New County proposal calls for public schools in high-rise buildings.

The following article is re-printed in its entirety from the Annandale VA blog.  It reports Fairfax County's proposed policy plan amendment to put schools in high-rise buildings.  Of special note is the paragraph we have highlighted noting schools could be co-located "with other public uses, such as a library or a recreational center."  Could we see an FCPS school in the Town Center North government complex?

The public hearing for this ill-conceived and unvetted idea is November 1 at 4PM at the County headquarters.  

 

Wednesday, October 26, 2016

Proposed county policy would allow urban schools in high-density areas

Bailey's Upper Elementary School opened in a converted office building on Leesburg Pike.

The Board of Supervisors will hold a hearing Nov. 1 on a new policy to allow the development of “urban” or “vertical” schools in high-density areas or on parcels of limited size.

The policy change would also amend the Comprehensive Plan to allow the “co-location of schools with other public uses, such as a library or a recreational center,” and the “co-location of different levels of education and other types of programs in one structure.” The co-located entities would then be able to share facilities such as the cafeteria, gym, or auditorium.

In addition, the policy would permit the adaptive reuse of buildings, such as an office or commercial building, to be used for schools, early childhood education programs, and distance learning.

And because urban schools and schools on smaller lots won’t have as much land as traditional schools, the policy would allow converted rooftops and underutilized surface parking lots to be used for outdoor recreation.

The policy change is of particular interest in Mason District, which has overcrowded schools and a lack of land available for new buildings.

The new policy was hammered out over the past several months by the Fairfax County Planning Commission’s schools committee with input from Fairfax County Public Schools staff and school board. The Planning Commission endorsed the new policy Sept. 29.

“We’re not abandoning traditional school design,” said planning commissioner Timothy Sargeant (at large). “What we are doing is creating a new tool in the toolbox.”

The policy is aimed at “schools in activity centers where there is no land to build traditional schools,” said David Stinson, of the Facilities Planning Branch in the Department of Planning and Zoning (DPZ). Activity centers include Bailey’s Crossroads, Seven Corners, Tysons, Reston, and the Route 1 corridor.

The language in the plan calls for schools to have outdoor recreation space, Stinson says. “We’re not going to build a school without recreation space.”

The policy change is needed, the DPZ staff report states, because the existing plan language doesn’t provide flexibility for siting schools in urbanizing areas. The high cost of land in more dense areas is also an obstacle to the traditional school design.

Bailey’s Upper Elementary School in Seven Corners, which opened in fall 2014 in a converted office building, is considered a model for the type of urban schools that would be facilitated by the new policy.

The Mason District Council of Community Associations plans to discuss the proposed policy at its Oct. 26 membership meeting. Clyde Miller, secretary of the MDC and president of the Holmes Run Valley Citizens Association, is urging local community groups to oppose it.

By allowing schools in “surplus office buildings, in commercial areas, with outdoor recreation space confined to garage rooftops, and school sites reduced in size to the minimums allowed by the zoning ordinance,” Miller says, “the proposed policy threatens the quality of future public school facilities.”

Observers note there are numerous concerns with the Policy Plan amendment.  

First, unlike the rest of the County's Comprehensive Plan which is a suggested guideline, the Policy Plan is legally binding.  

Second, there are problems with high-rise buildings being used as public schools.  Comments by parents of students at Bailey's Upper ES to the Annandale blog note:

• There is no outdoor PE provided for the elementary school students.  
• There is no room large enough for a school assembly with all the students attending.  
• The lunch room is so small, many lunch sessions have to be provided to feed all the kids.  
• And it appears that in the event of a fire or fire drill, there is no space around the building for students to be evacuated.  Students must cross a busy street to evacuate the building.
  

Aside from those concerns, one wonders if the existing school districts would have their students poached to fill out the new schools.  Elementary schools that cannot provide outdoor PE are substandard.  One also wonders how Fairfax County can exempt itself from Virginia code for school buildings.

Open Letter to the Library Board of Trustees, Vera Fessler

   Open Letter to the Fairfax County Public Library Board of Trustees--Vera Fessler by TerryMaynard on Scribd

SIGN THE PETITION: Stop the TSD road tax on Reston Metro station area residents.

Reston 20/20 has posted a petition on Change.org to stop the planned imposition of a Transportation Service District (TSD) tax on property owners in Reston's Metro station areas.  Below is the text of the petition.  Please click on this link to Change.org and add your voice to the voices of other Restonians who are tired of added Reston taxes for worse public services.  

The Fairfax County Board of Supervisors will likely approve a Transportation Service District (TSD) creating an additional property value driven tax on all property owners in Reston's Metro station areas by the end of 2016.  The TSD's purpose, based on faulty assumptions, is to fill an alleged $350 million "gap" in tax revenues for improving roadways in the station areas as high-density development unfolds.

The Board will most likely approve a TSD that will add 1-3 cents to the property tax rate now experienced by station area property owners.  Moreover, three years of experience at Tysons with a similar TSD indicates that the Board will double or triple the rate within 3-4 years.

The added tax will not be difficult to absorb by developers who will see huge financial gains there in the coming years.   Estimates based on recent experience suggest commercial real estate profits will average more than a billion dollars per year in Reston's station areas over the next four decades--and County property tax revenues will grow right along with the growth in property values.

Unlike County and developers' coffers, however, station area residents will not see any revenue gain from the development that occurs there.  Nonetheless, they will have to pay this added property value-driven tax as property values and tax rates escalate.

Moreover, not only will they not derive any financial benefit from the tax like their commercial and county counterparts, they will actually experience worse traffic conditions by County intent.  Specifically, the County is lowering the performance standard for these roadways, including Reston's four key through north-south and east-west boulevards, from a Level of Service "D" to Level of Service "E."  That means peak period congestion there is likely to cause at least 55-80 second delays at each intersection.

There is no logical, ethical, or other valid reason why Reston residents should pay more road taxes for worse road service so others can profit even more from the arrangement.  Those who profit--real estate developers and the County--should pay the full burden of improving Reston station area roadways to accommodate the massive job and residential growth planned there.   The Board of Supervisors must not approve a Transportation Service District (TSD) for Reston's Metro station areas.

This petition will be delivered to:

• Fairfax County Board of Supervisors
  Chairman Sharon Bulova
• bos@fairfaxcounty.gov
  Fairfax County Board of Supervisors

RA expects to spend more than $1,000,000 on Tetra this year alone.

RA CEO Cate Fulkerson will report to the RA Board of Directors this Thursday on the financial situation of Tetra.  The bottom line of the costs to date and forecast until the end of the year is that RA expects to spend more than one million dollars on Tetra by the end of the year.  In broad terms, that includes:

• $700K on renovation of the interior and exterior of the Tetra building.  That sum could have built a new building the size of the Tetra building.
• More than $107K on operating expenses, some $95K comprises employee-related expenses.  In fact, we understand that RA has hired several full- and part-time employees to operate its programs there.
• And, of course, there are always the mortgage payments which will total nearly $184K this year.

Below is the full RA spreadsheet with several rows added at the bottom (light blue and yellow) that bring some of these totals to the surface.  

To facilitate a comparison with RA’s “fact sheet” published March 2015 to help sell the referendum, here is the pro forma spreadsheet it offered then:

This total cost for the Tetra effort is more than double the total cost RA projected for Tetra in its March 2015 “fact sheet” on the Tetra purchase.   Here are the costs as RA projected them then and now:

• Operating expenses would be $45,011 in 2016.  RA’s latest report puts operating expenses at $107,303—more than double RA’s “fact sheet” projection.
• No program expenses because RA anticipated that the building would be leased back to Tetra developers through 2016.  Now RA anticipates $107,303 in operating/programming expenses for this year.
•  Overhead expenses, including “existence cost” expenses and loan costs, were expected to reach $228,623 in the “fact sheet.”  They are now projected to grow slightly to $247,072 this year.
• The big change, of course, is in the costs of renovating the Tetra building, which was in horrible shape, and the grounds.  Last year, RA put 2016 costs (in fact, the total cost) at $259,000.  That cost has now risen to $699,531.

The total projected costs in the "fact" sheet were  $487,623.

Yet somehow, despite losing the $100K lease on the Tetra building this year, RA is forecasting operating revenues of $171,753 this year.  That forecast program revenue comes from an RA effort to accelerate the renovation of Tetra to enable the launch of some programs as of about mid-year.   For what it’s worth, RA’s project income this month is down $20K from last month, and we expect similar cuts in projected income next month when RA reviews its forecasts to end of the year.  

The proverbial bottom line is that RA told Restonians last year that the “net cash flow” for 2016 would be a -$387,527.  Now RA is telling Reston the “net cash flow” for 2016 will be -$882,152—a 128% increase in losses.   And we frankly expect that the net cash flow will show greater losses by the end of year.  

This is pathetic management of an unjustifiable project.  We hope that the “independent” audit team can provide some explanation of how Restonians were so badly misled by their leaders. 

 

The Proposed Reston Transportation Tax is a Fraud

“The simplest explanation is usually the best one.”  Occam’s Razor

For the better part of a year, the Fairfax County Department of Transportation (FCDOT) has been trying to persuade a group of Restonians called the Reston Network Analysis Group (RNAG) appointed by Supervisor Hudgins that some or all of Reston homeowners need to pay an added tax to improve the road networks around the Metrorail stations.   

The need to improve the roads and intersections, FCDOT says, is obvious because of all the development that will be going on around these station areas in the decades ahead and, of course, Restonians should pay at least a share for those road improvements.  In fact, FCDOT continues, we have the model established in Tysons were residents are paying added taxes to help defray the costs of roadway improvements there. 

FCDOT is so convinced of the importance of Restonians paying an added property tax to help cover the cost of these improvements that it has offered up no less than ELEVEN different tax scenarios for the resident RNAG to consider.  

All of these 11 scenarios somehow relate to how the taxes at Tysons were developed, which is irrelevant to Reston unless, unbeknownst to us, whatever features the Tysons’ model(s) have are written on a stone tablet and brought down from the mountain top.   What about the models for other redevelopment areas such as Baileys Crossroads, Seven Corners, or the linear Highway 1 re-do in Mt. Vernon?  Reston is, in fact, its own beast with its own features, needs, opportunities, issues, and goals—and it is unclear that any of these characteristics are the same as they are in Tysons.   Yet FCDOT and RNAG have never taken a minute to examine these issues.  FCDOT has just presumed that whatever fits in Tysons will fit in Reston.  

Moreover, all eleven scenarios are complex involving different types of improvements, share splits between public and private (which, of course, don’t line up with citizens normal understanding of those two terms), residential versus commercial, and so on.  The only reason to introduce all these complications is to confuse the issue of who should pay for the roadway improvements by focusing on irrelevant issues.  It is very much like a three-card Monte or shell game:  Introduce a lot of motion (or commotion) and re-direct attention to confuse the mark. 

The bottom line is that there is no compelling reason that Restonians should pay any added property or other taxes whether through a tax service district (TSD) covering the transit station areas (TSAs) or a special tax district (STD—a la the Reston Community Center STD) covering all Reston. 

Using Occam’s razor, that a simple, straightforward explanation is the best one, we believe the best answer to financing the needed roadway improvements is, “Those who benefit financially from the Reston roadway improvements should contribute financially to their implementation.”  There are three parties to this effort:  The County, the developers, and the residents.

• The County will benefit financially from new property tax and other tax flows (eg—sales tax revenues from new retail businesses) created by the new development in the TSAs.
• The developers will benefit to the tune of billions of dollars from the added rent income from their new development as well as the continuing profits from existing development.
• The residents will receive absolutely no financial benefit.

In contrast, Reston’s residents are guaranteed to see worse transportation capabilities.  FCDOT has guaranteed this by setting a lower standard for managing peak traffic flows that will not only hurt those who live in the TSAs, but those Restonians and others who travel to or through them.  Moreover, they are also guaranteed worse local bus transit service because FCDOT states that it will not increase local bus service, just move the existing routes around.  So, yes, the goal of the County is to make moving around Reston more difficult, but it still it wants to charge some or all Restonians a tax for this more limited capability.

The only reasonable and honest rationale for the new Reston transportation tax—again, using Occam’s Razor to look for a simple, straightforward explanation—is that the County Board wants to create a new property tax revenue stream that it can adjust, meaning increase, at its prerogative anytime indefinitely.   

In short, the elaborate financial calculations and manipulations by the FCDOT for the RNAG are simply a ruse—a straight-up fraud—to create a new property tax revenue stream for the County that is unlikely to be spent in full in Reston and will definitely make Reston mobility more difficult.  

Act to stop it while you can.   Write to: 

• Tom Biesiadny, FCDOT Chief
• Kristin Calkins, FCDOT RNAG Project Manager
• Supervisor Hudgins
• Andy Sigle, RNAG Chair
• Cate Fulkerson, RA CEO
• Sridhar Ganesan, RCA President

Op-Ed: Not-So-Independent Review of Lake House Overrun, RestonNow, August 9, 2016

This is an op-ed by Reston resident Terry Maynard. It does not reflect the opinion of Reston Now.

Reston Association (RA) is in the midst of soliciting proposals to conduct what it calls an “independent” review of its handling of the Tetra (Lake House) purchase and renovation overrun, a process that promises more of the same poor processes and politicized results Restonians have seen for 18 months.

Most importantly, there’s the matter of RA characterizing this review as “independent.”  It is anything but that.

To be truly “independent,” the RA Board needs to step away completely from this process. Let the three community members named to the selection committee set the criteria for the review, let them then make the actual selection of the review firm and have them receive and approve the final report.

Further, and equally important, the RA staff should have no participation in the review other than to answer questions, provide information (including internal e-mails and discussion notes), and explain processes.   

Contractor Selection. The only element of the review that has even a hint of independence is the selection process for the contractor. It will be selected by a committee comprising a majority of the RA’s Board Governance Committee (four members) and three Restonian volunteers whom RA’s Board Operations Committee has selected. We understand the Reston citizen selectees are Janine Greenwood  (retired counsel to non-profits), Steven Garver (local attorney), and Eric Carr (CIA executive), although we have not yet seen their names announced by RA.

The Request for Proposal (RFP). The RFP has already been prepared and sent by RA to several dozen potential contractors with virtually no community input, so there is no significant “independent” aspect of the substance of what RA is seeking from potential contractors.

Limited Goal. What does the RFP for the “independent” review say RA intends to accomplish? The RFP states: “Specifically, the goal of this project is to identify areas for process improvement, potential changes to internal controls  and/or  modification  to  governance  procedures  to  help  ensure  situations  like  the Lake  House  cost overrun can be avoided in the future.”

So what’s missing in the RFP? Most importantly, nothing in the RFP calls for addressing the issue of accountability of anyone — staff, Board, contractors — for the Tetra debacle:  What bad decisions were made?  Who made those bad decisions?  How were they made?  What should be done about that?  Etc.

In short, there is nothing that looks at the roots of this debacle.  Not so much as an acknowledgement that “mistakes were made” either organizationally or individually, intentionally or inadvertently, appears to be desired in this “independent” report. Certainly nothing suggests that the reviewing consultant should identify potentially illegal or unethical activities, or even improper actions under existing RA processes or procedures by staff or Board members, much less simply stupid decisions and actions.

The RFP is looking only for a whitewash of RA’s and the Board’s actions over the last two years with some suggestions about potential processes and procedures for the future.

Unrealistic Schedule. According to RA’s schedule, by early September RA will select and hopefully sign a consultant for the task of reviewing the Tetra mess. It expects a final report by the end of October — a mere seven weeks later. That is not enough time for a serious review of all that has occurred (see Reston 20/20’s list of eight key issues), much less the preparation of well-founded and appropriate recommendations about the future.

The Board’s explanation for that short schedule is that the report’s results will be needed in November for consideration in the 2017 budget cycle, although there is virtually nothing about the stated goal of developing new processes and procedures that generates much budget impact — ever.

Moreover, RA budget amendments are fairly routine at any point of the year. The review contract itself will require a budget amendment late this year that has not yet even been proposed to the Board, much less approved. RA just made a $430,000 budget adjustment mid-year to cover the cost overruns in renovating Tetra.

The 2017 RA budget schedule is no excuse for the limited timeframe the prospective contractor has to carry out this “independent” review. The contractor should have 4-6 months to do a thorough job.

No External Oversight. As it stands now, only the RA staff will be guiding the contractor’s work, no doubt with some offline kibitzing from insider Board members, but nothing the Reston public or even some Board members will know about. It will be providing guidance as to what work it expects (and expects not) to be done along the way and what the final report should address.

Nowhere in the very short period permitted for this review is there an opportunity for the community to know, much less to influence, what will be in the report. That could be done in an RA-sponsored community meeting or two — an opportunity for the consultant to both present early observations and describe its processes as well as listen to the community’s reactions and ideas. That could lead to a more “independent” review and would be “transparent.”  Instead the contractor will be led by the nose by RA staff and Board insiders.

A small bit of good news is that the RFP calls for the consultants to “meet with individuals and organizations from Reston, to ensure the concerns of the community are addressed in the review.”

Still, how much of what the contractor learns from those people and groups will show up in
the final report or be dismissed by inane RA explanations will be driven by RA. It will have the last word, and it won’t be “independent.”

Information Access. RA will also control what information the contractor has to work with although its RFP generally states in a weird way it will make requested information available.

Here is how the RFP makes that statement: “The review will include all materials and documents deemed necessary by the consultant and/or shared with the RA Board and the public related to the Tetra/Lake House.”

So the accessible information includes Tetra-related information shared with the Board and public, but how about information within the staff and its contractors working on Tetra, including communications with RA’s two contract attorneys?

How can the consultant deem materials “necessary” until it knows they exist and reviews them?  How would RA respond to a blanket request for ALL existing information about Tetra?

And that access probably does not include unofficial communications among RA Board members, staff, contractors, and counsel — “personal” phone calls, private meetings, private e-mails, text messages, etc.

“Independent?”  So, please, if anyone can, tell me what is “independent,” much less “transparent,” about this review of the Tetra debacle. As the preceding suggests, there are several ways RA could make the effort more independent, more transparent, and more useful to Reston’s needs even at this late date if it wanted to.

While RA and its Board still has an opportunity to make this review responsive to community needs, more transparent to RA members, and truly independent from RA control, don’t expect it. Restonians should stand by to be soaked with a big consulting bill, little new information, virtually no improvement in RA or the Board, and absolutely no accountability for the continuing disaster that is Tetra.

Terry Maynard

URGENT -- RA Giveaway of RA Deeded Open Space in RTCN

The following is the text of an e-mail Terry Maynard, Co-Chair, Reston 20/20, sent to the RA Board of Directors and others this morning in preparation for this evening's RA Board meeting.

• Terry Maynard
• Today at 11:16 AM

To

• RA Board of Directors

CC

• Tammi Petrine, Rob Bonham, Sridhar Ganesan, Yavuz Inanli, Nick Georgas, Annmarie Swope.  CONSTANCE HARTKE,  Hank Schonzeit, Dennis Hays, George Kain, Robin Hogan, glewis381@gmail.com, Joe Leighton, Lynne Mulston, John Hanley, Kathy Kaplan, John Lovaas, Irwin Flashman, John Bowman, Edward Abbott, John Higgins, James Dean, John Farrell, Karen Goff, Moira Callaghan, Mary Kimm, Kemal Kuspachic

Message body

Dear RA Board Members--

I regret having only belatedly read this month's Board packet because the last agenda item is a proposed MOU that is a plain and simply a giveaway of RA's deeded rights to ten acres of open space in Reston Town Center North (RTCN).  While both parties would acknowledge that RA has deeded rights to 10 acres of open space in RTCN, the MOU goes on to call everything not covered by concrete as open space, meaning RA will end up with essentially NO open space in RTCN.

Let's be clear about what the open space deed, the second of two deeds transferring RTCN land, says.  Here is the language in the deed:

(c)  No building, structures or improvement shall be built or placed on the property conveyed herein, except (a) structures which may be required for storm drainage or sanitary sewage purposes, or (b) any building, structure or improvement which, in the aggregate, covers no more than ten percent (10%) of the land area of this parcel and which is intended for recreational uses; and the property shall otherwise be left in its natural state.  This covenant shall run with the land and be binding on the Grantee and its successors and assigns, for a period of ninety-nine (99) years from the date hereof.

Let's walk through the items characterized as "open space" (p. 2-3 of the draft MOU):

• Public Recreation Center--The Hunter Mill District does not have a regional recreation center and Restonians have been fighting for years to have the County build one as it has in every other supervisorial district.  The County has agreed to build one (when remains unknown) in RTCN.  That structure and the associated parking (even if combined with parking for other functions) will take at least THREE ACRES AND MAYBE AS MUCH AS FIVE.  While a rec center will clearly be "for recreational uses," it equally clearly will not be open space "left in its natural state."
• Central Green and Related Streetscape--The central green--whose proposed acreage is not described in the MOU, but appears now to be less than six acres--is open space by any definition, but streetscapes definitely are not.  Streetscapes are an obligatory requirement for developers to insert a few trees, benches, and potted plants along the sidewalks they are required by County code to construct.  We have a few examples already in Town Center.  Surprising as it may seem, a 20' wide sidewalk area (with or without potted plants) typically comprises 5-10% of the total land area proposed for development.  With 34 acres to be developed (out of 40), that means a loss of already required streetscape acreage of between 1.7-3.4 acres.  The notion that required streetscapes should also be double counted as open space is patently absurd.
• Parcel 3F--This parcel is part of the existing stormwater retention pond area west of Town Center Drive at Baron Cameron Ave.  It comprises 2.3 acres and is legitimate open space.
• Other Designated Open Spaces--TBD.  Basically, "tree save" areas--the only defined space offered--are (like streetscapes) required to meet stormwater control and other legal requirements for development (or sometimes simply undevelopable).  In essence, this is again double-counting and certainly does not make for any coherent, usable open space for Restonians.
• Open Spaces within Land Bays--While developers are expected to provide some open space with their individual development initiatives, the size of these spaces is always limited.  In its efforts to advocate for Reston's citizens, RCA proposed that 20% of all redeveloped space be devoted to open space--in the true sense of that concept--but that goal was struck from the Reston Master Plan in the final task force voting.  No similar language appears in the Comprehensive Plan, although Reston's Planning Principle #9 states, "High quality public open spaces will be required."  The phraseology in this MOU offers no assurance than even quality, much less quantity, will meet this planning principle, much less Restonians' needs.  It is also double-counting.
• Open Space Contribution --  So, with even all these exemptions, if the County can't find 10 acres for true open space, then it can pay off RA according to this paragraph at the rate of $65,340/acre.  Does anyone really believe that this acreage is only work $65K/acre?  This is the inverse of the stupidity of the Tetra purchase where RA paid twice as much as required for a beat up property; now we're looking to get less than half of the real long-term market value of high-density land in RTCN.  Moreover, RA won't receive this funding until "the end of the development process," which is likely to take some four decades.  And who's to say when the process has ended?  Even at an average 2% inflation rate over that four-decade timeframe, that means RA will be receiving less than $30,000/acre in 2016 dollars.  At the minimum, this MOU ought to include an inflation factor for that acreage valuation--not to mention a fair market price for the land with its high-density potential (just like Tetra).

In contrast to this apparent willingness of RA to give away its deeded rights to open space, County guidelines indicate that RTCN SHOULD HAVE MUCH MORE OPEN SPACE than the 10 acres nominally allowed.  Attached is a paper I wrote on this topic early this year based on a discussion with Ellen Graves, Cate Fulkerson, and John McBride about the land use situation in RTCN.  ((See this link.))  I'll highlight two points based on an assessment of the proposed job and residential growth in RTCN under the new Reston Master Plan:

• There should be at least 11.3 acres of park space in RTCN according to FCPA urban guidelines.
• There should be at least 10 athletic fields requiring 16.7 acres of space in RTCN. 

Yet this draft MOU not only proposes not meeting the expectations Restonians have of RA to provide, as the planning principles state, "high quality public open spaces," but would fail to meet even the minimalist expectations of County park guidelines.

Once again, it appears the RA Board of Directors is on the way to selling out its members rather than fighting for them.

I respectfully request this e-mail be included in the Board's official meeting records for today. 

Sincerely,

Terry Maynard, Co-Chair

Reston 20/20 Committee