Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Capital Reserve topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Reston board hears fiscal committee plan to smooth capital funding; members debate using unrealized gains
Summary
Fiscal committee chair outlined a three-part proposal — flat annual funding from a 10-year CIP, a target reserve range, and a monthly/quarterly reserve-management process — and asked the board for guidance; directors debated the treasurer’s role and whether to use unrealized gains to 'feather in' funding.
The Reston Association board devoted a lengthy session on March 26 to how the association should structure its capital reserves and long-term funding for repairs and replacements.
"We are spending a lot of time on this, on our capital funding resolution," said Dave Kerr, chair of the fiscal committee, presenting three pillars: a flat annual funding model tied to a 10‑year capital-improvement plan (CIP) with a review cycle, a target reserve range rather than a single minimum, and a standing process to manage the reserve balance throughout the year.
CFO Ed Vroom gave projections and context: "At 2025, we ended up with a capital reserve of just over $5,000,000," he said, and warned that the reserve could drop by more than $1,000,000 in 2027 because of planned demolition and rebuild work at Lake Newport Tennis. Vroom and committee members said the committee is still considering the precise lower and upper bounds for a target range and has not finalized numbers.
Some board members urged using unrealized investment gains to soften assessment increases while adopting flat funding. One director argued that drawing down roughly $2.5 million of unrealized gains over multiple years would allow the association to "feather in" the funding increase and reduce the assessment impact on members. Others cautioned that the fund’s original intent was to prepay anticipated capital projects and that clarity and strict definitions of which funds can be used for what purpose are needed.
Director Perry recommended clarifying the timing of the review cycle so the resolution is tied to the reserve study schedule (for example, a one‑year delay after a reserve study is delivered), and asked the committee to ensure that any interim framework required for the 2027 budget be returned to the board before the first draft budget is released.
After discussion, the board voted on a motion directing the fiscal committee to expand its scope to produce a fully inclusive funding and reserve resolution (definitions, standards, calculations, and timing) and to deliver a first draft to the board in July 2026, with a specific interim recommendation on the 2027 triple R F reserve if needed before the budget draft. That motion was moved by a director and seconded; the motion carried with recorded votes in the room (vote as reported during the meeting).
The fiscal committee will return with more detailed numbers and a draft resolution, and staff and committee members said they will continue public engagement and bring the proposals into the budget process for 2027.
