Follow-up CPR letter to FCPA re Response on Outstanding Open Space Issues, November 8, 2018

From:  Dennis Hays 

 

To:  David R. Bowden, Larry Butler, Andy Sigle, Sridhar Ganesan, Lynne Mulston

Cc:  Supervisor Cathy Hudgins, Goldie Harrison, Fred Selden, John Carter, Bill Bouie, Bruce Ramo, Terry Maynard, John Mooney, Tammi Petrine, Linda Ramo, DAVID ROGUS, Leslie Johnson

Nov 8 at 3:45 PM

Dear David:  I trust all is well your way.  Larry Butler was kind enough to forward your message to me.  My apologies if I didn't provide you with the e-mail addresses of the members of the CPR/RA Parks, Open Space and Athletic Fields Working Group.  I've included those members in the "To" line above to facilitate all future correspondence on these matters.  

We are most appreciative of the work and dedication of you and your colleagues.  Your efforts to maintain and improve our park system contribute greatly to making Fairfax County one of the most desirable places to live in the nation.  

For convenience sake in assessing your message, I have included (below) a copy of the minutes of our July 18th meeting.  As you know, at that time we (CPR/RA) agreed to provide you information and support in four areas.  This was done in my messages of August 21st and September 12th.   Also at that time, you and your colleagues agreed to provide information on six specific areas and on one proposal to better educate us and the community on your ideas and plans.

   

The areas the County committed to address are:

1.  Information on safety, cost, and benefit of "turfing" and lighting fields;

2.  Status of development projects as they pertain to athletic fields, open space and parks;

3.  Information on the status of the Hunter Mill Indoor Athletic Facility;

4. Status on the commission assessing Reston's athletic fields;

5. An explanation for and removal of the "Road from Nowhere";

6. Information on plans for Town Center North open space; and

7. Status of the County's proposal to have an "all hands" (FCPA, FCPS, NVPA, RA & community groups) meeting to review and propose plans in keeping with the Reston Master Plan.

We understand your responses only address those areas directly pertinent to the Parks Authority - covering somewhat numbers 1 and 2.  We eagerly await hearing from the other County agencies that will be responding to questions 3, 4, 5, 6 and proposal 7.   

With respect to issue 1: 

--  As you are aware, Reston needs additional athletic fields to adequately serve our EXISTING population.  First priority should be given to this before addressing future needs.  Athletic fields to accommodate TSA population growth must be in addition to what is needed NOW to make us whole.  Is there a plan in place to do this?  If not, shouldn't there be?

--  You note the "2232" application "is funded, in part, by Reston TSA proffer money received to date".  This is good news indeed as in July you stated no actual money had yet been received by the County.  Please inform us of the amount received and your plans to allocate it. 

-- You correctly note "turfing" and lighting fields is controversial and the County is participating in an EPA study to develop an authoritative position on the use of crumb rubber.  Will the County wait until this study is completed before installing artificial turf?   Or are other fillers being considered?  

--  Artificial turfed fields are expensive and must be completely replaced on a regular basis.  Has the County worked out a long term financing scheme to properly maintain the fields?  

--  Turfing is only one part of what is needed to address "peak hour" demand when school aged children need fields.  Is there quantifiable data on the additional playing time for youth sports made available by turfing?

-- You mention upgrading "selected Reston Association properties".  We are unaware of any formal agreement, or even discussion, to do this.  This reference should be removed until such time as there is a formal agreement.  

With respect to issue 2:

First off, thank you and your team for the comprehensive readout on Reston Development Park Proffers approved by the Board of Supervisors.  Great job!  It is very informative and useful.     

-- We note, however, that none of the 45 proffers listed provide an additional athletic field or significant open space.  

--  It appears the list doesn't include proposals which have not yet been approved by the Supervisors, such as those you mention in your cover letter (Isaac Newton, Reston Crescent, etc.)  What is the status of these negotiations?

-- Thank you for the map identifying the location of proffered pocket and urban parks in the TSA.  However, there was universal agreement at our meeting that it will get progressively more difficult to obtain land for athletic fields as time goes on.  Is there a companion map that identifies locations for possible full sized athletic fields? 

Thank you again David, for this information and all you do.   As you see, more remains to be addressed on items 1 & 2 but this is a helpful start.  We hope your colleagues will now respond and address the other issues.    

It has been over three months since the small groups met.  We have been waiting patiently for the promised information needed to make a follow on meeting productive.  We hope the information promised in all four small groups will be provided in the near future so that we can schedule such meetings. 

In the meantime, I urge we proceed with proposal # 7.  This was the County's idea after all!  It is our belief that many answers, including a way forward, could come from getting everyone together as you propose.  

Best regards, Dennis   

 

Dennis K. Hays

CPR/RA Parks, Open Space & Athletic Fields

Discussion Leader

MINUTES FROM JULY 18, 2018 MEETING ON PARKS, OPEN SPACE and ATHLETIC FIELDS

From: Dennis Hays
To: Supervisor Cathy Hudgins  
Cc: Goldie Harrison ; Fred Selden ; Leslie Johnson ; John Carter ; Lynne Mulston ; Andy Sigle ; Sridhar Ganesan ; Larry Butler ; Kelsey Steffen ; Connie Hartke
Sent: Sunday, July 22, 2018 6:10 PM
Subject: Parks, Recreation, Open Space, & Athletic Facilities Meeting of July 18

Dear Supervisor Hudgins:

         Thank you again for working with the CPR/RA coalition to help develop a better public understanding of the issues involved in the proposed Reston PRC amendments.  We appreciate your dedication and hard work on behalf of Reston and your making available to us the County officials most responsible for working on these issues.  We also wish to thank Goldie Harrison of your staff for her tireless efforts to pull everyone together at the same time and place!

        On July 18th, the Parks, Recreation, Open Space, & Athletic Facilities group met.  We began the meeting by looking for high-level areas where we had common ground and common goals, conforming to the Reston Master Plan.  This proved very successful and we had unanimous agreement that:

Parks, open space, athletic facilities are essential to the health, wealth and well-being of a community.  Open space has direct physical and mental health benefits, is environmentally key to having a safe and productive landscape and brings direct and indirect economic rewards;    

A fundamental characteristic of Reston has been a commitment to preserve natural areas and integrate open space throughout the community;  

Development will be phased with infrastructure;

High quality open space will be required; and

Public participation in planning and zoning will continue to be the community's foundation. 

We then set a framework for all subsequent discussion.  That is, all projects and proposals would be measured against four standards:

WHAT:  What project has been identified - athletic field, pocket park, open space, etc., including dimensions of each;

WHERE: Where exactly in Reston will the project be located.

HOW:  How will the project be funded; and 

WHEN: When will the project be open to the public.   

It was noted that if all four of these questions could be answered in specific, concrete terms, then we have an actual project.  If three questions are answered, then we have a proposal.  If only two or fewer questions are answered, then any proposal is still in the "wishful thinking" stage.   

County representatives then gave an overview of their plans and proposals.  We should note we are aware of the bureaucratic, financial, legal, and other hurdles that must be overcome to bring in a new project and we are cognizant of the often frustrating amount of time involved in shepherding a successful project to its conclusion.  We appreciate the hard work, dedication and good intentions of our County officials. 

The participants then discussed specific issues.  

First was an update on how the Park Authority plans to meet the Comprehensive Plan's call for at least twelve additional full sized playing fields in Reston, at least three of which are to be in Reston's TSA zone.  The County officials stated they expected to meet this goal by upgrading existing fields with artificial turf and lights to extend playable hours and to acquire additional land as part of the proffers developers will give.  CPR/RA reps expressed some skepticism as to whether this all would actually meet the Plan's intent, especially as it is not possible, according to the County, to exactly identify where new individual parcels of land will be at this time.  The CPR/RA reps requested the County provide as much information as possible in the form of What/Where/How/When and the County agreed to do this.  The math involved in computing the additional value of turfed fields raised questions and the County also agreed to provide information on this.  A CPR/RA rep and later a questioner from the audience noted the Reston Association's Environmental Advisory Committee is not in favor of crumb rubber synthetic turfed fields due to health concerns and another filler would be needed if this activity goes forward.  RA seeks to be a leader in the County in implementing safer non-grass fields.  The County said funds had already been approved to commission an engineering analysis of the Baron Cameron Park playing fields.    

With respect to obtaining additional land from developers, the community reps expressed strong support for the County taking a very firm line to obtain required land in Reston's TSA (at least 3 full fields) and in Reston's PRC (at least an additional 9 full fields or equivalent) in their negotiations with developers  The County representatives expressed appreciation for this support.

The next issue concerned Reston's missing indoor recreation facility.  All parties agreed that Hunter Mill is the only district in the County that doesn't have such a facility.  The County reps noted they had recently finished a study on athletic facility usage County-wide and needed to assess the impact of a new facility against other facilities, such as the Reston Community Center.  This line of thought was unconvincing to the community, as the new facility has been long promised and is much needed.   Again, the community reps requested a What/Where/How/When analysis of steps toward building the facility.  

One of - perhaps the - defining features of Reston is the connectivity of our pathways, particularly the non at-grade road crossings that allow pedestrians and bicyclists to travel from one end of Reston to the other in a safe, efficient manner.  The CPR/RA reps asked why major new developments along major roads weren't required to put in non at-grade crossings.  The development at Wiehle, for example, should have safe crossings of Wiehle and Sunset Hills built in.  Such crossings would also help alleviate traffic backups as the lengthy "walk" signals would be unneeded.  The County first made the case that separating pedestrians and cars was a bad thing, as pedestrians tended to slow traffic down.   This argument was rejected out of hand, with the observation that Reston has had two pedestrian fatalities in as many weeks along exactly these roads.  Next the County stated that ADA (American Disabilities Act) considerations made tunnels and overpasses unworkable.  This too was refuted, with an observation that other communities, such as Miami Beach, have inexpensive, all weather lifts for just the purpose of facilitating full usage of safe crossings.   Although no consensus was reached, the County asked the community to identify specific crossings that might have the right topographical conditions to support not at grade crossings.  

Conversation then turned to the "Road From Nowhere" - the infamous middle of the night, unannounced addition of a road that impinges on the Hidden Creek Golf Course, the W&OD trail, or most likely both.  The community strongly urged the County to remove this road from all maps and consideration as there was no justification for it and the community was never advised of its inclusion in the fine print of a map.  The County rep stated this was a "conceptual road" that only might come into play if the expected redevelopment of Isaac Newton Square required it.   It was also possible the developer would have other options or might scale back development.  As for removing it, this would require an amendment to the Comp Plan.  Community reps again stressed the road could not be built without destroying needed recreational space and the County has never been able - or willing - to explain who put it there, for what reason and why the community wasn't informed of its presence.   The community reps encouraged the County to remove it as it is unjustified and will be a continuing irritant until it's gone.  

This discussion led to the issue of the golf course.  The Community expressed its great thanks and appreciation for the strong position Supervisor Hudgins and the County took to help preserve Reston's National Golf Course.  The CPR/RA rep noted the Comp Plan identifies two open spaces specifically identified as golf courses and asked if the community can count on the County to provide the same level of support in defending both full (18 hole) golf courses as we have seen in defending the first one.  The County rep stated it is very clear in the Comp Plan that there are two golf courses in Reston.   This affirmation was very well received by all parties.  

In the course of the discussions, the County reps explained some of the bureaucratic challenges they face and the often lengthy time needed to ensure all proper authorizations and approvals are obtained for a given project.  They also explained there is a difference between commitments and actual physical possession of a resource or funds.  For example, the County reps speak of $10 million dollars in proffer money to obtain and support recreational facilities.  However, there actually is no "money in the bank" at the moment, as these commitments are only exercised when a project reaches a certain level of completion. 

The CPR/RA reps expressed some frustration with the vagueness of the answers given by the County.  Although the complexity of the development process is understood and appreciated, Reston has been around for a long time and some examples of recent successful projects should be possible to cite.      

In conclusion, the CPR/RA reps again thanked the County representatives for their candor and willingness to help educate the public.  This meeting was informative and productive.  Moving forward, the County agreed to provide:

--  Information on the proposed turfing and lighting of existing playing fields in Reston, including how to mitigate safety concerns that have led Montgomery County to restrict new turfing, factors that led to a belief that significant increased playing time will result from these additions and a breakdown on the cost of upgrades and what designated funding source has been identified for each field;  

 

--  Information on the status of current development projects as they pertain to the delivery of open space, parks, "urban parks", athletic facilities, pocket parks, etc. to the community.  This information should come in the What/Where/How/When format.  As part of this, please provide a map showing all current, proposed and aspirational open space, parks, urban parks, pocket parks, etc. including park dimensions, amenities, on site parking, etc.;   

 

-- Information on the status of the Hunter Mill indoor athletic facility, including proposed location, amenities, funding source, dedicated parking, etc.;

 

-- Information on the status of the commission's work assessing Reston's playing fields;

 

-- An explanation of the origin of the Road from Nowhere and why it keeps coming up in County documents such as the "Reston Traffic Analysis: Final Report" of March 28th, 2018.  Provide procedures to have road removed from all maps and any future consideration; and

 

-- Information on how the development of Reston Town Center North will address open space and additional parkland.  .        

Earlier, in a letter from the Planning Director, the County proposed having a joint meeting of representatives from FCPA, FCPS, the Northern Virginia Park Authority, the Reston Association and any other entity with an interest in or control over land that could become additional park or open space.  We believe this would be most helpful. 

The community representatives agreed to provide:

--  A template to list all the required information about park and open space, etc associated with upcoming development;

 

-- A list of possible locations for pedestrian tunnels and overpasses associated with new construction;

 

-- Public support for County efforts to obtain needed land in Reston from developers; and

 

-- An open mind and appreciation for the difficulties County officials have in addressing all these issues.   

The group will reconvene when both sides have had a chance to assess the additional information obtained from the other. 

Sincerely, Dennis

Dennis K. Hays

Official Board of Supervisors Agenda Item for Reston TSD Road Tax Hearing, 4:30PM, February 28, 2017, Government Center

Below is the official Board of Supervisors agenda text for the upcoming Board hearing on the proposed Reston Transportation Service District (TSD) road tax.  A couple of early observations:

• There is no "sunset" clause provision terminating the tax after 40 years as stated in Supervisor Hudgins' February newsletter.  
• The item "assumes" the initial $.021/$100 valuation will remain unchanged throughout the 40-year period.  

Here's the full text:

 4:30 p.m. Public hearing concerning consideration of a request to endorse a funding plan for transportation improvements related to the Reston Phase I Comprehensive Plan Amendment (Reston Transportation Funding Plan). The proposed Reston Transportation Funding Plan addresses the $2.27 billion (in 2016 dollars) need for transportation infrastructure improvements to support the land use recommendations in the Reston Phase I Comprehensive Plan Amendment. The proposed plan allocates roughly $1.2 billion of the improvements over 40 years from public funds–Federal, State, local, and regional funds that are anticipated for countywide transportation projects. It also recommends that approximately $1.07 billion of the cost for these improvements be raised from private fund– sources of revenue that are generated within the Reston Transit Station Areas (TSAs): Wiehle-Reston East, Reston Town Center, and Herndon Transit Station Area and used exclusively for transportation improvements in the Reston TSAs. These private revenues would include developer contributions through actual construction, a transportation road fund that would collect contributions from new developments in the Reston TSAs, and a transportation service tax district that would allow the Board to levy and collect an annual tax from all property owners in the Reston TSAs. The proposed Reston Transportation Funding Plan includes initial rates for the Road Fund and Service District. These proposed initial rates, however, are subject to Board approval. Specifically, the Board will take a separate action to approve the Road Fund Guidelines and, following a separate public hearing, create the Service District. The initial rates included in the proposed Transportation Funding Plan are as follows:  Road Fund:  Residential per Dwelling Unit Rate: $2,090 Commercial per Square Foot Rate: $9.56.  It is anticipated that these rates would be adjusted annually, based on inflation.  Service District: Rate per $100 of Assessed Value: $0.021.  The proposed funding plan assumes this rate would remain flat during the life of the service district; however, the actual rate would be adopted annually by the Board of Supervisors. Property outside the Reston TSAs would be unaffected by the service district. More information about the development of the Reston Transportation Funding Plan can be found here:  http://www.fairfaxcounty.gov/fcdot/restonnetworkanalysis/ Questions regarding this proposed amendment may be directed to the Fairfax County Department of Transportation at 703-877-5600.

 We have discussed the absurdity of a TSD tax on Reston station area homeowners as well as the underlying fraud behind this financing proposal.  If you agree with us that this tax proposal is unwarranted and unfair, please do one or all of the following:

• Contact Supervisor Hudgins and tell her your concerns (Catherine.Hudgins@fairfaxcounty.gov)
• Sign our petition to stop this tax.  
• Attend and testify at the upcoming hearing.  

"The Absurdity of a New Reston Road Tax," Terry Maynard, Reston Connection, January 4-10, 2017

The following is the text of the subject op-ed written by Reston 20/20 Co-Chair Terry Maynard.

On December 19, while most of us were getting ready for the holidays, a bare quorum of the County’s Reston Network Analysis Group (RNAG), a group appointed by Supervisor Hudgins, met and voted by a narrow majority to endorse a new tax on Reston station area homeowners to help pay for future street improvements there.  The vote was literally no more than an endorsement by a developer-dominated group of a totally unwarranted tax that will subsidize for profit development without a single community representative from the Reston station areas affected by the prospective tax.   
 

The RNAG vote specifically endorsed a proposed Tax Service District (TSD) that imposes added property taxes of $.021/$100 valuation on all property owners—including residences—living near Reston’s Metro stations.  As laid out by the county transportation department (FCDOT), residents will end up paying about 40% of the $350 million in TSD taxes over the next 40 years—some $140 million under a set of assumptions that grossly understate the likely costs residents will pay.

Absurd County Assumptions

And why?  Because the Board of Supervisors directed FCDOT to find a new revenue source to pay for improvements of the streets in and around Reston’s station areas, of course, without asking if a new funding source were needed.  Then FCDOT generated a phony $350 million “gap” in Reston road funding over the next 40 years that could only be filled with some new tax revenue source—as directed by the Board. 

The funding “gap” is based on a number of bogus assumptions.  First, at the heart of this tax scheme is the absolutely incredulous assumption that the County is unable to re-allocate any of its current $4 billion in annual County General Fund tax revenues to improve Reston’s streets in and around the station areas.  The amount that needs to be diverted each year is less than $9 million, a sum that barely rates as a rounding error in the County budget. 

Second, if for whatever cockamamie reason the County seriously believes it can’t divert funds to improve Reston’s streets to support massive development, it could ever so slightly raise the tax rate on any of several existing County-wide tax mechanisms to generate the needed funds.  In a more perfect world, the Board could even twist developers’ arms to have them pay for all the road improvements since they alone will profit to the tune of more than one billion dollars per year over the next four decades.  Another special tax on Reston homeowners (on top of the existing community-wide special tax district charging $.047/$100 valuation to fund the Reston Community Center) or any part of them is totally unwarranted; the street improvements are merely a fabricated excuse.

Third, the TSD proposal ignores the order of magnitude growth in the taxable value of planned Reston station area development over the next four decades.  Right now, Reston’s station areas are valued at about $6 billion.  Four decades from now they will likely be valued at more than $60 billion, and maybe as much as $90 billion, based on long-term area experience.  Even without a rate increase, that means the County will collect over $11 billion in basic property taxes from Reston’s station areas over the next 40 years, an average of more than one-quarter billion dollars in Reston station area taxes per year even without the TSD.  Surely three percent of those $11 billion-plus revenues could be used to fund Reston’s road improvements.

Fourth, don’t fool yourself into assuming those new TSD tax funds will just be added to Reston’s current transportation funding level.  The bulk of the added tax revenue generated by this TSD tax stream will most likely be offset by the County’s diversion of much of its current Reston station area transportation funding to other areas of the county.   

And, once the tax is approved, station area residents will be stuck:

• This tax doesn’t require a referendum approval, just the approval of the tax-ravenous Board of Supervisors, backed by the pre-holiday endorsement of the phony RNAG group.
• There is nothing to keep the Board of Supervisors from raising the TSD tax rate—and residential tax burden—just as it has with a similar TSD in Tysons.
• Finally, there is no sunset provision on the TSD proposal.  When that initial roadway investment is completed, station area homeowners will continue to pay the TSD tax indefinitely.  

Stop the Scam:  Restonians Pay while the County Collects Forever

And there you have the massive scam of the alleged “gap” in Reston station area street improvement funding.  There really is no “funding gap.” There is just another County scheme to pick homeowners’ pockets.  It reflects the Board’s refusal to put an additional penny into Reston streets despite billions of existing and future tax dollars sources.  At the same time, Restonians will face worse traffic by virtue of the County’s explicit intent to lower traffic flow standards such that intersection delays will nearly double during rush hour.   

The notion of a Reston station area “funding gap” is a swindle perpetrated by the Board to justify the creation of another tax revenue stream unrelated to any legitimate new tax funding need.  As a Restonian, whether or not you live in a Reston station area, you need to oppose this preposterous County tax scheme. 

• You can do so by contacting Supervisor Hudgins’ office (Catherine.Hudgins@fairfaxcounty.gov) and telling her that you are against the Board’s imposition of this unnecessary and unfair tax. 
• You can also sign the petition on Change.org (https://www.change.org/p/fairfax-county-board-of-supervisors-stop-the-tsd-road-tax-on-reston-metro-station-area-residents) calling for the defeat of this absurd tax.  
• And you can testify at the upcoming RNAG community meeting in January (date & place TBD), the Board of Supervisors public hearing on the RNAG funding plan (February 28, 2017), and the Board’s public hearing on the specific TSD tax rate proposal in March (date TBD). 

Please step up and help stop this unwarranted additional special tax on Reston station area homeowners.

Terry Maynard, Co-Chair

Reston 20/20 Committee

County Transportation Department will recommend Transportation Service District tax Option #12 to Board Transportation Committee

In its planned presentation to the Board of Supervisors acting as the "Board Transportation Committee" this Tuesday, December 13, FCDOT will recommend that the Board adopt Option #12, a Transportation Service District (TSD) for Reston's station areas with a tax rate of $0.021/$100 valuation.  This tax will apply to all property owners in the station areas, including residents.

Below is the full FCDOT presentation.  The recommendation is highlighted on p. 16.

Although the initial tax rate would be set at $0.021/$100 valuation, there is absolutely no restriction on the Board raising that rate (just like property tax rates) as transportation improvement costs rise.  Moreover, as assessed property rates rise, the cost to residents will increase with appreciation.  (Note:  As we documented just last month, early estimates of major roadway improvement costs routinely double and triple in a very short period of time.)

Despite FCDOT's assertion of broad endorsement of this tax, no community representative from the Metro station areas has served on the Reston Network Analysis Group (RNAG).  The only Restonian who lives in these areas serving on the RNAG is a stakeholder representative who is a paid representative of Boston Properties as Executive Director of the Reston Town Center Association.  This is truly taxation without representation.

   FCDOT Recommends a New Reston Metro Station Are Tax District by TerryMaynard on Scribd

Cost of Key Reston Station Area Road Improvement Projects to Double or Triple Board-approved Projections?

To:  Tom Biesiadny, Chief, FC Department of Transportation

CC: 

• Kristin Calkins, RNAG Project Manager
• Janet L. Nguyen, RNAG Funding Plan Manager
• Cate Fulkerson, CEO, Reston Association & RNAG Stakeholder Group member
• Andrew Sigle, Chair, RNAG Community Group
• Tammi Petrine, Co-Chair, Reston 20/20
• Dick Rogers, RA Multi-Modal Transportation Committee member
• Supervisor Cathy Hudgins 

Subject:  VFOIA Request: Explanation of Forecast Cost Increases of Selected RNAG Projects

Dear Mr. Biesiadny,

We have recently completed a comparison of projected costs of proposed RNAG projects with those in the Board of Supervisors approved in its transportation project priorities, 2014-2020.  Most of the common projects have similar project cost estimates, subject to inflation at 2%-3% per year since 2014 (& assuming the costs in that approved list actually reflect 2013 dollars). 

Two major Reston station area serving projects, however, show staggering cost increases between the approval of the TPP and the latest presentation of proposed RNAG projects:

• Soapstone Extension DTR Overpass:   For reasons we cannot discern, the projected cost of this project has risen from $91.75MM in 2014 to $170MM in 2016, an 85% increase.

• Fairfax County Parkway Widening:   While the 2014 TPP projection put the cost of widening the entire 35-mile parkway at $396MM, only 2.5 miles of that parkway—DTR to West Ox Road—remotely serves Reston’s station areas.  A proportional cost of that section (2.5/35) would put the 2014 cost at $28.3MM, yet RNAG projects the cost of that 2.5 mile widening to serve Reston at $80MM, a 183% increase in the cost.

VFOIA Information Request:  Please provide a detailed explanation of the causes of the major cost increases and why those costs should be laid on to Reston station areas for funding considerations.

Thank you in advance for your explanation.

Sincerely,

Terry Maynard, Co-Chair

Reston 20/20 Committee

UPDATE:  We went back and looked at the RMAG Final Report in 2009 to get a sense of the projected cost of the Soapstone Connector then.  The RMAG report states, "By far the most expensive item in the recommended roadway program is the construction of the 
Soapstone Connector over the DIAAH, with a total estimated cost of $32 million for 
bridge and an additional $10 million for other roadway construction . . . ."  That's $42 million.  Inflated at 3%/year, that total would be about $55 million in 2016 dollars, but RNAG now puts the cost of the bridge and approaches at $170 million.  It is clear that FCDOT has no reasonable way for accurately forecasting the cost of major transportation projects.

STOP THE RESTON ROAD TAX NOW!

   Stop the Reston Road Tax --Final--rev 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

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