RESTON COMMUNITY REINVESTMENT CORPORATION

Board Meeting

July 14, 2005
Lake Anne Office Building
11484 Washington Plaza West
Reston, VA 20190

MINUTES

Board Members Present:
Kurt Pronske
Bob Simon
Victoria Wingert
Martha Green
Eduardo Faubert
Matt Greer
Rick Thompson (for Van Foster)
Jim Garrett

Invited Guests:
Harry Swanson, Fairfax County Housing and Community Development

Observers:
John Lovass
Mike Smith
Jason Hartke

Before the meeting was opened a five minute period was provided for questions or comments by the observers.

Approval of Minutes
The minutes for the meetings of 6/09/05 were reviewed and Bob Simon moved that they be approved. With respect the 6/09/05 meeting’s discussion of the Developer Selection Process Alternatives, Martha Greene stated that she had said that the organization being formed, in fact, will be independent of the RCRC. Martha requested that the minutes be revised to change the last sentence of the first paragraph of the Developer Selection Process Alternatives section be revised to “The organization will advise the RCRC of its progress.” This change was accepted and the minutes were approved with the requested amendment.

Other Board Matters
None were cited.

Discussion of Charrette Findings and Options
Bob Simon stated that he had no use for Schemes A through E noting that Lake Anne was not dependent on immediate density or foot traffic. Martha Green cited that the underlying economic analysis was flawed and that we do not have density numbers notwithstanding repeated attempts to obtain them from the County. President Pronske cited that the original PRC was adopted by as the zoning criteria. Bob Simon said that 13 people/acre was the original criterion but that it was not specifically prescribed for Lake Anne.

Martha Green noted that she had received a 3D version of Scheme E noting that it was not at all attractive. President Pronske stated the Scheme E was not an end but a beginning, noting that it established agreement on basic planning characteristics including increased density, elevation and mixed used. Bob Simon stated that the charrette did not represent any consensus of the community.

Next Steps in the Revitalization Process
Harry Swanson described the process that the County would follow in the Revitalization process. Revitalization efforts are supported by capital projects funded by bonds issued by the County based on voter referendum approval. Funding for potential Lake Anne Revitalization efforts could be included in the 2006 Bond Referendum that would be fiscal year 2007.
Steps in the process are:

1. Revitalization initiatives are presented to the County Executive by the County’s Office of Revitalization. In the immediate future (Sept) Office of Revitalization will prepare, through supporting consultant efforts, cost/benefit analyses that are submitted as supporting information for projects that the County Executive and Board of Supervisors will consider.
2. If accepted, projects (as general plans or programs) are included in the Bond Referendum to obtain funding. As a note, the last funding for CIP Revitalization activities was in 1989 for $18M. The current target set by the County Executive for bond funding is $120M (raised from an initial amount of $70M); priorities for funding are public safety, commercial development and revitalization.
3. Once approved, Bond funds are used to support the County’s Capital Improvement Program (CIP) that supports a variety of capital projects including roads and parks as well as Revitalization projects. Once approved, Office of Management and Budget has oversight responsibility for approved projects.

 

Other notes cited by Harry Swanson were that:

1. Referendum projects are general in nature.
2. Revitalization projects could range between $20M - $30M of the current $120M target.
3. Emerging Revitalization strategy will be more incremental – smaller, but more frequent, funding requests.
4. Other jurisdictions – e.g., Springfield – have ongoing, well organized Revitalization efforts
5. The intent of the public Revitalization funding is to leverage, as a small percentage, private funding.
6. Private funding can be facilitated or supported by the County as recognized activities of community using funding mechanisms such as designated Special Districts, Community Development Authorities, Tax Increment Financing, and PPEA projects. (A description of these statutory mechanisms had been distributed by President Pronske earlier with the agenda for the meeting).

Other Business
Before meeting closed the observers were asked if they had any questions.
John Lovass asked Harry Swanson about funding for affordable housing priorities. It was noted that there is a July 27th meeting with information about it on the County’s website.

The next meeting is scheduled for August 11th.
The meeting adjourned at 9:00PM.