Forest Park veterans program teams up with Clayton County District Attorney to provide holiday cheer

Louis Dean, left, shakes the hand of one of the veterans in the Stephon’s House transitional housing program, which helps to get homeless veterans back on their feet. Program director Vivian Hughes looks on. (Special Photo: Stan Coleman)

FOREST PARK — When Vivian Hughes retired from the Georgia Department of Corrections after 39 years of service, she wanted to find another way to contribute to her Clayton County community.

She considered using her retirement money to fund housing for former inmates, but a suggestion from her fiance Louis Dean changed her mind.

“He said, ‘Why don’t you work with veterans?’” Hughes recalled. The suggestion seemed fitting, as many of Hughes’s family members served in the Army, and Dean’s family served in the military as well. But she had to do a little research on how to support veterans, specifically those who were homeless and without work.

“I know everything about corrections, but I didn’t know anything about veterans,” she said.

After speaking with several local veterans organizations, Hughes put her retirement money towards renting and furnishing 15 apartments and one house in Forest Park. For the past two years, Hughes has housed homeless veterans and helped them to get back on their feet, finding them meaningful work and long-term housing.

To date, 30 veterans are housed in Hughes’s program. Six have left to lead successful lives locally and in places as far-flung as Florida and Louisiana.

She named the organization Stephon’s House in memory of her brother Stephon Cushion, an Army veteran who was murdered in 2013 during a home invasion.

“He was military and he gave so much to the community,” Hughes said. “When he lost his life, I said this is the perfect way to honor him.”

Hughes said much of her work she’s had to learn as she goes, relying on guidance from established programs like Hope Atlanta, Another Chance and Fort McPherson VA Clinic. Though much of the funding comes from her own pocket, Hughes has sought help from local organizations. Last year, she connected with Clayton County District Attorney Tracy Graham Lawson at a breakfast for local ministries.

“From then on, she has been a blessing to our organization,” Hughes said of Lawson. The District Attorney’s Office has provided rent, food and small home furnishings, including toasters and dishes, to the organization this year.

Lawson’s office hosted a Christmas luncheon for Stephon’s House residents on Dec. 10 at the Forest Park Senior Center. Veterans were treated to a full meal catered by Big Daddy’s Dish on Old National Highway in Atlanta.

DA’s office staff loaded up plates with turkey, ham, and other traditional holiday fare. Lawson, Hughes and Dean also handed out scarves, gloves and a $20 gift card to Chick-fil-A to each veteran.

Though each of Stephon’s House’s 30 residents were invited, not all could attend the dinner, so to-go meals were prepared for veterans who were ill or working.

Shavon Hagger, director of program development and services in the DA’s office, said her office was more than willing to dish up some holiday cheer.

“They served our country and worked hard, and they have fallen on hard times, so we can definitely help them out,” she said.

“I’m not going no where,” she told the district attorney’s office, with a laugh. “They said, ‘Neither are we.’”

Source Article

Member One Federal Credit Union to build retail center in South Roanoke

The retail center will be constructed at the site of the former Stephen’s restaurant at 2926 Franklin Road SW. Design of the building is being undertaken by Interactive Design Group of Roanoke, the architectural firm responsible for the design of a number of Member One’s retail centers, including the most recent center in Forest, VA. Demolition of the existing structure will begin in the spring, and construction is anticipated to be complete by early 2019.

Frank Carter, President and Chief Executive Officer of Member One, sees the future opening of the new retail center, the credit union’s 14th location, as a significant step forward in serving the South Roanoke population.

“We have been looking to open a new location in that area for some time now,” stated Carter. “The Franklin Road corridor is growing rapidly with an influx of new and expanding businesses, so it makes perfect sense for Member One to have a presence in such a vibrant part of Roanoke.”

According to Jean Hopstetter, Executive Vice President of Member One, the new retail center will answer the need for a branch presence in South Roanoke. “We always want to provide service where it is convenient for our members,” said Hopstetter. “This will be the ideal location for local consumers and businesses, as well as for those who use Franklin Road as a commuter route.”

The retail center will be led by Frank Giannini, a Member One veteran and Roanoke resident. Giannini spent 11 years working in event production before joining Member One in 2010, where he has most recently worked to develop relationships with many of the credit union’s partner companies. He had previously worked in event production for organizations such as the Smithsonian Institution. Prior to joining Member One, Giannini served as head of young adult and adult education programs at the Taubman Museum of Art in Roanoke.

Giannini is a current member and past-president of the Rotary Club of Roanoke Valley and a board member of Roanoke Valley Children’s choir. He graduated from the University of Maine with a B.A. in History, and received his M.A. in Teaching from Hollins University.

Giannini is delighted to be heading up the new retail center.

“We are in the midst of an exciting time of growth for Member One,” said Giannini. “To be given the responsibility of extending our service to the residents and businesses of South Roanoke is a challenge I accept with great pleasure.”

Rendering of the new Member One retail center in South Roanoke by Interactive Design Group.
About Member One Federal Credit Union

Member One FCU is a full-service, member-owned financial institution serving the needs of its communities for over 75 years. Member One has over 100,000 members, $900 million in assets, 13 branch locations, a Real Estate Center, and a national ATM network.

About Interactive Design Group

Based in Roanoke, VA, Interactive Design Group is a multi-disciplinary architecture firm with clients in Virginia, West Virginia, and North Carolina. Founded in 1997, Interactive Design Group serves a wide variety of industry sectors, including corporate, financial, retail, education, religious, healthcare, industrial, and food service.

Source Article

U.Va. looks to clinch ACC against Jackets; Hokies aim for crucial win versus Clemson

It hasn’t been easy for Georgia Tech men’s basketball coach Josh Pastner to point his players to examples of No. 1 Virginia floundering this season for extended stretches. Visual evidence has been difficult to discover.

Georgia Tech arrives Wednesday in Charlottesville looking to play better in its third full game without starting point guard Jose Alvarado, who was lost for the season Feb. 11 when he suffered a dislocated left elbow against Duke, than the Yellow Jackets played in losses at Wake Forest and against Virginia Tech.

Of course, trying to do what only Virginia Tech has been able to accomplish this season — win in Charlottesville — will be a tall order for Georgia Tech on a night when U.Va. (24-2, 13-1) can clinch the Atlantic Coast Conference’s regular-season title with a victory.

Clemson will be in a similar situation to Georgia Tech on Wednesday night at Virginia Tech (19-8, 8-6) as the No. 15-ranked Tigers will again be without starting point guard Shelton Mitchell, who sat out Clemson’s home loss Sunday against Duke while working through concussion protocol.

Judging from what Pastner has seen of U.Va., something akin to flawlessness will be required for Georgia Tech to upset the Cavaliers, who will be playing for the first time since Feb. 13 in a 59-50 win at Miami.

“There’s not that many games they’ve struggled (in) to watch,” said Pastner, whose team has lost five consecutive games — three of which have taken place since Feb. 9, when he offered strong public denials of sexual assault allegations against him. “They’re very well-coached and they’re really, really good. For us to win the game on Wednesday, we’ll have to be near perfect on both sides of the basketball and, of course, we’re going to have to score against them. That’s easier said than done.”

Though U.Va. has been typically stout defensively all season (best in the nation in scoring defense, 52.7 points per game; third-best in field-goal percentage defense, 37.7; fifth-best in 3-point field-goal percentage defense, 29.7), the Cavaliers were on another level in the first half against Miami. U.Va. surrendered 16 points in the opening 20 minutes.

U.Va. guard De’Andre Hunter came off the bench to score 22 points on 8-of-16 shooting from the floor, helping the Cavaliers gain some breathing room in the second half of what had been a close game. Guard Kyle Guy (team-high 15.2 ppg), who took advantage of his time away from the court this past weekend to get engaged, chipped in with 13 points at Miami.

Georgia Tech (11-16, 4-10) has moved Josh Okogie (team-high 18.6 ppg) from scoring guard to point guard to try to adjust without Alvarado (12.1 ppg, 3 assists per game), but his recent absence has been far from the Yellow Jackets’ only on-court issue. They’re second-to-last in the ACC in scoring (65.3 ppg) and field-goal percentage (42.3), and last in 3-point shooting percentage (29.8).

U.Va. will be seeking its third ACC regular-season title in the last five seasons (also won it in the 2014 and ’15 seasons). The Cavaliers followed up the ’14 regular-season crown by also winning the ACC tournament championship.

Virginia Tech has stolen a few traits of U.Va.’s approach to improve its own defensive performance, even throwing some of the Cavaliers’ pack-line philosophy at them Feb. 11 when the Hokies upset then-No. 2 U.Va. 61-60 in overtime.

After holding U.Va. to 34.4 percent shooting from the floor, Virginia Tech limited Georgia Tech to 36.4 percent last Saturday in the Hokies’ 76-56 road win. They were the lowest shooting percentages Virginia Tech, which has employed more zone in recent weeks, has surrendered in ACC play this season.

With a 3-1 mark in its last four games, Virginia Tech heads into a critical opportunity against Clemson (20-6, 9-5) seeking what would be another NCAA tournament résumé-building win.

Going into Tuesday night’s games, Virginia Tech was 35th in advanced statistical guru Ken Pomeroy’s rankings and 55th in the Ratings Percentage Index. Clemson was 10th in the RPI and 16th in Pomeroy’s rankings. The Hokies are 3-6 against teams ranked among the top 50 in the RPI, including 2-3 against the top 25 in the RPI.

Clemson, which has lost back-to-back ACC games for the first time this season, was unable to overcome 13 turnovers Sunday in its 66-57 home loss to Duke. Tigers guards Marcquise Reed (team-high 15.6 ppg) and Gabe DeVoe (13 ppg) were a combined 4-of-24 shooting from the floor, scoring 16 points combined.

Without Mitchell (11.8 ppg), and with Reed handling the ball more in his absence, Clemson had a tough time against Duke’s zone. Clemson coach Brad Brownell, whose team has lost three consecutive times to Virginia Tech and in five of its last six trips to Cassell Coliseum, won’t be surprised to see more zone from the Hokies.

“It looks like they’re doing a little bit better job maybe of protecting the basketball,” said Brownell, who has also been without forward Donte Graham — arguably Clemson’s best player this season — since he suffered a torn ACL in late January. “I thought they really guarded well at Virginia. They played just a terrific game really on both ends. …I think their guys are really in good position (defensively) supporting each other.”

Wood can be reached by phone at 757-247-4642 or Twitter at @normwood

Source Article

Jefferson Forest Boys Swimming – ABC13 Team of the Week

FOREST, Va. (WSET) – Our ABC13 Team of the Week (February 14, 2018) is the Jefferson Forest Boys Swim Team.

The Cavaliers won the Region Championship one week ago, and now send 14 male swimmers, along with 7 females, to the state championships this weekend. In the process, the JF Boys set a new school record in the 200 medley relay, a sign swimmers say they’re hungry for an even better performance at states this year. Senior Brendan Murray talked about the team’s progress, saying "Last state meet, we didn’t win a single individual event except..minus the relay. But we really worked together as a team, and combined all of our strengths together to form a giant force."

Senior Brian Grimmett agreed, saying the once the team started clicking, they’ve been focused on the title. "We want to win. We came into the (region) meet, we came in hot, and that’s what we’re going to have to do to have another repeat. We’re just gonna have to come in ‘ballin’ out’. And that’s really what it’s gonna take, we have to race 110 percent each time."

Source Article

Forest City Reports 2017 Fourth-Quarter and Yearend Results – Dayton Business Journal

CLEVELAND, Feb. 8, 2018 /PRNewswire/ — Forest City Realty Trust, Inc. (NYSE: FCEA) today announced financial results for the three months and year ended December 31, 2017.

Net Earnings/Loss
The company had 2017 fourth-quarter net earnings of $102.9 million, or $0.38 per share, compared with net earnings of $1.8 million, or $0.01 per share for the fourth quarter of 2016. For the year ended December 31, 2017, the company had net earnings of $206.0 million, or $0.78 per share, compared with a net loss of $158.4 million, or $0.61 per share, for the year ended December 31, 2016. Per share amounts throughout this release are presented on a fully diluted basis.

The primary drivers of the net earnings variance for the fourth quarter included higher gains on disposition of non-core assets, increased tax benefit and a 2016 interest rate swap breakage fee that did not recur. These positive factors were partially offset by higher organizational transformation costs and severance, compared with the fourth quarter of 2016.

In addition to these fourth-quarter factors, the net earnings variance for the full year was driven primarily by lower 2017 impairments, partially offset by 2016 gains from dispositions.

Additional factors impacting net earnings/loss for the three months and year ended December 31, 2017, are described below under FFO and Operating FFO and are included in the company’s supplemental package for the quarter ended December 31, 2017, furnished to the SEC on Form 8-K. The Form 8-K and supplemental package are available on the company’s website,

Consolidated revenues for the fourth quarter were $225.9 million, compared with $239.7 million for the fourth quarter of 2016. For the year ended December 31, 2017, revenues were $911.9 million, compared with $929.5 million for the year ended December 31, 2016.

Funds From Operations (FFO)
Fourth-quarter FFO was $113.8 million, or $0.42 per share, compared with $80.4 million, or $0.31 per share for the fourth-quarter of 2016. FFO for the year ended December 31, 2017 was $422.1 million, or $1.58 per share, compared with $241.7 million, or $0.92 per share for the year ended December 31, 2016.

As noted under Net Earnings/Loss, drivers of the positive quarter-over-quarter FFO variance included increased tax benefit and a 2016 interest rate swap breakage fee that did not recur in 2017, partially offset by higher organizational transformation costs and severance. The year-over-year FFO variance was primarily driven by 2016 impairment of non-depreciable real estate that did not recur in 2017, partially offset by 2016 gains on disposition.

FFO and FFO per share are non-GAAP measures commonly used by publicly traded real estate companies. Included with this press release is a table reconciling net earnings, the most comparable GAAP measure, to FFO.

Operating FFO
Operating FFO for the fourth quarter was $102.6 million, or $0.38 per share, compared with $113.3 million, or $0.43 per share, for the fourth quarter of 2016. For the year ended December 31, 2017 Operating FFO was $412.8 million, or $1.54 per share, compared with $386.5 million, or $1.46 per share, for the year ended December 31, 2016.

Primary positive factors impacting 2017 full-year Operating FFO included decreased interest expense of $31.3 million, increased net operating income (NOI) from the mature portfolio of $13.2 million, improved other NOI/Corporate G&A of $12.7 million, most of which is reduced overhead expense, a tax credit related to Westchester’s Ridge Hill of $7.2 million, lease termination fee income of $4.1 million, increased NOI from new property openings of $3.5 million, and increased profit from land sales, primarily at Stapleton, of $1.9 million. These positive factors were partially offset by reduced Operating FFO from properties sold of $22.3 million; reduced interest capitalized to active development projects of $19.8 million; and a 2016 development fee related to Ballston Quarter that did not recur.

Factors impacting Operating FFO for the fourth quarter and year to date are illustrated in bridge diagrams included in the company’s supplemental package for the three months and year ended December 31, 2017. The supplemental package also includes additional explanations of factors impacting Net Earnings, Operating FFO and FFO for the three months and year ended December 31, 2017.

Operating FFO is a non-GAAP measure derived from FFO. The company believes Operating FFO provides investors with additional information about its core operations. Included with this press release is a table reconciling FFO to Operating FFO.

Strategic Alternatives
As previously announced, the company’s Board of Directors, together with management and in consultation with financial and legal advisors, is undertaking a comprehensive review of strategic alternatives to enhance stockholder value, including, but not limited to, an accelerated and enhanced operating plan, structural alternatives for the company’s assets, and potential merger, acquisition or sale transactions.

There is no timetable for completion of this review, and there can be no assurance that this review will result in a strategic change or any transaction being announced or agreed upon. The company will not comment further on the progress or status of the review unless the company determines that further disclosure is appropriate or required by law. While the review is underway, the company remains fully focused on its operations and on the continued execution of its strategies to create stockholder value and close the gap between its share price and net asset value.

"We finished 2017 with outstanding results, driven by continued diligent execution of our strategies," said David J. LaRue, Forest City president and chief executive officer. "Those strategies – simplify and streamline the business, deleverage, improve margins and reduce development risk – have transformed Forest City into a focused owner, operator and placemaker with a strong balance sheet, competitive margins, high-quality assets in the nation’s best markets, and growth opportunities within the portfolio and from entitled development.

"For the full year, net earnings, FFO and Operating FFO were each up meaningfully, both in total and on a per-share basis. 2017 Operating FFO of $1.54 per share was near the top of the guidance range we introduced with our second-quarter results last year. We are particularly pleased with the growth in Operating FFO because we achieved it in a year in which we also executed gross dispositions of $650 million, reduced total debt by $505 million, and had nearly $20 million less in capitalized interest as a result of reduced development.

"The portfolio finished the year on a high note, as we had anticipated,with comparable property NOI in the fourth quarter up 6.4 percent in office and 5.6 percent in apartments. For the year, overall comp NOI growth was 3.1 percent, in line with the guidance we provided to investors during 2017. We also continue to see strong same-space rent growth in our office portfolio, led by University Park in Cambridge and MetroTech in Brooklyn.

"Our ratio of net debt to adjusted EBITDA finished the year at 7.4 times, on a rolling 12-month basis, a full turn of improvement from 8.4 times at the end of 2016, and well on the way to our goal of 6.5 times by 2019. The 7.4 times ratio is down nearly 40 percent from the end of 2013, and reflects elimination of approximately $2.2 billion of debt from our balance sheet over that period of time.

"Our focus on margin improvement, through both revenue enhancements and expense reduction, continues to pay off. Results to date from our operations and corporate segments already reflect 370 basis points of improvement in our adjusted EBITDA margins, compared with yearend 2016. We are confident in our ability to achieve our goal of a stabilized run rate of 400 to 500 basis points of improvement.

"Turning to our retail dispositions, during the fourth quarter, we closed the sale of the first two regional malls in our 10-mall portfolio disposition to QIC and closed a third mall in January. We expect three more malls to sell outright in early 2018 as we obtain lender consents, with the final four malls expected to close at later dates as we secure replacement assets into which to redeploy our ownership stake. As a reminder, the overall QIC transaction values the regional malls at approximately $1.55 billion at our share.

"For our 12-center specialty retail disposition with Madison International, during the fourth quarter we closed on the conversion of our common ownership interest in those centers to a preferred interest. The transaction with Madison values the specialty portfolio at approximately $450 million at our share. We are working with our partner to identify office and/or apartment assets into which we expect to redeploy our ownership interest.

"On January 15, we announced an agreement with Greenland USA, our joint-venture partner at Pacific Park Brooklyn, to reduce our ownership in the JV going forward from 30 percent to 5 percent, and to increase Greenland’s stake from 70 percent to 95 percent. The three multifamily buildings already completed by the JV will remain in the 70/30 structure, and Forest City will complete construction of the permanent rail yard at the site. Greenland will assume primary responsibility for vertical development of the remaining entitlement. Final closing of the agreement is pending necessary approvals and consents.

"As we noted in our press release announcing this change, this is a win-win for both companies, as well as for community partners and stakeholders. It allows us to continue to execute on our strategy of reducing development risk, and gives us added flexibility in capital allocation. We remain fully engaged at Pacific Park and we continue to believe strongly in New York City, our largest core market. We intend to maintain a significant presence in this important market."

"I want to express my deep gratitude to our talented and dedicated associates, whose hard work during 2017 led directly to these outstanding results. It is difficult to overstate what they have achieved, and continue to achieve, in the face of uncertainty and the potential for distraction. Throughout our transformation, they have continued to perform at a very high level and to focus on creating value for our shareholders and driving future success."

Comparable NOI, Occupancies and Rent
Overall comparable net operating income for the three months ended December 31, 2017, increased 6.1 percent, with increases of 6.4 percent in office and 5.6 percent in apartments compared with results for the same period in 2016.

Comparable office occupancies were 97.4 percent at December 31, 2017, up from 96.3 percent in the fourth quarter of 2016. For the rolling 12-month period ended December 31, 2017, rent per square foot in new, same-space office leases increased 16.4 percent over prior rents.

In the apartment portfolio, average monthly rents per unit for the company’s comparable apartments rose to $1,537 for the year ended December 31, 2017, a 1.6 percent increase compared with average monthly rents for the year ended December 31, 2016. Comparable average rents per unit in the company’s core markets were $2,020, a 1.2 percent increase from the comparable period in 2016. Comparable economic occupancies for the year ended December 31, 2017, were 93.8 percent, down from 94.2 percent for the year ended December 31, 2016.

Comparable NOI, defined as NOI from stabilized properties operated in the three months and years ended December 31, 2017 and 2016, is a non-GAAP financial measure. Included in this release is a schedule that presents comparable NOI and a reconciliation of earnings before income taxes to NOI.

Opening and Projects Under Construction
During the fourth quarter, Forest City began phased opening of Mint Town Center, a 399-unit apartment community with 7,000 square feet of street-level retail at Stapleton in Denver.

At December 31, 2017, Forest City had 6 projects under construction at a total cost of $616.9 million, or $191.2 million at the company’s share, for a development ratio of 5.8 percent, well below the company’s long-term target of 7.5 percent. Projects under construction include:


Ardan, a 389-unit apartment community in Dallas that is also part of the ASRS fund, is expected to begin phased opening in the first quarter of 2018. Ballston Quarter Residential, a 406-unit apartment community, including 53,000 square feet of lower-level retail, that is part of the company’s mixed-use redevelopment of the former Ballston Common Mall in Arlington, VA. The project is expected to begin phased opening in the third quarter of 2018. Aster Conservatory Green North, a 256-unit apartment community at Stapleton in Denver, is expected to be completed in the first quarter of 2019. The Guild, a 191-unit apartment community at The Yards in Washington, D.C., is expected to be completed in the first quarter of 2019. Capper 769, a 179-unit apartment community in Washington, D.C., is expected to be completed in the first quarter of 2019.


Ballston Quarter Redevelopment, the 307,000-square-foot retail component of the company’s mixed-use redevelopment of the former Ballston Common Mall in Arlington, VA. The retail component is expected to be completed in the third quarter of 2018.

"2017 was a year of outstanding performance for Forest City," said LaRue. "That performance is a direct result of executing our strategies and reflects our commitment to create shareholder value by continuously enhancing the performance of our real estate and our company.

"This management team – and all of our associates – take pride in ‘doing what we say we will do.’ We also know that consistently meeting or exceeding our goals for the business is how we build credibility and trust with investors, partners, communities and other stakeholders. Over just the past few years, we have dramatically simplified and streamlined the business, focused our portfolio on urban placemaking and high-performing assets in top markets, significantly reduced debt and development risk, improved margins, processes, and efficiency, and positioned the company for future growth.

"Our strategy and collective efforts are supported by a strong board that, as an integral part of our transformation, has taken historic actions to significantly enhance governance practices, increase independence, eliminate our former dual-share class structure, increase shareholder returns through dividend growth and listen and respond to the input and viewpoints of shareholders.

"Together, we look ahead to 2018 and beyond knowing that we have the talent, drive, strategic vision and collective ability to grow Forest City and create substantial shareholder value going forward."

Corporate Description
Forest City Realty Trust, Inc. is an NYSE-listed national real estate company with $8.1 billion in consolidated assets. The company is principally engaged in the ownership, development, management and acquisition of office, retail and apartment real estate throughout the United States. For more information, visit

Supplemental Package
Please refer to the Investors section of the company’s website at for a supplemental package, which the company furnished to the SEC on Form 8-K on February 8, 2018, and is also available on the company’s website, The supplemental package includes operating and financial information for the quarter ended December 31, 2017, with reconciliations of non-GAAP financial measures, such as Operating FFO, FFO, NOI, comparable NOI, EBITDA and Adjusted EBITDA to their most directly comparable GAAP financial measures.

Investor Presentations
Please note the company periodically posts updated investor presentations on the Investors page of its website at It is possible the periodic updates may include information deemed to be material. Therefore, the company encourages investors, the media, and other interested parties to review the Investors page of its website at for the most recent investor presentation.

FFO, a non-GAAP measure, along with net earnings, provides additional information about the company’s core operations. While property dispositions, acquisitions or other factors impact net earnings in the short-term, the company believes FFO presents a consistent view of the overall financial performance of its business from period-to-period since the core of its business is the recurring operations of its portfolio of real estate assets. Management believes that the exclusion from FFO of gains and losses from the sale of operating real estate assets allows investors and analysts to readily identify the operating results of the company’s core assets and assists in comparing those operating results between periods. Implicit in historical cost accounting for real estate assets in accordance with GAAP is the assumption that the value of real estate assets diminishes ratably over time. Since real estate values have historically risen or fallen with market conditions, many real estate investors and analysts have considered presentations of operating results for real estate companies using historical cost accounting alone to be insufficient. Because FFO excludes depreciation and amortization of real estate assets and impairment of depreciable real estate, management believes that FFO, along with the required GAAP presentations, provides another measurement of the Company’s performance relative to its competitors and an additional basis on which to make decisions involving operating, financing and investing activities than the required GAAP presentations alone would provide.

The majority of the company’s peers in the publicly traded real estate industry report operations using FFO as defined by the National Association of Real Estate Investment Trusts ("NAREIT"). FFO is defined by NAREIT as net earnings excluding the following items at the company’s ownership: i) gain (loss) on full or partial disposition of rental properties, divisions and other investments (net of tax); ii) non-cash charges for real estate depreciation and amortization; iii) impairment of depreciable real estate (net of tax); and iv) cumulative or retrospective effect of change in accounting principle (net of tax).

Operating FFO
In addition to reporting FFO, the company reports Operating FFO, a non-GAAP measure, as an additional measure of its operating performance. It believes it is appropriate to adjust FFO for significant items driven by transactional activity and factors relating to the financial and real estate markets, rather than factors specific to the on-going operating performance of its properties. The company uses Operating FFO as an indicator of continuing operating results in planning and executing its business strategy. Operating FFO should not be considered to be an alternative to net earnings computed under GAAP as an indicator of the company’s operating performance and may not be directly comparable to similarly-titled measures reported by other companies.

The company defines Operating FFO as FFO adjusted to exclude: i) impairment of non-depreciable real estate; ii) write-offs of abandoned development projects and demolition costs; iii) income recognized on state and federal historic and other tax credits; iv) gains or losses from extinguishment of debt; v) change in fair market value of nondesignated hedges; vi) gains or losses on change in control of interests; vii) the adjustment to recognize rental revenues and rental expense using the straight-line method; viii) participation payments to ground lessors on refinancing of our properties; ix) other transactional items; x) the Nets pre-tax FFO; and xi) income taxes on FFO. The company believes its presentation of FFO and Operating FFO provides important supplemental information to its investors.

NOI, a non-GAAP measure, reflects the company’s share of the core operations of its rental real estate portfolio, prior to any financing activity. NOI is defined as revenues less operating expenses at the company’s ownership within its Office, Apartments, Retail and Development segments, except for revenues and cost of sales associated with sales of land held in these segments. The activities of its Corporate and Other segments do not involve the operations of its rental property portfolio and therefore are not included in NOI.

The company believes NOI provides important information about its core operations and, along with earnings before income taxes, is necessary to understand its business and operating results. Because NOI excludes general and administrative expenses, interest expense, depreciation and amortization, revenues and cost of sales associated with sales of land, other non-property income and losses, and gains and losses from property dispositions, it provides a performance measure that, when compared year over year, reflects the revenues and expenses directly associated with owning and operating office, apartment and retail real estate and the impact to operations from trends in occupancy rates, rental rates, and operating costs, providing a perspective on operations not immediately apparent from net income. The company uses NOI to evaluate its operating performance on a portfolio basis since NOI allows it to evaluate the impact that factors such as occupancy levels, lease structure, rental rates, and tenant mix have on its financial results. Investors can use NOI as supplementary information to evaluate the company’s business. In addition, management believes NOI provides useful information to the investment community about its financial and operating performance when compared to other REITs since NOI is generally recognized as a standard measure of performance in the real estate industry. NOI is not intended to be a performance measure that should be regarded as an alternative to, or more meaningful than, our GAAP measures, and may not be directly comparable to similarly-titled measures reported by other companies.

Comparable NOI
In addition to NOI, the company uses comparable NOI, a non-GAAP measure, as a metric to evaluate the performance of its office and apartment properties. This measure provides a same-store comparison of operating results of all stabilized properties that are open and operating in all periods presented. Non-capitalizable development costs and unallocated management and service company overhead, net of service fee revenues, are not directly attributable to an individual operating property and are considered non-comparable NOI. In addition, certain income and expense items at the property level, such as lease termination income, real estate tax assessments or rebates, certain litigation expenses incurred and any related legal settlements and NOI impacts of changes in ownership percentages, are excluded from comparable NOI. Due to the planned/ongoing disposition of substantially all of the company’s regional mall and specialty retail portfolios, it is no longer disclosing comparable NOI for its retail properties. Other properties and activities such as Arena, federally assisted housing, military housing, straight-line rent adjustments and participation payments as a result of refinancing transactions are not evaluated on a comparable basis and the NOI from these properties and activities is considered non-comparable NOI.

Comparable NOI is an operating statistic defined as NOI from stabilized properties operated in all periods presented. The company believes comparable NOI is useful because it measures the performance of the same properties on a period-to-period basis and is used to assess operating performance and resource allocation of the operating properties. While property dispositions, acquisitions or other factors impact net earnings in the short term, the company believes comparable NOI presents a consistent view of the overall performance of its operating portfolio from period to period. A reconciliation of earnings (loss) before income taxes, the most comparable financial measure calculated in accordance with GAAP, to NOI, and a reconciliation from NOI to comparable NOI are included in this release.

EBITDA, a non-GAAP measure, is defined as net earnings excluding the following items at the company’s share: i) non-cash charges for depreciation and amortization; ii) interest expense; iii) amortization of mortgage procurement costs; and iv) income taxes. EBITDA may not be directly comparable to similarly-titled measures reported by other companies. The company uses EBITDA as the starting point in order to calculate Adjusted EBITDA as described below.

Adjusted EBITDA
The company defines Adjusted EBITDA, a non-GAAP measure, as EBITDA adjusted to exclude: i) impairment of real estate; ii) gains or losses from extinguishment of debt; iii) gain (loss) on full or partial disposition of rental properties and other investments; iv) gains or losses on change in control of interests; v) other transactional items, including organizational transformation and termination benefits; and vi) the Nets pre-tax EBITDA. The company believes EBITDA, Adjusted EBITDA and net debt to Adjusted EBITDA provide additional information in evaluating our credit and ability to service the company’s debt obligations. Adjusted EBITDA is used by the company’s chief operating decision maker and management to assess operating performance and resource allocations by segment and on a consolidated basis. The company’s management believes Adjusted EBITDA gives the investment community a further understanding of the company’s operating results, including the impact of general and administrative expenses and acquisition-related expenses, before the impact of investing and financing transactions and facilitates comparisons with competitors. However, Adjusted EBITDA should not be viewed as an alternative measure of the company’s operating performance since it excludes financing costs as well as depreciation and amortization costs which are significant economic costs that could materially impact the company’s results of operations and liquidity. Other REITs may use different methodologies for calculating Adjusted EBITDA and, accordingly, the company’s Adjusted EBITDA may not be comparable to other REITs.

Net Debt to Adjusted EBITDA
Net Debt to Adjusted EBITDA, a non-GAAP measure, is defined as total debt, net at the company’s share (total debt includes outstanding borrowings on the company’s revolving credit facility, term loan facility, convertible senior debt, net, nonrecourse mortgages and notes payable, net) less cash and equivalents, at the company’s share, divided by Adjusted EBITDA. Net Debt to Adjusted EBITDA is a supplemental measure derived from non-GAAP financial measures that the company uses to evaluate its capital structure and the magnitude of its debt against its operating performance. The company believes that investors use versions of this ratio in a similar manner. The company’s method of calculating the ratio may be different from methods used by other REITs and, accordingly, may not be comparable to other REITs.

Safe Harbor Language
Statements made in this news release that state the company’s or management’s intentions, hopes, beliefs, expectations or predictions of the future are forward-looking statements. The company’s actual results could differ materially from those expressed or implied in such forward-looking statements due to various risks, uncertainties and other factors. Risks and factors that could cause actual results to differ materially from those in the forward-looking statements include, but are not limited to, the uncertain outcome, impact, effects and results of the company’s Board of Directors’ review of operating, strategic, financial and structural alternatives, the company’s ability to carry out future transactions and strategic investments, as well as the acquisition related costs, unanticipated difficulties realizing benefits expected when entering into a transaction, the company’s ability to qualify or to remain qualified as a REIT, its ability to satisfy REIT distribution requirements, the impact of issuing equity, debt or both, and selling assets to satisfy its future distributions required as a REIT or to fund capital expenditures, future growth and expansion initiatives, the impact of the amount and timing of any future distributions, the impact from complying with REIT qualification requirements limiting its flexibility or causing it to forego otherwise attractive opportunities beyond rental real estate operations, the impact of complying with the REIT requirements related to hedging, its lack of experience operating as a REIT, legislative, administrative, regulatory or other actions affecting REITs, including positions taken by the Internal Revenue Service, the possibility that the company’s Board of Directors will unilaterally revoke its REIT election, the possibility that the anticipated benefits of qualifying as a REIT will not be realized, or will not be realized within the expected time period, the impact of current lending and capital market conditions on its liquidity, its ability to finance or refinance projects or repay its debt, the impact of the slow economic recovery on the ownership, development and management of its commercial real estate portfolio, general real estate investment and development risks, litigation risks, vacancies in its properties, risks associated with developing and managing properties in partnership with others, competition, its ability to renew leases or re-lease spaces as leases expire, illiquidity of real estate investments, its ability to identify and transact on chosen strategic alternatives for a portion of its retail portfolio, bankruptcy or defaults of tenants, anchor store consolidations or closings, the impact of terrorist acts and other armed conflicts, its substantial debt leverage and the ability to obtain and service debt, the impact of restrictions imposed by the company’s revolving credit facility, term loan and senior debt, exposure to hedging agreements, the level and volatility of interest rates, the continued availability of tax-exempt government financing, its ability to receive payment on the notes receivable issued by Onexim in connection with their purchase of our interests in the Barclays Center and the Nets, the impact of credit rating downgrades, effects of uninsured or underinsured losses, effects of a downgrade or failure of its insurance carriers, environmental liabilities, competing interests of its directors and executive officers, the ability to recruit and retain key personnel, risks associated with the sale of tax credits, downturns in the housing market, the ability to maintain effective internal controls, compliance with governmental regulations, increased legislative and regulatory scrutiny of the financial services industry, changes in federal, state or local tax laws and international trade agreements, volatility in the market price of its publicly traded securities, inflation risks, cybersecurity risks, cyber incidents, shareholder activism efforts, conflicts of interest, risks related to its organizational structure including operating through its Operating Partnership and its UPREIT structure, as well as other risks listed from time to time in the company’s SEC filings, including but not limited to, the company’s annual and quarterly reports.

Reconciliation of Net Earnings (Loss) (GAAP) to FFO (non-GAAP)

The table below reconciles net earnings (loss), the most comparable GAAP measure, to FFO, a non-GAAP measure.

Three Months Ended December 31,

Years Ended December 31,





(in thousands)

Net earnings (loss) attributable to Forest City Realty Trust, Inc. (GAAP)

$ 102,906

$ 1,825

$ 206,030

$ (158,402)

Depreciation and Amortization—real estate (1)





Gain on disposition of full or partial interests in rental properties





Impairment of depreciable rental properties



Income tax expense adjustment — current and deferred (2):

Gain on disposition of full or partial interests in rental properties




FFO attributable to Forest City Realty Trust, Inc. (Non-GAAP)

$ 113,814

$ 80,378

$ 422,115

$ 241,733

FFO Per Share – Diluted

Numerator (in thousands):

FFO attributable to Forest City Realty Trust, Inc.

$ 113,814

$ 80,378

$ 422,115

$ 241,733

If-Converted Method (adjustments for interest):

4.250% Notes due 2018





3.625% Notes due 2020





FFO for per share data

$ 114,955

$ 81,519

$ 426,678

$ 247,545


Weighted average shares outstanding—Basic





Effect of stock options, restricted stock and performance shares





Effect of convertible debt





Effect of convertible 2006 Class A Common Units





Weighted average shares outstanding – Diluted





FFO Per Share – Diluted

$ 0.42

$ 0.31

$ 1.58

$ 0.92

(1) The following table provides detail of depreciation and amortization:

Three Months Ended December 31,

Years Ended December 31,





(in thousands)

Full Consolidation

$ 58,857

$ 62,327

$ 248,353

$ 250,848

Non-Real Estate





Real Estate Full Consolidation





Real Estate related to noncontrolling interest





Real Estate Unconsolidated





Real Estate Discontinued Operations


Real Estate at Company share

$ 73,681

$ 82,105

$ 310,594

$ 318,635

(2) The following table provides detail of income tax expense (benefit):

Three Months Ended December 31,

Years Ended December 31,





(in thousands)

Income tax expense on FFO

Operating Earnings:

Current taxes

$ 1,082

$ 1,466

$ 1,217

$ 5,711

Deferred taxes





Total income tax expense on FFO





Income tax expense (benefit) on non-FFO

Disposition of full or partial interests in rental properties:

Current taxes

$ 687

$ —

$ 5,561

$ (4,351)

Deferred taxes


Total income tax expense on non-FFO




Grand Total

$ (26,431)

$ 1,566

$ (21,422)

$ 85,105

Reconciliation of FFO to Operating FFO

Three Months Ended December 31,

Years Ended December 31,



% Change



% Change

(in thousands)

(in thousands)

FFO attributable to Forest City Realty Trust, Inc.

$ 113,814

$ 80,378

$ 422,115

$ 241,733

Impairment of non-depreciable real estate


Write-offs of abandoned development projects and demolition costs





Tax credit income





Loss on extinguishment of debt





Change in fair market value of nondesignated hedges





Interest rate swap breakage fee



Net gain on disposition of interest in development project


Net gain on disposition of partial interest in other investment – Nets


Straight-line rent adjustments





Participation payments



Organizational transformation and termination benefits





Nets pre-tax FFO


Income tax expense (benefit) on FFO





Operating FFO attributable to Forest City Realty Trust, Inc.

$ 102,613

$ 113,309


$ 412,813

$ 386,461

6.8 %

If-Converted Method (adjustments for interest) (in thousands):

4.250% Notes due 2018





3.625% Notes due 2020





Operating FFO attributable to Forest City Realty Trust, Inc. (If-Converted)

$ 103,754

$ 114,450

$ 417,376

$ 392,273

Weighted average shares outstanding – Diluted





Operating FFO per share – Diluted

$ 0.38

$ 0.43


$ 1.54

$ 1.46

5.5 %

Reconciliation of Earnings (Loss) Before Income Taxes (GAAP) to Net Operating Income (non-GAAP) (in thousands):

Three Months Ended December 31,

Years Ended December 31,





Earnings (loss) before income taxes (GAAP)

$ 41,922

$ 1,307

$ 144,890

$ (454,173)

(Earnings) loss from unconsolidated entities





Earnings (loss) before income taxes and earnings from unconsolidated entities





Land sales





Cost of land sales





Other land development revenues





Other land development expenses





Corporate general and administrative expenses





Organizational transformation and termination benefits





Depreciation and amortization





Write-offs of abandoned development projects and demolition costs




Impairment of real estate



Interest and other income





Interest expense





Interest rate swap breakage fee



Amortization of mortgage procurement costs





Loss on extinguishment of debt





NOI related to unconsolidated entities (1)





NOI related to noncontrolling interest (2)





NOI related to discontinued operations (3)


Net Operating Income (Non-GAAP)

$ 153,267

$ 156,543

$ 621,800

$ 622,190

(1) NOI related to unconsolidated entities:

Equity in earnings (GAAP)

$ 1,329

$ 4,181

$ 25,163

$ 29,701

Exclude non-NOI activity from unconsolidated entities:

Land and non-rental activity, net





Interest and other income





Write offs of abandoned development projects and demolition costs





Depreciation and amortization





Interest expense and extinguishment of debt





NOI related to unconsolidated entities

$ 49,141

$ 58,835

$ 209,608

$ 223,592

(2) NOI related to noncontrolling interest:

Earnings from continuing operations attributable to noncontrolling interests (GAAP)

$ (519)

$ (915)

$ (9,006)

$ (6,078)

Exclude non-NOI activity from noncontrolling interests:

Land and non-rental activity, net





Interest and other income





Write offs of abandoned development projects and demolition costs



Depreciation and amortization





Interest expense and extinguishment of debt





Gain (loss) on disposition of full or partial interests in rental properties and interest in unconsolidated entities




NOI related to noncontrolling interest

$ (12,927)

$ (9,837)

$ (43,664)

$ (37,221)

(3) NOI related to discontinued operations:

Operating loss from discontinued operations, net of tax (GAAP)

$ —

$ —

$ —

$ (1,126)

Less loss from discontinued operations attributable to noncontrolling interests


Exclude non-NOI activity from discontinued operations (net of noncontrolling interest):

Depreciation and amortization


Interest expense


Income tax benefit


NOI related to discontinued operations

$ —

$ —

$ —

$ 1,198

Net Operating Income (Non-GAAP) Detail (in thousands)

Three Months Ended December 31,

Years Ended December 31,



% Change



% Change

Office Segment

Comparable NOI



6.4 %



2.9 %

Non-Comparable NOI





Office Product Type NOI





Other NOI(1)





Total Office Segment





Apartment Segment

Comparable NOI



5.6 %



3.3 %

Non-Comparable NOI





Apartment Product Type NOI





Federally Assisted Housing





Other NOI(1)





Total Apartment Segment





Retail Segment

Retail NOI





Madison Preferred Return



Retail Product Type NOI





Other NOI(1)





Total Retail Segment






Comparable NOI



6.1 %



3.1 %

Retail NOI





Non-Comparable NOI (2)





Product Type NOI





Federally Assisted Housing





Other NOI (1):

Straight-line rent adjustments





Participation payments



Other Operations









Total Operations





Development Segment

Recently-Opened Properties/Redevelopment





Other Development (3)





Total Development Segment





Other Segment


Grand Total

$ 153,267

$ 156,543

$ 621,800

$ 622,190

(1) Includes straight-line rent adjustments, participation payments as a result of refinancing transactions on our properties and management and service company overhead, net of service fee revenues.

(2) Non-comparable NOI includes lease termination income of $1,263 and $7,482 for the three months and year ended December 31, 2017, compared with $2,079 and $3,404 for the three months and year ended December 31, 2016.

(3) Includes straight-line adjustments, non-capitalizable development overhead and other costs on our development projects.

View original content with multimedia:

SOURCE Forest City Realty Trust, Inc.

The information on this page is provided by PR Newswire. All rights reserved. Reproduction or redistribution of this content without prior written consent from PR Newswire is strictly prohibited. Dayton Business Journal is not responsible for this content. Learn more about this service.

Source Article

Reston Real Estate: Deer Forest

The Deer Forest Cluster is a picturesque community of single-family homes in Reston’s North Point district. Built in the mid-1980s, these spacious colonials back to wooded parkland and feature two-car garages. They are located on Deer Forest Road off Reston Parkway.

Deer Forest residents can walk to nearby Deer Forest Recreation Area or North Point Village Center using the Pink Trail. Also nearby are Lake Newport Soccer, Stuart Road Park, and Autumnwood Park.

Search homes for sale in Reston, VA and Deer Forest on our website.

Source Article

Your right to know: Latest property transfers and building permits

Property transfers

Amherst County

Deeds recorded:

Get business newsletters Enter your email: Apps: iOS • Android

Harold T. Lloyd, Raymond E. Lloyd Sr. and Roy Zangari to Tammy L. and Douglas C. Eubanks Jr. New parcel C, 26.015 acres, Elon District, $153,488

Emmett and Jennifer M. Fielder to David J. and Kimberly D. Sherburne. 2 parcels, 1.333 acres, Elon District, $124,900

Vanessa M. Harder and Michele M. Fletcher to Junaid Kazi. Parcel, 62.16 acres, New Glasgow District, $114,529.80

Derin S. and Kathryne G. Foor to Matthew Warren Steel. 4 acres, near Va. 617, $245,000

George Walter Springer, Jean B. Springer and Shane Gray Springer to James A. and Marion S. Smith. Lot 5, block 2, section A, Lynmoor Subdivision, $125,000

Appomattox County

Deeds recorded:

Janice M. and Kenneth L. Marston to Kevin D. and Toy D. Eagle. Lot 2, 16.99 acres, Va. 667, Stonewall District, $42,750

Ray E. and Linda M. Phelps to Nehalben Patel. Parcel 1, Va. 26, 2 acres and parcel 2, Va. 26, 0.2 acres, Stonewall District, $167,000

Benjamin R. Bryant Jr. to Donald Leon and Florence V. Baldwin. Parcel, 1.17 acres, fronting U.S. 460, Cloverhill District, $75,000

Park Foundation to Barney & Turner Investments LLC. Lot 3, Red Rooster Farm, Stonewall District, $22,000

Bedford County

Deeds recorded:

Allen N. Morell and Patricia M. Morell, trustees to Donald F. and Susan S. Poe. Unit 101, building 6, Monoacan Shores, Lakes District, $335,000

John J. Everett to Jesse A. Arrington. Parcel, 47.346 acres, Lakes District, $130,000

David T. and Margaret I. Hults to Darcie A. and Danny W. Audette. Lot 6, block 2, Montvale Acres Subdivision, May 5, Blue Ridge District, $118,000

Dana K. and Roger L. Stevens Jr. to James Ronnie and Teressa Caldwell. Lot 2, Hubbard Heights, Lakes District, $55,000

MH & Associates LLC to TD Ventures LLC. Parcel, 0.5 acre, one mile from Huddleston, Lakes District, $28,000

David R. and Diane G. Finbow to Arthur R. and Bozena T. Kennedy. Lot 6, section 16, Cliffview Estates, Lakes District, $15,000

Timothy A. Flagg and Annette L. Flagg to William L. Crumpacker Jr. and Michelle L. Crumpacker. Parcel 1, 0.580 acres and parcel 2, lot 17, Venable Addition, Town of Bedford, $166,000

Nissen M. and Patricia H. Burstein to Lisa Marie and James Foster III. Unit 4, building 9, Jefferson Villas at Forest, Jefferson District, $252,500

Foxcrest Developers Inc. to Ryan Nathaniel and Candice Alexis Ball. Lot 7, Davis Estates, Jefferson District, $340,000

Oakwood Villas Retirement Homes LLC to Jerry R. and Sally A. Belcher. Lot 1C, phase I, Oakwood Villas, Town of Bedford, $275,000

Great Oaks Partners LLC to Michael John and Brooke Augusta Levens. Lot 5, section 3, Great Oaks Subdivision, Jefferson District, $299,900

James A. and Sharon W. Garrett to Clifford H. and Marilyn L. Summer. Unit 1, building 8, Jefferson Villas at Forest, $242,000

Campbell County

Deeds recorded:

Secretary of Housing and Urban Development of Washington D.C. to Emily A. Perkins. Lot 8, section 1, Oxford Farm, Long Mountain District, $125,000

Tavern Grove LLC to Karen E. Richards. Lot 168, section IV, Tavern Grove, $164,900

Timothy J. and Alina T. Thomas to Aaron C. and Carrie L. Sparkman. Lot 8, section 6, Russell Springs, $224,000

Irene Cox to 4-D Construction Inc. Parcel, Va. 24, 0.92 acres, $35,000

Larry S. Krantz to Troy Brown. 2 parcels, 12.816 acres and 0.45 acres, U.S. 460, Flat Creek District, $319,000

Angela S. Cashwell to Jeremiah M. and Jessica H. Drinkard. Lot 13, section 6, Rainbow Forest, $165,000

Estol F. Leonard Jr. to Crews Shop Road Property LLC. Parcel 2, 3,091 acres, Long Mountain District, $94,000

William J. and Carole V. Glahn to Garnette S. and H.A. Teass Jr. 2 parcels, 0.612 acres, property of New Long Methodist Church, Flat Creek District, $80,000

City of Lynchburg

Deeds recorded:

Robert Pinto and Dorothy Richardson to Mary Darnella C. Brown. Lot Q14, block Q, Cornerstone, $329,000

Charles L. Doremus and Kenna G. Doremus to Francisco Fernando Cortazar and Norma Fretes-Cortazar. Lot 8, Regency Woods Subdivision, $372,500

Samuel Wesley Dill to Quincy Alejandro Thompson. 804 Stuart St., $100,000

J.C. Laughlin Builder Inc. to Gavin R. Elder. Lot 22, Brenleigh Grove Subdivision, $173,000

Lewis G. Stevens Jr. to Elizabeth S. Ellett. Parcel A, 0.571 acres, $128,500

Kirk S. and Jannie M. Handy to Richard and Theresa M. Palazzo. Lot 10, bloack 5, Fort Hill, $150,000

The McCall Group Inc. to Kelly J. and David W. Hazelgrove Jr. Lots 42-45, block 1, Gorman Subdivision, $168,000

James W. Elliott to Samdeb Realty Inc. Lot 9, block 18, plan A, Rivermont Company, $15,500

Brendan A. and Rachel B. Horner to Ronnie and Anita A. Martin. Lot 25, Meadows Court Townhomes, $92,000

Dennis A. Liedstrand, Phoebe M. Liedstrand and Julie M. Liedstrand to Rex Dean and Margaret Shelly Ann Sparklin. Amended lot 73, College Square at Wards Ferry, $127,000

Theresa Diane Reynolds to K.S. Wiles, trustee. Lot 8, Farmington Ridge, $112,000

Wallace G. McKenna Jr., successor trustee to Ashley B. and William N. Mays Jr. Lots 1 and 2, Woodridge Place Subdivision, $264,700

Park Place Holdings LLC to Hanna D. Pollard. Lot 8, Park Place Addition, $118,500

Building permits

Campbell County

LBDJ LLC, 107 Travese Dr., new dwelling, $240,000

Pamela Henderson, 2138 Timberlake Dr., new dwelling, $230,000

Bailey Stone, 1001 Eighth St., carport, $15,000

WRF Properties LLC, 16720 Brookneal Hwy., renovation, $196,600

Bailey Stone, 1001 Eighth St., addition, $8,000

Cynthia Godsey, 3121 Pigeon Run Road, storage building, $4,000

Ricky Trent, 2484 Red House Road, new dwelling, $150,000

Vicky Creasy, 1004 Seventh St., addition, $18,000

Charles Clark Sr., 502 Timberlake Dr., deck, $20,000

McCormick’s Rental LLC, 901 Amherst Ave., renovation, $5,000

Patrick Neff, 54 Somerset Place, pool, $2,800

Brian East, 411 Old Pocket Road, pool, $40,000

7K Farms LLC, 2812 Rocky Road, new dwelling for worker housing, $350,000

William Eubank Jr., 54 N. Ridge Lane, renovation, $138,000

Thomas Doss, 302 Catalpa Road, garage, $1,200

Daniel Carrales, 147 Turning Point Dr., renovation, $15,000

Robert Thibodeau Jr., 724 Gladys Road, storage building, $24,900

Ken Kritzer Sr., 177 Southern Dr., pool, $5,000

Robert Arthur jr., 4919 Red House Road, storage building, $4,000

Brian East, 411 Old Pocket Road, storage building, $40,000

Yoder Land & Timber LLC, 665 Whitehall Road, steel sawmill building, $650,000

Boris Braunroth, 1021 Elliott Road, renovation, $25,000

Freedom of Information laws are commonly referred to as "sunshine laws." (Credit: Metro Creative Connections).

Source Article

Bedford County supervisors approve new Forest housing development

BEDFORD, Va. (WDBJ7) A developer has approval to move forward with plans for a 170-lot housing community in Bedford County.

The Bedford County Board of Supervisors voted 5-2 Monday to allow Thomas Builders of Virginia to construct Country Club Meadows along U.S. 221, where the highway intersects with Gladden Circle.

Supervisors Andy Dooley and Bill Thomasson voted against the proposed development, which is slated to cover 188 acres from U.S. 221 to a point along Everett Road.

Country Club Meadows is the second major development proposed in the Forest area recently by Tom Bell, the owner of Thomas Builders of Virginia. In March an limited liability corporation associated with Bell, Jefferson Manor LLC, sought rezoning for a multifamily and apartment development that could total up to 418 units near Perrowville Road and U.S. 221.

During Monday night’s meeting, Forest-area supervisor John Sharp asked Bell to prioritize development of Country Club Meadows over construction of the Perrowville Road project, citing a desire to avoid further overcrowding in the Forest school district.

Source Article

Invest In A Rental Home In Forest

Investing in rental properties is a fantastic way to enjoy passive income and also enjoy an increase in equity. When you own rental property you get to build your net worth and you also get a reliable income stream coming in each month. Forest, Virginia is a fantastic place to invest in rental properties because the property prices are low and there are lots of properties to choose from.

The properties are easy to rent if you buy in the right area and the area is up and coming so you can always find people to rent your home. Owning rental property gives you freedom and it allows you to enjoy a passive stream of income. Rental properties give you lots of choices because you can always sell the property and cash out or you can even live in it if you want. You have lots of options when you invest in property.

The prices for homes in Forest are very reasonable and you can buy low and wait for the market to catch up. You want to consider your rental properties a long-term investment and you should plan to hold on to them for a long time.

You will experience some gains in equity each year and you just have to make sure that you are making a profit on the rent. The rental income should cover all the costs of the home with some extra left over for your profit. If you plan things right, you can enjoy a fantastic stream of income.

Forest is a fantastic city to invest in rental property and you can enjoy decent returns when you buy property there. If you are ready to increase your income and make more money you should definitely consider buying rental property in Forest.