administration is outlining the steps it will take if the Highway Trust Fund runs out of funds, a doomsday scenario that looms just weeks away. 

Since April, the U.S. Department of Transportation has warned that the trust used to fund state transportation projects is running out of money. Unless Congress takes action to replenish the Highway Trust Fund, the administration expects that it will be exhausted by the end of August.

Today, according to the Huffington Post's Sam Stein, Department of Transportation Secretary Anthony Foxx outlined the drastic measures that the administration will be forced to take if Congress does nothing.

“This cliff is coming," Foxx said, according to the report. "I’ve been saying it for six months and I’m worried that we may find ourselves running over it."

 DOT authorities predict a shortfall for the Highway Trust Fund—which was established in 1956 to finance the U.S. Interstate Highway System—to manifest in the last days of August. Before that happens, DOT will implement a "cash management plan" to parcel out federal reimbursements for state outlays, starting Aug. 1.  . . .

The news is slightly less grim for the Mass Transit Account—or more ambiguous, anyway. DOT hasn't yet implemented a cash-management plan for mass-transit reimbursements. But Sec. Foxx's letter to the states on the Mass Transit Account notes that disaster on that front is merely delayed: This account is predicted to reach a crisis point in October.

Congress can take action at any time to avoid the transit cliff and keep payments to the states moving on time. In February, the Obama administration outlined a four-year, $302 billion transportation reauthorization proposal. In April, the administration sent the plan to Congress. But neither lawmakers nor administration officials have shown great enthusiasm for raising federal gas taxes—now, or at any point since 1993. . . . .

Click here for the rest of this article. 

As we understand it and have reported previously, DOT says the following: 

(TIFIA is) Funded by contract authority and reimbursed from the Highway Account of the Highway Trust Fund, to remain available until expended. Funds are subject to the overall Federal-aid obligation limitation.

If that's the case, then the US Congress has four weeks to find funds for the Highway Trust Fund or SOMETHING--and we don't know what--is likely to happen to DOT's commitment to provide two billion dollars in TIFIA financing for the Silver Line.  The longer Congress doesn't do anything, the more severe the consequences are likely to be.  In a worst case scenario, it could mean that MWAA has to issue all its $2 billion Phase 2 construction debt at market rates.  If that occurs, it could mean a roughly fifty percent increase in tolls above those expected using low-rate TIFIA financing for Dulles Toll Road users over the next four decades culminating in $18 tolls instead of $12 full one-way tolls at mid-century.

Even with a Congressional election coming up in November and virtually every Congressional district affected by a cut off of road and transit funds, Congress' pathetic impotence in passing legislation--certainly any requiring new revenues--over the last several years gives us little confidence that new funds will be forthcoming and Dulles Toll Road users will receive some financial relief.

Is FCPL buying books and other holdings? It's a riddle wrapped in a budget enigma.

Happy New Fiscal Year, Fairfax County!  Yes, it’s July 1, 2014, the first day of FY2015 for the County.  

. . . but there is still some news about FCPL spending for FY2014 although the final figures are not yet in. 

Here is the table of FCPL General Fund expenditures for FY2014 through May—eleven month of the fiscal year:

 

What stands out in the above table, the first three columns of which are copied from the Fairfax County Financial Transparency website, is that the Library Administration has yet to spend a quarter ($1.8 million) of its operating expense budget for this fiscal year.

Digging more deeply into that operational expenditure shortfall, we find that the operating expenses category has a large and diverse set of expenses.  Here’s the list through May 2014:

Expenditures by Line Item
OPERATING EXPENSES

Line Item	Expenditures Year-to-Date
ASSIGNED AGENCY VEHICLES	$151.93
BUILDING MATERIALS AND SUPPLIES	$17,306.31
COMMUNICATIONS AND MEDIA RELATED SERVICES	$216,912.44
COMPUTER ACCESSORIES AND SUPPLIES	$12,633.35
COMPUTER EQUIPMENT	$436,459.11
COMPUTER SERVICES	$49,061.49
CREDIT CARD EXPENDITURES	$125,852.17
DEPARTMENTAL AWARDS	$7,003.78
DOCUMENT SERVICES COPYING CHARGES	$119,024.82
DOCUMENT SERVICES MICROFILM CHARGES	$30,333.86
DOCUMENT SERVICES PHOTOTYPESETTING CHARGES	$0.00
DOCUMENT SERVICES PRINTING AND BINDING CHARGES	$28,974.27
FIRE EXTINGUISHER MAINTENANCE AND REPAIR	$125.00
FUEL	$441.02
LIBRARY EQUIPMENT AND SUPPLIES	$13,286.47
MANAGEMENT/PROFESSIONAL TRAINING	$0.00
MEALS	$0.00
MILEAGE ALLOWANCE AUTOMOBILE	$14,455.59
MISCELLANEOUS SERVICES	$19,830.57
MOTOR POOL	$716.65
OFFICE EQUIPMENT AND FURNITURE	$17,047.59
OFFICE EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE AND REPAIR SERVICES	$6,919.44
OFFICE SUPPLIES	$2,741,795.18
OPERATIONAL TRAVEL	$46.63
OTHER OPERATING EXPENSES	$117,147.47
OTHER PROFESSIONAL CONSULTANT&CONTRACTUAL SERVICES	$165,471.90
PC REPLACEMENT CHARGE BACK	$701,500.00
POSTAGE	$27,578.64
PRINTING ACCESSORIES AND SUPPLIES	$321.98
PROFESSIONAL MEMBERSHIPS	$4,564.00
REFUSE DISPOSAL EXPENSE	$35,106.24
SECURITY, FIRE, SAFETY, AND EMERGENCY SERVICES	$1,177.92
SERVICES-OTHER AGENCY	$306,818.66
TECHNOLOGY INFRASTRUCTURE CHARGE BACK (DATA CENTER	$119,699.00
TRANSLATION SERVICES	$366.60
VEHICLE REPLACEMENT	$275.00
TOTALS:	$5,338,405.08

Nowhere in the entire FCPL budget is there a concrete reference to acquisition of library holdings.  Nowhere does any table list “books and other holdings” or words to that effect, the knowledge capital of the public library system.  We suspect that the purchase of books is hidden in the highlighted category  “Office Supplies” given the size of the expenditures--but it could be for paper clips.  At the same time, FCPL can list $321.98 in purchases of “printing accessories and supplies” on a separate budget line.   Even "Meals"--on which NO money was spent--has its own budget line.   Apparently books, magazines, online subscriptions, and the rest are not sufficiently important to the Library’s administration to have their own budget line despite their role in the library's mission.  

Of course, there is no way for the public to know how much the Library had budgeted for “office supplies”  although the highlighted line shows that FCPL has spent about $2.7 million on “office supplies” during the fiscal year through May.  By comparison, by the end of last fiscal year (FY 2013) FCPL had spent more than $3.7 million in this nebulous purchase category—one million dollars more spending than this year.  Who knows, it too could have been spent on paper clips....

The good news possibly is that buying books is a straightforward process--just sign a purchase order--and the funds could have been obligated and committed in June 2014 for these acquisitions.  Who knows, there may be more books and other publicly available information available from the library this year if it doesn’t cull too many.

We will check when the final tabulation comes in on how well the library did in buying books and other holdings to fulfill its public mission although this kind of accounting is not helpful.