John Farrell
-
The Basics
-
John on Patch
-
More Stuff
Comments
-
On the article What Would New Reston Recreation Center Cost?
-
On the article What Would New Reston Recreation Center Cost?
John Farrell
11:29 am on Tuesday, May 14, 2013
ReplySo RCC seems to say, worst case: annual debt service $1.9 MM + $4.3 MM annual operating - $3.4 MM user fees = $2.8 MM annual shortfall to be covered by a) increases in RCC taxes (which Leila promised won't happen); b) increase in user fees at the other RCC facilities; or c) David Stockman's magic asterisk.
And $5 million in recreational proffers that could have been used to pay for this or the indoor tennis courts either were never obtained or went to FCPA .
And building at Baron Cameron results in the loss of how many soccer fields?
Meanwhile, Reston Soccer and SHLS Boosters have to borrow $150,000 each for the turf fields.
And South Lakes Drive Park and North Pointe Park fields have needed to be renovated for a decade but continue in their neglected state.
Does any of this make sense to anyone?
-
On the article What Would New Reston Recreation Center Cost?
John Farrell
11:26 am on Tuesday, May 14, 2013
ReplySo RCC seems to say, worst case: annual debt service $1.9 MM + $4.3 MM annual operating - $3.4 MM user fees = $2.8 MM annual shortfall to be covered by a) increases in RCC taxes (which Leila promised won't happen); b) increase in user fees at the other RCC facilities; or c) David Stockman's magic asterisk.
And $5 million in recreational proffers that could have been used to pay for this or the indoor tennis courts either were never obtained or went to FCPA .
And building at Baron Cameron results in the loss of how many soccer fields?
Meanwhile, Reston Soccer and SHLS Boosters have to borrow $150,000 each for the turf fields.
Does any of this make sense to anyone?
-
On the article What's In the Future For Baron Cameron Park?
John Farrell
8:55 am on Monday, May 13, 2013
"a concept that was not in place anywhere in the nation."
That phrase might describe Reston (though, it doesn't: see Columbia, MD, Los Colinas, TX and several others) but it surely doesn't describe Small Tax District Number Five. By its very name it's clear there are at least 4 other small tax districts just in Fairfax, alone. See McLean Community Center, another small tax district right here in Fairfax.
Special purpose tax districts as a concept (that word again ;-)) have existed in American municipal government for 140 years, at least. There's nothing new about them.
If YMCA had built its indoor pool just a few yards longer, it's quite possible that there would be no need for another indoor pool in Reston; but since the YMCA pool is not 50m, another indoor pool is justified but not at the expense of the existing facilities at Baron Cameron.
Put it in a TOD.
-
On the article What's In the Future For Baron Cameron Park?
John Farrell
6:06 pm on Saturday, May 11, 2013
The two tax bases are very different. Reston has a much higher percentage of non-residental land value.
The owners of the non-residential land, at the time of the creation of STD#5, only agreed to allow their land to be included in STD#5 if their employees were given the same user fees as the residents.
Restonians come out way ahead on that deal. The tax generated by the non-residential land within STD#5 exceeds the number of employees who use the STD#5 facilities by several orders of magnitude.
By locating here, these companies make true "live, work and play." Thus, half of Restonians work in Reston instead of commuting to Tysons, Arlington or DC.
These companies also helped pay for that "infrastructure, roads, sewers and such" either directly through proffers or through the higher cost for their land which Gulf, Mobil or Terrabrook charged than for similar land outside Reston.
-
On the article What's In the Future For Baron Cameron Park?
John Farrell
1:35 pm on Saturday, May 11, 2013
Jim, your excellent analysis needs to add another factor:
A substantial portion of STD#5 revenue is generated by the commercial property in the district. It will grow considerably as the TODs redevelop, both absolutely and in proportion to the residential contribution.
It is this revenue stream that accounts for people employed within STD#5 getting the same discounts as residents.
Everyone who does not live or work in STD#5 should pay a user fee that reflects the full cost of the activity or the market value of the activity, whichever is higher whether they live in or outside the County.
-
On the article What's In the Future For Baron Cameron Park?
John Farrell
10:28 am on Friday, May 10, 2013
Since the RCC tax is never going away, Jim, I'd prefer to see the user fees for those who pay the RCC tax to be lowered or eliminated and the fees for non-RCC-taxpayers raised to market levels.
-
On the article What's In the Future For Baron Cameron Park?
John Farrell
9:24 pm on Thursday, May 9, 2013
When all else fails, make threats? Nice.
Nothing happens on Baron Cameron without the approval of the Hunter Mill Supervisor.
-
On the article What's In the Future For Baron Cameron Park?
John Farrell
9:22 pm on Thursday, May 9, 2013
And you believed these presenters?!
A building as extravagant as you described will have to take up 10 acres with its parking field. The existing site is fully committed. How many soccer fields will have to be sacrificed for this emporium?
RCC's user charges are already too high. Large surpluses regularly accumulate. Paying off a $50 million bond will only drive those fees higher.
FCPA has millions in proffer and bond money. Yet, it forces Reston Soccer and the South Lakes Boosters to borrow $150,000 each to build the turf fields at SLHS.
-
On the article What's In the Future For Baron Cameron Park?
John Farrell
11:01 am on Thursday, May 9, 2013
ReplyThe 50m indoor pool needs to be:
1) incorporated into the TOD around the Wiehle or RTC station;
2) built with developer proffer money;
3) operated by RCC or RA.
That's also the solution for indoor tennis.
When are Hudgins, de La Fe, Bouie, Gordon, P&Z and RA going to stop pitting one segment of our community against another and pursue the obvious solutions?
John Farrell
11:30 am on Tuesday, May 14, 2013
So RCA seems to say, worst case: annual debt service $1.9 MM + $4.3 MM annual operating - $3.4 MM user fees = $2.8 MM annual shortfall to be covered by a) increases in RCC taxes (which Leila promised won't happen); b) increase in user fees at the other RCC facilities; or c) David Stockman's magic asterisk.
And $5 million in recreational proffers that could have been used to pay for this or the indoor tennis courts either were never obtained or went to FCPA .
And building at Baron Cameron results in the loss of how many soccer fields?
Meanwhile, Reston Soccer and SHLS Boosters have to borrow $150,000 each for the turf fields.
And South Lakes Drive Park and North Pointe Park fields have needed to be renovated for a decade but continue in their neglected state.
Does any of this make sense to anyone?