Loudoun Calls on MWAA to Reverse Underground Decision

As work continues on Phase 1 of the Metro project to extend rail from Falls Church to Ashburn, questions remain about the cost of Phase 2 and who will pay for overruns. This week the Loudoun Board of Supervisors joined the growing chorus of calls to reverse the choice of a more costly underground station at Dulles Airport.

After the Metropolitan Washing Airport Authority selected the underground option, rather than an aerial station projected to save at least $300 million, objections began almost immediately.

Last week, the Fairfax County Board of Supervisors called on MWAA to reverse the decision. Loudoun County Chairman Scott K. York (I-At Large) joined U.S. Rep. Frank Wolf (R-10) at a press conference Monday in Herndon to call on MWAA to reconsider.

Union workers who support another recent MWAA decision that Wolf opposes – the use of a project labor agreement, or PLA – protested Wolf’s conference. Supervisor Eugene Delgaudio during a board meeting Tuesday called those protesters “out-of-state union goons.”

On Monday night, Loudoun supervisors voted 6-2-1 to send MWAA a letter requesting a reversal. On Tuesday, they received preliminary information about options to pay the county’s share of construction and operating costs. Loudoun’s share comes to at least $40 million for construction, depending on the final design, and $5 million to $10 million a year afterward for operating and maintenance costs.

The primary objection to the underground station at Dulles is that MWAA has no plan to pay for it. The estimated cost of the project previously jumped from $2.5 billion to $3.5 billion, and MWAA engineers estimated about $600 million could be eliminated by changing the underground station at the airport to an aerial one. MWAA board members believe they can cut the cost of he underground station in half.

While hints have been made that MWAA would request federal funds, Wolf recently pointed out that the federal government nearly withdrew it’s funding for Phase 1, and made clear upon providing the money that there would be no more.

Fairfax and Loudoun supervisors as well as Virginia Secretary of Transportation Sean Connaughton have said they oppose covering the cost.

Some leaders have suggested the disagreement could potential derail the project, but most offered their support of it.

“I hope that this letter will serve as a warning sign to the MWAA board that we do want Metro … we have long said we wanted Metro, but not at any cost. It can’t be,” said Supervisor Lori Waters (R-Broad Run).

Supervisor Stevens Miller (D-Dulles) opposed sending the letter because he thinks it sends a message that could lead to the elimination of rail stations planned in Loudoun. But other supervisors disagreed, saying there was still time to negotiate if MWAA resisted their demands. Once the county received final costs estimated and a 100 percent final design, supervisors will have 90 days to decide whether to proceed with the project or withdraw.

The letter the county agreed to send asks all relevant staff to work together rather than independently and find savings through value engineering the project; that the aerial route remain in consideration; that MWAA inform Loudoun of any facilities eliminated that the county would now have to cover; and that an independent contractor review work on value engineering.

Leo Schefer, president of the Washington Airports Task Force, said the task force believes an aerial route and station offers more benefits, such as additional service options down the road.

“Above ground gives the ability in the future for baggage drop and ticketing, a huge advantage,” he said, adding that he’s puzzled by the MWAA board’s decision. “This sudden decision to sort of push the staff recommendation aside is an aberration.”

On Tuesday, Loudoun supervisors got a preliminary overview of options for paying the county’s share of costs. Up to now, the BPOL tax has received the most attention, but that would require the replacement of General Fund money that would be depleted. Other options that may be considered include a commercial and industrial transportation tax; a special tax district; the use of fund balances and proffers; other local tax increases, such as personal property or sales; or an increase in the real estate tax rate.

Regardless of how the county pays for it, supervisors were told, the cost ultimately falls on the shoulders of residential and commercial property owners.

“There’s no mistaking at the end of the day that the real backing of this is the real estate property tax,” said Ben Mays, Loudoun’s chief financial officer, adding that while there are high costs associated with rail early on, those costs will diminish as growth occurs around the rail stations and tax revenue generated there increases.

One area of concern was whether such a large new commitment would impact the county’s bond ratings. Staff members said they believe rating agencies would consider the project outside of the county’s other liabilities.

In terms of fiscal impact to the county, between now and 2040, rail is expected to generate $543 million and cost the county $308 million in expenditures for services and infrastructure, resulting in a net gain of $235 million.

Supervisor Jim Burton (I-Blue Ridge) questioned the methodology of those projections saying he believed the impact would be even more positive. Mays agreed that the estimates were conservative.