Reston Association and the Reston Community Center are collaborating with Fairfax County to build a second Recreation Center in Reston at Browns Chapel Park … at a cost of $64M. The size of the proposed center is comparable to a Super Walmart, plus a parking garage.

The plan is to bill Reston homeowners in the Small Tax District 5, but open it up to all of Fairfax County for a small fee. Of primary concern is the lack of swimming pools for Fairfax County students.

The county will not consider adding a pool to SLHS for a fraction of the cost on land that is currently used as a parking lot. If parking is an issue, the parking lot on the other side of the school can built out to a parking garage. The county however told us this is not an option – we are told schools can not be expanded for recreational reasons if a community resource is available.

As there is no resource available, the only way to meet the “need” for indoor pools, is through private or alternative funding for such a resource since general funding for a county-funded recreation facility probably won’t be available for at least another 10 years.

Thoughts?

thank you junes for raising this issue it is so true we need mor facilities. I am so thankful we know have leader in you so that private capital can now be put together when do you plan to kick off your capital-raising group maybe i can join if i have time.

Not knowing...and you did not provide the specifics on the costs/savings associated with each alternative...I'll just say that I think the strategy of seperating common use recreational facilities from the high schools has worked well. The facilities seem to be well utilized by all ages...high school swim teams (that only need them 2-3 months per year and private swim teams.

Is there a law stopping them from using the high school..your statement leads me to believe so.

Vince(1) Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Not knowing...and you did not provide the
> specifics on the costs/savings associated with
> each alternative...I'll just say that I think the
> strategy of seperating common use recreational
> facilities from the high schools has worked well.
> The facilities seem to be well utilized by all
> ages...high school swim teams (that only need them
> 2-3 months per year and private swim teams.
>
> Is there a law stopping them from using the high
> school..your statement leads me to believe so.

there is a policy in place that prevents the county from adding to an existing school if the resource is available elsewhere in the county.

If there is a NEED for more pools in the county, then the county can override the policy and pay to expand the school from the general fund.

If this is an immediate WANT, and a small segment of Fairfax County (fewer than 75,000) are expected to fund the construction - vs all Fairfax County tax payers - then further discussion is needed. At the very least it should go to referendum.

NOTE: Many Reston tax payers are opposed to construction of a facility on their dime, when 70% of people who use the facility will not live in Reston.

Some members of the BOS have guaranteed rezoning and construction permits provided the project is not not county funded.

There is also rumor the BOS, RA and RCC may try to bypass a referendum by adding to the existing STD5 - doubling the tax and extending the life 30+ years.

Generally, a project of this size goes to referendum before any action is taken, but in this case land swaps, impact studies and re-zoning discussions have already started.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/24/2009 10:25AM by Junes.

karl Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> thank you junes for raising this issue it is so
> true we need mor facilities. I am so thankful we
> know have leader in you so that private capital
> can now be put together when do you plan to kick
> off your capital-raising group maybe i can join if
> i have time.



Meeting at 6:30pm on Monday, June 01 at the Reston Community Center - Hunters Woods

As such an ardent supporter, I hope we will see you there.

thank you but i do not have car yes? please update us with how your leading this effort shall go

The RCC is right on the bus line. You really should try to make the effort.

It may be an interesting meeting. It seems the Reston swimmers and divers use the Herndon Pool which apparently has plenty of room and a time slot has even been reserved for SLHS divers.

I do agree with you though that there probably is a need to build a state-of-the-art community center/sports facility in another district that has a county-funded outdated facility, or no facility at all ... funded by homeowners and businesses with a STD tax.

Currently there are 14 community centers in Fairfax County (2 of which are STD tax funded). Any suggestions where the new Community Center should be built?

Reston (3)
McLean (1)
Herndon (1)
Falls Church (4)
Alexandria (3)
Fairfax (2) -- Braddock Rd and Zion Dr




Supervisor Hudgins and Chairwoman Bulova have been invited.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/27/2009 07:22PM by Junes.

Why not take the money from the Save lake Anna fund? I'm sure ole Bob Simon won't mind

This Brown's Chapel proposal is absolutely ludicrous. They plan on paving over all of the Baseball Diamonds, and replacing them with Tennis Courts, then they also wish to pave over much of the additional open grassland, replacing it with Parking Space, a Parking Garage, and a "Fitness Facility". Talk about trashing one of the nicest parks we have in the area. I have fairly fond memories of Brown's Chapel from the time I used to play Baseball there on a regular basis, and I always enjoyed the ability to hold cookouts there with the team and family members as well. If they follow through with this proposal, not only will we be a minimum of $64 Million Dollars in the hole, we will also be destroying one of the largest and well established parks in the County.

Besides, we already have plenty of indoor Sporting/Swimming Facilities, such as:

-The Reston Community Center (Free).
-The Herndon Community Center (Free).
-Ridge Heights (Free).
-YMCA (Fee).
-Reston Sport & Health (Fee).
-Worldgate Sport & Health (Fee).


So on, and so forth.

It would be WONDERFUL if we had a good, clean privately owned indoor pool. One that did not compete with swim teams. The private health club chain the MAC (Maryland Athletic Club) would be great in NOVA.

DD Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> It would be WONDERFUL if we had a good, clean
> privately owned indoor pool. One that did not
> compete with swim teams. The private health club
> chain the MAC (Maryland Athletic Club) would be
> great in NOVA.


There is absolutely nothing wrong with a Privately owned, non-Tax Payer funded club, so long as it is built in a suitable location (Of which there are obviously many). NoVa does have the Sport and Health Clubs which are private, and the YMCA is also private to a certain extent (ie, it requires a membership).

The area where they wish to slaughter Brown's Chapel (Reston) already has a TON of other worthwhile facilities, half of which are private as you mention. This is nothing more than a typical bureaucrat proposal which is being put forth in an attempt to make the Reston Association board members appear as if they have actually done something worthwhile for the community (There are some good RA board members despite the fact, both former and current, but they are not running things right now).

BTW, for anyone who is interested, the astounding Majority of Reston citizens who spoke out at the Meeting in regards to this proposal, all said: "NO WAY".

I'm so glad our troops went to war over the years so that we can discuss the need for more pools in our county. I for one will enjoys taking a dump in the new pool. Don't worry about paying teachers, we need some kickboards!

ThePackLeader Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> DD Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > It would be WONDERFUL if we had a good, clean
> > privately owned indoor pool. One that did not
> > compete with swim teams. The private health
> club
> > chain the MAC (Maryland Athletic Club) would be
> > great in NOVA.
>
>
> There is absolutely nothing wrong with a Privately
> owned, non-Tax Payer funded club, so long as it is
> built in a suitable location (Of which there are
> obviously many). NoVa does have the Sport and
> Health Clubs which are private, and the YMCA is
> also private to a certain extent (ie, it requires
> a membership).
>
> The area where they wish to slaughter Brown's
> Chapel (Reston) already has a TON of other
> worthwhile facilities, half of which are private
> as you mention. This is nothing more than a
> typical bureaucrat proposal which is being put
> forth in an attempt to make the Reston Association
> board members appear as if they have actually done
> something worthwhile for the community (There are
> some good RA board members despite the fact, both
> former and current, but they are not running
> things right now).
>
> BTW, for anyone who is interested, the astounding
> Majority of Reston citizens who spoke out at the
> Meeting in regards to this proposal, all said: "NO
> WAY".



YOU are rambling on about Reston. What about the rest of the county?

dd Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> YOU are rambling on about Reston. What about the
> rest of the county?

It's RA and RCC that is rambling on about building a huge sports arena, complete with multi-story parking garage in Reston. This is despite several people asking the very same question you posed - "What about the rest of the county?"

There are districts within the county that have outdated facilities and others that have nothing. Yet for some reason, the BOS supports the RA and RCC plans to build yet another facility in the Hunters Woods District.

Reston does NOT need a sports facility. Hopefully, at one of these planning meetings, RA, RCC and the Supervisors will get the message.

Junes Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> dd Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
>
> > YOU are rambling on about Reston. What about
> the
> > rest of the county?
>
> It's RA and RCC that is rambling on about building
> a huge sports arena, complete with multi-story
> parking garage in Reston. This is despite several
> people asking the very same question you posed -
> "What about the rest of the county?"
>
> There are districts within the county that have
> outdated facilities and others that have nothing.
> Yet for some reason, the BOS supports the RA and
> RCC plans to build yet another facility in the
> Hunters Woods District.
>
> Reston does NOT need a sports facility. Hopefully,
> at one of these planning meetings, RA, RCC and the
> Supervisors will get the message.



THANK YOU! That is the message that I was putting forth the entire time, and it is the same manner in which the vast majority of Restonians have spoken out in regards to this "Project". We in Reston DO NOT want to tear down Brown's Chapel in order to place a Facility in an area where none is needed. RA is simply going overboard on this issue, and as a matter of fact, they are currently employing lawyers in an attempt to find a legal loophole which will allow for them to bypass a Referendum Vote. In other words, RA is finding a way to have this Facility built without the Approval of the Citizens whom it affects the most.

"Does Fairfax County Need More Indoor Poodles?"

Uh, no... maybe? Wha?

Fairfax (2) -- Braddock Rd and Zion Dr

Not sure where the Braddock Road property is but the two lots that the Pinn Center sit on on Zion Road are 3 acres total. Sounds like a decent size but take a drive-by. Definitely not large enough for an indoor facility. If you're familiar with the location where its situated you'd know it also wouldn't be optimal for an increase in the amount of people turning in and out of the lot.

The real estate tax records also don't say the two lots are board of supervisors or park-owned;lists a separate "Sideburn Civic Association" as the owner, though it does say in its description that it's a gov facility.

Well, there was supposed to be a pool in Lake Braddock Secondary when it was built, but the cost of insurance tabled that idea. And they just renovated the building and still didn't put in a pool.

Contact some private companies about coming and building it. It shouldn't be from my taxes...hell, they build new pools with every rec center they open with my money. Let some enterprising business build it.

I received an email from a person affiliated with the SLHS Divers Club. The Diving Well at the RCC is not functional and because of the "lay of the land" can not be repaired or rebuilt.

The Diving Club is currently practicing at the Herndon Pool at 9:00pm - after regular pool hours are over.

SLHS is complaining that the divers need to practice at a more reasonable hour. Even though there has been discussion of a full service sports facility elsewhere in the county (where it is neeeed), the swim and diving teams want something close to home.

Thus one of the primary reasons RA and RCC feel the need to ram a $64M STD tax funded project down the throats of STD5 tax payers. They know this project will be a hard sell and it will probably not pass a referendum vote, The only way to push it through is to bypass the referendum and once all the pieces are in place, announce to the STD5 tax payers that they are the proud owners of a new sports facility.

This MUST be put to referendum!

again tnk you so much for taking on the leadership on this we must prevail and your efforts are noticd as heroic for all the swimmers

LOLkitteh sez no mo poolz unlezz dey r Filled wit kitteh treats and Chezbughers

karl Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> again tnk you so much for taking on the leadership
> on this we must prevail and your efforts are
> noticd as heroic for all the swimmers


The deeper the consultants got into the their presentation, the less receptive the crowd became. The crowd was sizeable, filling up the large hall at the Hunters Woods RCC.

The presentation was comprised of "fuzzy" numbers, and theoretical demographics and projections. More questions were left unanswered than answered.

At no time was there ever mention of a need, other than for the growth outside the STD5

We learned that a Reston Resident (who pays Reston rates at the facility) does not need a Reston mailing address. Reston business employees, regardless of where they live, are entitled to the same rights and rates s Reston residents, yet contribute nothing to the STD to fund the construction, operations and maintenance of the facility. Yes, commercial property is also taxed, but business can pass through and write off as an expense this tax, while residential property owners must eat it.

No one was really sure how many non-resident business employees would be using the facility as a “Reston resident,” but it was guesstimated the numbers would represent about 40% to 50% of the users. Even the consultants who worked tirelessly on this project for nearly 8 months, didn’t have a clue how many non-resident employees would be using the facility.

On the upside, the land swap will go to referendum for a vote in September. If it passes, it is estimated the studies and final planning will take upwards to 3-4 years.

Most important – it was decided by RA and the RCC that the project and STD funding will go to the voters on referendum. This can add another 1 – 2 years to the completion date, making the facility shovel ready sometime in 2014 or 2015 - if the voters approve it.

The consultants left and the RCC and RA Boards met and later opened the floor to comments and questions. I didn’t stay as the questions I had only the consultants could answer.

Others who attended the meeting are encouraged to add their input.

The next meeting with be June 15.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 06/01/2009 11:10PM by Junes.

I had to leave even before the consultant presentation was done...
On Tuesday I skimmed through the Brailsford and Dunleavy Feasibility study, which is on the RCC and RA websites.
Some inconsistencies I noted:
1. In the presentation the consultants said that they did their projections based on an assumption of 90% users of the facility being Reston residents. But if you look at the projected core users of each of the individual program areas (aquatics, tennis, etc.) they are all projected to be split almost 50/50 between resident and non-resident.

2. In their writeup describing the existing county rec centers, each county center has operating costs of $26 - $42 per square foot. The larger centers were actually more expensive to run because of indoor pools. Then in the financial model the B&D projections for expenses only come out to $21 to $26 per square foot. There doesn't seem to any explanation for why this facility would be dramatically cheaper to run than every other one in the county. If you factor in an average operating cost of $37 per square foot from the other rec centers, then the yearly operating deficit jumps from $800k to almost $3 million. I understand there might be operating efficiencies in a larger facility, but that is not explained or justified.

3. I realize this was a feasibility study, and the RA/RCC boards probably directed the consultants to only consider a single large facility. But there has been a lot of talk about considering different options, and the only options that the study compares are how big to make the facility: larger than every other county Rec Center (the Base plan), almost twice as big as the biggest existing center (the Standard plan), or more than twice as big as the biggest existing center (the Comprehensive plan). There is never any evaluation of other options, such as enclosing existing tennis courts, enclosing and expanding one or more existing pools, and then building other facilities as needed for the other program elements. In the financial section, I believe there is a statement that that the combined facility has operation efficiencies, however that can't be quantified because separate physical facilities weren't evaluated.

4. Also in the Market Analysis section, B&D estimates Reston participation levels in tennis between 850 and 1200 people per year. There are already 48 tennis courts in Reston, so one court per 25 users at the outside. Is there really so much demand for tennis programs that more courts need to be built?

5. The financial model didn't include any costs for land acquisition. Therefore the model only works as shown if the land is "free" to Reston or the county. Obviously that would put some constraints on the siting of the Rec Center, and might make it financially untenable anywhere but county owned land. Of course, if Reston gives land owned by the RA membership to the county, or if the county gets land where Spectrum is when that is torn down in exchange for letting the owner of that land build super dense commercial/residential next to a future metro stop....

Some general commentary, more subjective on my part:

I must note that the feasibility study does not address a facility site, or how the facility would be paid for. The consultants assumed that the financing would be 100% debt at 5.5% interest paid back in 20 years, but that was just to generate concrete numbers for modeling the construction and debt service costs. The *source* of that money is never specified.

The discussion of using Small Tax District #5 money to pay for a new Rec center was all verbal during the presentation, and from other sources prior to the feasibility report.

I hope all the people who are adamantly opposed to paving over Brown's Chapel can calm down a little bit, and focus on two separate questions:
1. Are new indoor facilities needed, and if so how much and what?
2. If a new rec center of any kind is going to be built in or near reston, then where does it go?

It doesn't make sense to get too exited about fighting a particular site before there is even a decision on question 1... but in fairness to the SaveBrownsChapel folks, the RA and RCC board's meeting minutes and the feasibility report produced according to their direction make it sound like "all the options being considered, no decisions have been made" have already been narrowed down to a) one giant indoor facility b) which is so big and has to be built on free land, so must be sited at Brown's chapel c) which will operate at a loss and won't be funded by the financially strapped County, so must be paid for by Small district #5. All that before community input. I do not count invitation only focus groups with athletic associations and the chamber of commerce as community input.

To quote the feasibility report "The comprehensive program represents a flagship facility that would be unmatched in the region." I should say so, since the facilities included sound as extensive those at a college like George Mason. There is also talk in the report about "building the Reston brand", which I must assume came from the focus groups or the RA/RCC task force. Since even the smallest suggested facility would be the largest county Rec Center and would likely draw users from all over the county (and the biggest proposed facility would have capacities for competitive events that would certainly draw people from outside the county), it is hard to understand why it makes sense to have construction entirely paid for by reston residents and commercial property owners. I am concerned that the RA and RCC boards and the county government are starting with input from a couple thousand hard-core tennis and swim users (and the athletic associations that were invited members of the focus group process) and arriving at the conclusion that Reston "needs" an athletic Taj Mahal built at taxpayer expense. You know, something befitting the grandeur of the stone-encrusted County Goverment Center of the county with the highest median income in the USA. If RA, the board of supervisors, the owners of Town Center and the Reston Chamber of Commerce want to build the premiere Indoor Recreation Facility in the DC Metro area, lets just say so and not pretend that all this is for the benefit of underprivileged kids who can't afford to play tennis in January at the Worldgate Sport and Health.

Here is another crazy idea - if the Small District money is no longer needed to pay off construction of RCC (now that all the bonds are paid), why not disband the district, lower the rate, or use it to expand and renovate the existing facilities? Maybe because the County government doesn't want to give up a multi-million dollar tax stream that is under it's control, and wouldn't mind using it to create a county-wide recreation facility that would never, ever, get funded by county general funds while they are laying off teachers and freezing county employee pay?

Oh, and a prediction: watch for the RA board to try and get a new RA headquarters included in the rec center. Not that there is anything wrong with that, it actually makes sense to put them together if there is room - but since the RA headquarters referendum failed after years of effort I bet there will be an attempt to get the new headquarters this way.

RestonGadfly Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
Good input:

> 1. In the presentation the consultants said that
> they did their projections based on an assumption
> of 90% users of the facility being Reston
> residents. But if you look at the projected core
> users of each of the individual program areas
> (aquatics, tennis, etc.) they are all projected to
> be split almost 50/50 between resident and
„« non-resident.

¡§Reston Residents,¡¨ for the purpose of this study includes commercial tenants, people who work in Reston, but do not have a Reston mailing address. When I asked if there for a best guesstimate of the number of commercial tenant ¡§Reston Residents,¡¨ RA, RCC or Fairfax County was forthcoming in admitting they had no idea.

> 3. I realize this was a feasibility study, and the
> RA/RCC boards probably directed the consultants to
> only consider a single large facility. But there
> has been a lot of talk about considering different
> options, and the only options that the study
> compares are how big to make the facility: larger
> than every other county Rec Center (the Base
> plan), almost twice as big as the biggest existing
> center (the Standard plan), or more than twice as
> big as the biggest existing center (the
> Comprehensive plan). There is never any
> evaluation of other options, such as enclosing
> existing tennis courts, enclosing and expanding
> one or more existing pools, and then building
> other facilities as needed for the other program
> elements. In the financial section, I believe
> there is a statement that that the combined
> facility has operation efficiencies, however that
> can't be quantified because separate physical
> facilities weren't evaluated.

RA and RCC concluded that because Reston is reaching build-out and no recreational facilities have been added in a number of years. Questions were raised as to why Reston was selected for this Super Facility, when there were areas in the county that have outdated community centers or no facility and would benefit more.

Winterizing existing facilities to meet the needs of ¡§Reston Residents¡¨ will not be a good foundation for higher density rezoning.

>
> 5. The financial model didn't include any costs
> for land acquisition. Therefore the model only
> works as shown if the land is "free" to Reston or
„« the county.

RA agreed to give the land to Fairfax County, to be rezoned for this project. In so doing, land cost is not a factor in the cost of this project.

Because this has been so controversial, the land swap will be put to Referendum in September.



> I must note that the feasibility study does not
> address a facility site, or how the facility would
> be paid for. The consultants assumed that the
> financing would be 100% debt at 5.5% interest paid
> back in 20 years, but that was just to generate
> concrete numbers for modeling the construction and
> debt service costs. The *source* of that money is
„« never specified.

> The discussion of using Small Tax District #5
> money to pay for a new Rec center was all verbal
> during the presentation, and from other sources
„« prior to the feasibility report.

The STD5 or a new STD tax was always intended to be the funding source for this project because County funding is not available. Initially, RA/RCC and Fairfax County intended to fold the expense into the STD5 as an agenda item and vote. This would extend the tax for 30 years.

During the June 1st meeting, the decision was made to put the project funding to a referendum, which was not well received by RA, RCC or Princess Catherine as this will set the project back at least another year, possibly two.