Reston residents vote on buying old visitors center for twice assessed value, Washington Post, May 7, 2015

By Tom Jackman May 7 at 9:29 PM

As development ratchets up in Reston around Lake Anne Plaza and Metro’s new Silver Line, the community’s homeowners association wants to snap up and preserve several lakeside acres before a developer buys the property.

But the purchase price is causing some Restonians heartburn and suspicion as the homeowners association is ready to pay $2.65 million for a property assessed by Fairfax County at $1.25 million. Concerned that the value of the land continues to decline, opponents of the sale have set up an anti-purchase Web site and created a satirical attack video, even as the issue has been put to a vote of the planned community’s nearly 18,000 property owners, with the referendum ending Friday evening.

"Municipalities are doing everything they can to add and protect their open spaces. It’s central to a healthy community,” said former Reston Association board president Ken Knueven, a supporter of the plan. “It’s the number one reason people move here, for all of the natural open spaces.”

The association obtained its own appraisal in February, which assessed the site’s value “as is” at $1.3 million. But if someone built a restaurant there, the appraisers calculated, that would add another $1.35 million in value, for a total market value of $2.65 million. That became the agreed sales price, conditioned on approval by Reston’s homeowners.

Many of those homeowners are resisting, fiercely. They say the property is environmentally protected by being in a Chesapeake Bay watershed, that the association already owns a chunk of the land through easements already on the property, that no one wants to build a restaurant there, and that the price is, well, too high.

“They say they’re preserving something,” said resident Paul Gayter, “but they don’t appear to want Restonians to know what that something is.”

Activist Terry Maynard said the association kept the homeowners in the dark on the deal until it was already negotiated with Bill Lauer, the property’s owner and a longtime Reston developer, who died suddenly Tuesday. Maynard said another building couldn’t be built because of environmental restrictions, and “there is a price for that property, and it’s about $1 million.”

Click here for the rest of this story.

Video: The Price is Wrong, starring Reston Association

Op-Ed: Summing Up RA’s Tetra Deal, RestonNow, May 4, 2015

The following are extracts from the subject op-ed.

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

As the end of the Tetra referendum period approaches, I thought it useful to summarize the key reasons why RA members should not pay $2.65 million to buy this property. I hope it encourages you who have not yet voted to decide to dig around in your old RA mail (digital or postal) and submit your ballot with a “NO” vote.

1. No further development of the property will be permitted. The alleged compelling reason for buying Tetra is to prevent development there. The fact is that almost every square foot of the Tetra property is protected from further development by multiple layers of legal, regulatory, and plan restrictions. . .

2. The sales price and related RA financial assumptions are outrageous. The RA Board’s sales contract with Tetra calls for it to pay $2.65 million (Article 2, p. 2) for a property that RA’s appraiser says is worth $1.3 million as built, assuming it’s in good condition (p. 22). The County puts the fair market value of the property at $1.2 million in its latest real estate tax assessment. The additional $1.3-$1.5 million in the appraisal comes from assuming additional offices are there — that cannot be built!

Both the RA appraisal and the County assessment assume the property is in good condition. It is not. . .

Fixing all this will cost more than the $275,000 Tetra has limited itself to repair by last week’s sales contract amendment, an RA Board concession that leaves RA members to pick up the difference.

On the revenue side of the ledger, the RA Board Fact Sheet (p. 6) points to an $82,000-plus yearly net operating income the property will allegedly generate after the Tetra lease expires. In contrast, the appraisal suggests the Tetra building as an occupied office space would generate a net operating income of less than $62,000/year. (See p. 21.) What justifies RA’s higher income forecast?

The key to answering that question lies in RA’s $122,000 annual “potential” net revenue forecast (RA Fact Sheet, p. 4) that drives up its net income projection. Yet RA has provided no details on its revenue assumptions regarding capacity usage rates, comparable rents, the operating cost elements, or usage restrictions due to its location in a residential area. Questions regarding this supposed revenue stream have been numerous, diverse, and all remain unanswered by RA. . . .

 3. There is no compelling need to buy the property. The key RA driver for the purchase is the irrational, Board-driven fear that a new building will be built there. I, and others, have shown the extreme improbability if not impossibility of that happening. . .

A second RA argument is preserving the continuity with RA green space east and west of the Tetra property. RA owns the easement on virtually every foot of the Tetra property connecting its Brown’s Chapel and Lake Newport tennis courts properties. . .

The final argument is that RA can use the Tetra building for meetings and programs for demand that is otherwise not met. A look at RA’s facility scheduling calendar shows its spaces are little used. . . 

All in all, despite RA fear mongering, there is little justification for buying the Tetra property, much less at two and one-half times its fair market value as built. A purchase could make sense at about a $1 million price point — its fair market value –but RA members were not given that referendum option.

In these circumstances, I strongly urge you to VOTE “NO” if you haven’t done so already.

Click here for the details.  

 

Op-Ed: Why I’m Voting No on Tetra Purchase Referendum, Terry Maynard, RestonNow, April 15, 2015

This is an op-ed by Reston resident Terry Maynard. His opinion does not represent Reston Now.

I am voting “NO” on RA’s referendum to purchase the Tetra property at Lake Newport and, having reviewed the available materials, official and otherwise, I believe it may be useful to share with you why I have made that decision. I apologize in advance for the length of this letter, but I believe it is important to present evidence for my position, not just assertions.

The $2.65 million price is waaaay too high! In fact, the County puts the property’s assessed value at $1.2 million, down $50,000 from last year. The difference, as directed by RA and stated in the RA-funded appraisal ,is largely the “market value of the subject, assuming restaurant uses are permitted and any deferred maintenance has been corrected, as of Jan. 23, 2015, is estimated to be” $2.65 million. In fact, there is no restaurant on the property nor will there ever be. The property condition analysis points to at least a quarter-million dollars in needed repairs. At most, this property is worth one million dollars–if we really need it.

That $2.65 million price will cost Restonians more than $3.8 million in loan payments over the next 20 years and, even with RA’s optimistic revenue forecasts for rental of the small Tetra building, mean net cash outflows totaling nearly $2 million that RA members must pay over two decades. To pay off that shortfall, RA will have to add over 20 percent to the average annual increase in RA fees over the timeframe if its fees grow at a 3-percent inflation rate. (See attached 20-year financial chart.)

There will be no development there because of planning, environmental, and easement restrictions. An alleged key reason to buy the property is to prevent others from building a 6,900-square-foot restaurant there (hence, the appraisal assumption) under a 2001 zoning determination or expanding “Lake Newport convenience center” as the Tetra building property is characterized in the current Reston Master Plan. Neither of these will happen. . . .

 Click here for the rest of Maynard's op-ed.

Op-Ed: Why RA Held Tetra Appraisal, RestonNow, April 7, 2015

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

In the debate over Reston Association purchasing the Tetra property at Lake Newport, a major source of frustration has been RA’s refusal to release the Feb. 4, 2015 appraisal until seven weeks later.

RA released the report only after two public hearings were held, the referendum question and fact sheet were finalized and approved by the RA board, and the $2.65 million dollar conditional sales contract was signed on March 27.

Appraisals like this are prepared to aid in assessing the value of a property, its condition, and any constraints its use or development may face. They can be an excellent tool in deciding whether a purchase contract ought to be signed and at what price, but Restonians did not have the opportunity to see this appraisal until the sales contract was already signed.

Had the Tetra property appraisal been made public immediately, thus providing RA members with a meaningful opportunity to comment before RA signed the sales contract, I believe we would not be having this debate or a referendum. There are so many major problems identified in the appraisal even RA’s single-minded board would probably not have decided to move forward.

The $2.65 million valuation is the obvious place to start. . . .

Click here for the remainder of this op-ed.