The Committee to Rebuild Wakefield supports a strong and consistent Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) for the schools. Therefore we support the proposed funding in 2008 for the final phase of Yorktown High School, design at Wakefield and capital needs at the Career Center. We encourage all community members to educate themselves on the bond and hopefully vote for it on November 4!
This link provides information on all four of the Arlington County 2008 Bond Referenda.
Sunday, October 12, 2008
Sunday, October 5, 2008
Milestone Reached, Roadblock Not Addressed
The School Board took long-awaited action on Thursday, 10/2/08, to approve the conceptual design for Wakefield High School. This is a positive step forward for the project.
What does it mean?
The high-level, conceptual design phase is complete. This phase addressed issues such as the scale and relationships among the components of the project. The project can now move to schematic design, where the architects will explore alternative designs and define significant levels of detail for those designs. The community can expect to see illustrations to help visualize the project and learn more specifics about the site features and functions.
Why is it important?
The conceptual design process became protracted and problematic. It hit roadblocks over issues inappropriate for this early phase such as sidewalk setbacks and exterior design elements. While these issues are significant, they were not appropriate for the concept phase. This was reinforced by the County architectural consultant, Roger Lewis, at the County-School Board joint work session last month. (Read about the County-School Boards’ joint work session)
Significant Progress Points
1. A Common Understanding - The Wakefield project was at risk of stalling before it started. Committees were struggling over details that could not be fully addressed in the concept phase. These issues morphed into turf wars. With community vigilance and hard work by the APS staff, the School Board was able to bring the focus back to the high-level concept. It was the right move. All School and County parties can tackle specific concerns from a central starting point.
2. Accountability and Timelines – Bill O’Connor of APS staff heads up the Wakefield project. He brings much building experience – both in a School Board and Municipal environment – to the table. At the School Board meeting, Mr. O’Connor demonstrated a clear commitment to specific deliverables and milestones for Schematic Design and beyond. He also ensured a commitment to open communication among Boards, Committees and the Community. These are all issues our Community has been pushing for since last Spring. (See new project timelines)
3. Executive Sponsorship – To move ahead effectively the reconstruction project requires strong support and leadership from the School Board. The concept design was approved 5-0.
Unaddressed Issue
The outstanding issue remains the 2-committee process. The architect is still in the position of presenting to two committees who represent the Schools and the County. The architect takes feedback and direction from both committees. This is where the roadblocks arose the conceptual design got off track. (Read about the dueling committee process that hampered the project throughout 2008).
While the intent to engage County feedback on issues like zoning earlier in the project is reasonable and hopefully will help avoid late-term delays and cost overruns, it hasn’t worked. The architects literally bounced back and forth between committees, and received conflicting and inconsistent direction.
This basic issue of decision making must be addressed.
So who should be in charge? The Schools own and manages the project – that is public record. The County controls permits and issues bonds. Obviously coordination and collaboration are necessary.
Possible Solution
The PFRC process in new to APS projects. It's been a rocky start, and it will be a part of the project moving forward. The County Board and staff must take the time to clearly define the Operating Guidelines of its committee, the PFRC. The draft guidelines from September 2007 have not been revisited within the year timeline the draft itself specifies. Nor do the guidelines effectively address how, when and where the PFRC engages in an APS project. Wakefield has been the guinea pig of this process, which has been painful. But there is learning to be had and applied moving ahead -- if the County takes the time to do it. The goal needs to be a functional, sustainable school building that supports the needs of the school and the community delivered in a timely fashion without wasting resources. The PFRC process needs to be better aligned to support that goal.
We encourage Community members to communicate with the County Manager’s office and the County Board, encouraging them to provide more clear direction for the PFRC.
What does it mean?
The high-level, conceptual design phase is complete. This phase addressed issues such as the scale and relationships among the components of the project. The project can now move to schematic design, where the architects will explore alternative designs and define significant levels of detail for those designs. The community can expect to see illustrations to help visualize the project and learn more specifics about the site features and functions.
Why is it important?
The conceptual design process became protracted and problematic. It hit roadblocks over issues inappropriate for this early phase such as sidewalk setbacks and exterior design elements. While these issues are significant, they were not appropriate for the concept phase. This was reinforced by the County architectural consultant, Roger Lewis, at the County-School Board joint work session last month. (Read about the County-School Boards’ joint work session)
Significant Progress Points
1. A Common Understanding - The Wakefield project was at risk of stalling before it started. Committees were struggling over details that could not be fully addressed in the concept phase. These issues morphed into turf wars. With community vigilance and hard work by the APS staff, the School Board was able to bring the focus back to the high-level concept. It was the right move. All School and County parties can tackle specific concerns from a central starting point.
2. Accountability and Timelines – Bill O’Connor of APS staff heads up the Wakefield project. He brings much building experience – both in a School Board and Municipal environment – to the table. At the School Board meeting, Mr. O’Connor demonstrated a clear commitment to specific deliverables and milestones for Schematic Design and beyond. He also ensured a commitment to open communication among Boards, Committees and the Community. These are all issues our Community has been pushing for since last Spring. (See new project timelines)
3. Executive Sponsorship – To move ahead effectively the reconstruction project requires strong support and leadership from the School Board. The concept design was approved 5-0.
Two School Board members demonstrated strong support. Libby Garvey and Abby Raphael are focusing on accountability, budget and milestones that can address project risk and demonstrate clear, forward progress.
Unaddressed Issue
The outstanding issue remains the 2-committee process. The architect is still in the position of presenting to two committees who represent the Schools and the County. The architect takes feedback and direction from both committees. This is where the roadblocks arose the conceptual design got off track. (Read about the dueling committee process that hampered the project throughout 2008).
While the intent to engage County feedback on issues like zoning earlier in the project is reasonable and hopefully will help avoid late-term delays and cost overruns, it hasn’t worked. The architects literally bounced back and forth between committees, and received conflicting and inconsistent direction.
This basic issue of decision making must be addressed.
So who should be in charge? The Schools own and manages the project – that is public record. The County controls permits and issues bonds. Obviously coordination and collaboration are necessary.
Possible Solution
The PFRC process in new to APS projects. It's been a rocky start, and it will be a part of the project moving forward. The County Board and staff must take the time to clearly define the Operating Guidelines of its committee, the PFRC. The draft guidelines from September 2007 have not been revisited within the year timeline the draft itself specifies. Nor do the guidelines effectively address how, when and where the PFRC engages in an APS project. Wakefield has been the guinea pig of this process, which has been painful. But there is learning to be had and applied moving ahead -- if the County takes the time to do it. The goal needs to be a functional, sustainable school building that supports the needs of the school and the community delivered in a timely fashion without wasting resources. The PFRC process needs to be better aligned to support that goal.
We encourage Community members to communicate with the County Manager’s office and the County Board, encouraging them to provide more clear direction for the PFRC.
Friday, September 12, 2008
Timeline: Conceptual Design Approval, or lack thereof
The Superintendent of Schools recommended the School Board take action on a conceptual design this Summer. Here is is a recap of a time line and where things stand:
8/5: The County Board asked School Board to delay its scheduled 8/12 vote to approve Wakefield's conceptual design. The stated intent by Mr. Tejada, County Board chair, was to address several outstanding County issues, including a lack of "civic presence" in the exterior design and the location of the bus loop.
8/6-8/12: Rebuild Wakefield group meets with individual School Board members on the issue. We ask for vote in spite of Mr. Tejada's request. At a minimum we insist this not be an open-ended delay. If a work session is necessary, re-schedule the vote for Oct. The School Board ultimately agreed to a mid-Sept work session and rescheduled the action for Oct.
8/19: County Board holds it's own work session to prepare. For the last year, the project has been languishing without adequate "civic presence." The county's architectural consultant adds a new buzzword to the project. Richard Lewis recommended the County strive for "civic charisma" with the Wakefield design.
9/7: Community members, including some of us, met with County Board member, Chris Zimmerman, to discuss the County perspectives on the design delays. Mr. Zimmerman expressed that design should move forward in Oct. We are waiting to see the results and the tone of the 9/12 work session.
9/12: Joint work session between County and School Boards scheduled at Wakefield, 3:30 PM. We have several community members observing.
10/2: School Board is re-scheduled to vote on the conceptual design, assuming no further delays.
8/5: The County Board asked School Board to delay its scheduled 8/12 vote to approve Wakefield's conceptual design. The stated intent by Mr. Tejada, County Board chair, was to address several outstanding County issues, including a lack of "civic presence" in the exterior design and the location of the bus loop.
8/6-8/12: Rebuild Wakefield group meets with individual School Board members on the issue. We ask for vote in spite of Mr. Tejada's request. At a minimum we insist this not be an open-ended delay. If a work session is necessary, re-schedule the vote for Oct. The School Board ultimately agreed to a mid-Sept work session and rescheduled the action for Oct.
8/19: County Board holds it's own work session to prepare. For the last year, the project has been languishing without adequate "civic presence." The county's architectural consultant adds a new buzzword to the project. Richard Lewis recommended the County strive for "civic charisma" with the Wakefield design.
9/7: Community members, including some of us, met with County Board member, Chris Zimmerman, to discuss the County perspectives on the design delays. Mr. Zimmerman expressed that design should move forward in Oct. We are waiting to see the results and the tone of the 9/12 work session.
9/12: Joint work session between County and School Boards scheduled at Wakefield, 3:30 PM. We have several community members observing.
10/2: School Board is re-scheduled to vote on the conceptual design, assuming no further delays.
Thursday, September 11, 2008
Why resolve design issues? Manage risk.
The School Board and County Board will meet Friday, 9/12, at Wakefield to discuss the stalemate over Conceptual Design.
A quick background: The School Board was set to take action on this design in early August, 2008. However, the County Board asked for a delay on the vote. The stated intent by Mr. Tejada, County Board chair, was to address several outstanding issues the County has, including the exterior design and the location of the bus loop. The School Board agreed to the delay and rescheduled the action for 10/2/08.
We met with Chris Zimmerman, County Board member, on 9/7/08. Mr. Zimmerman expressed that he felt confident that the Wakefield design issues could be worked out within the next 2 months, enabling the School Board to take action on the design as scheduled for 10/2. He also insisted we have "plenty of time" to complete the design phase since construction will not begin until 2014.
Differing Perspectives
Why do we remain concerned? The County and the Community have conflicting perspectives regarding the implications of this project timeline.
After much nonsense -- and we do mean nonsense -- the Superintendent found a design the two competing committees agreed on. Yet here we are, hoping to define the stumbling block all along -- the thus far intangible "Civic Charisma."
Effective organizations manage and minimize risk. Allowing any one project phase to span an indeterminate time horizon with vague or ill-defined requirements introduces greater risk including:
• Delays to the construction start date
• Increased cost
• Project derailment as competing budget priorities arise
• Lost time by staff and our elected officials on both Boards – time that should be spent, at this point, on other important school and community issues.
This is a long-term construction project. “Milestone” is not a buzzword; it is a risk-management tool. “Conceptual” design requires the same clear direction, goals and progress as any other phase. The work product is obviously not concrete, but the process should still be goal-oriented and well managed. To put it directly, the County Board must use this work session to take ownership of its broken process and enable the School Board to reach its 10/2 milestone to move this project to schematic design.
On September 12, the Community is looking for tangible results from this work session. The County Boards needs to express clear and achievable project requirements that will enable the architects to finalize a mutually agreeable conceptual design. If the County Board is unable to do so, it must recognize this and stop interfering with the independent School Board's project.
A quick background: The School Board was set to take action on this design in early August, 2008. However, the County Board asked for a delay on the vote. The stated intent by Mr. Tejada, County Board chair, was to address several outstanding issues the County has, including the exterior design and the location of the bus loop. The School Board agreed to the delay and rescheduled the action for 10/2/08.
We met with Chris Zimmerman, County Board member, on 9/7/08. Mr. Zimmerman expressed that he felt confident that the Wakefield design issues could be worked out within the next 2 months, enabling the School Board to take action on the design as scheduled for 10/2. He also insisted we have "plenty of time" to complete the design phase since construction will not begin until 2014.
Differing Perspectives
Why do we remain concerned? The County and the Community have conflicting perspectives regarding the implications of this project timeline.
This is where our perspectives diverge. What the County Board and its staff view as "plenty of time," we view as risk. After all, it's been 18 months of committee meetings and architectural reviews and we still have no conceptual design. The County-induced process has demonstrated a basic inability to resolve resolvable issues.
After much nonsense -- and we do mean nonsense -- the Superintendent found a design the two competing committees agreed on. Yet here we are, hoping to define the stumbling block all along -- the thus far intangible "Civic Charisma."
Effective organizations manage and minimize risk. Allowing any one project phase to span an indeterminate time horizon with vague or ill-defined requirements introduces greater risk including:
• Delays to the construction start date
• Increased cost
• Project derailment as competing budget priorities arise
• Lost time by staff and our elected officials on both Boards – time that should be spent, at this point, on other important school and community issues.
This is a long-term construction project. “Milestone” is not a buzzword; it is a risk-management tool. “Conceptual” design requires the same clear direction, goals and progress as any other phase. The work product is obviously not concrete, but the process should still be goal-oriented and well managed. To put it directly, the County Board must use this work session to take ownership of its broken process and enable the School Board to reach its 10/2 milestone to move this project to schematic design.
Monday, August 11, 2008
School Board Must Show Leadership
We have submitted the following letter to Chairman Fendley of the School Board on the Wakefield conceptual design vote:
Date: August 11, 2008
To: Mr. Ed Fendley, APS School Board Chair
Cc: APS School Board: Ms. Sally Baird, Ms. Abby Raphael, Ms. Libby Garvey, Mr. Frank Wilson
From: Beverly Enochs, James Ryan, Michael Dowell, Maki Fife
Re: Wakefield High School Action, 8/12/08 School Board Agenda Item
Thank you for taking the time to meet with us over the last week. We appreciate your candor and, based on our discussions, we are providing you with formal community input.
As we expressed in our meeting, our overriding interest is that the school design process stays on track, so that the bonds can be issued as scheduled and that the school is built as scheduled in the currently approved CIP.
We view failure to approve the Wakefield conceptual design on August 12, 2008 as evidence of the lack of leadership by the School Board during this conceptual design phase. The project requires leadership that delivers tangible results in a defined timeline. Deferring the vote in lieu of ill-defined work sessions does not meet this requirement.
It is apparent from review of BLPC minutes, PFRC summaries and associated school board and county board correspondence that although the BLPC voted to approve the CEF-3 design and the PFRC informally favored the CEF-3 design, the design process is on the verge of stalling. The BLPC and the PFRC have largely accomplished their charters and it is time to move on to the schematic design.
Certainly the new BLPC/PFRC process can be improved. We are confident that it will be in the execution of future capital improvement projects. Like all processes, improvements will be gained only with repeated execution. Process improvements will not be gained by stalling or going backwards on the Wakefield project.
As you acknowledged, there are tensions between the committees. We contest your assertion that these are useful tensions inherent in any creative endeavor. These tensions have resulted from clumsy process design, weak leadership and the elevation by some committee members’ personal agendas over the interests of the community.
To detail these problems: first, the roles and interrelationship of the committees are not clear, nor is the accountability. This result is tension between the school administration and the county administration, as noted in the March 2008 memo from Dr. Smith to Mr. Carlee, the County Manager. It is obvious that this project lacks leadership and guidance. A single committee must guide the design; it is that single committee who should be provided concise direction related to cost, schedule, and regulatory guidance. Review by other committees and commissions should be identified up front, and should occur only at well defined milestones.
Second, the meeting minutes indicate that several committee members have an ongoing concern with the location of the school bus loop, and the “presence” of the school. These issues are not germane to the functioning of the school, and, having been more clearly defined, can be fully addressed in the schematic design phase. The architect can bring such issues to resolution consistent with best design practices.
Third, however well intentioned, the PFRC process is not working. Dr. Smith’s letter clearly indicates that the PFRC lacks effective leadership. We cannot continue to blame the current state of affairs on a “new” process. Failing to notify stakeholders of meetings is a serious matter; it shows that politicking has trumped the community interest. The resulting tensions are clearly not part of a natural creative process. Further, we see no evidence in public record indicating that the tensions and politicking will self-resolve through a joint County-School Board work session intended to develop principles and guidelines for civic architecture. The lesson learned is that the PFRC leaders and members require clear definitions and expectations of their specific roles in the design process prior to further participation in School Board projects. The Wakefield project need not wait for such an evaluation and tweaking to occur by the County.
Despite these problems, which have largely been imposed on the committees by a few members and externalities, the result is good for what was intended as a feasibility phase. The School’s staff and many committee members have clearly overcome the obstacles put before them. The CEF-3 conceptual design is a reasonable place from which to move forward into a schematic design. The schematic design phase is more than sufficient to address the three concerns in Barbara Donnellan’s June 24 letter, especially if one considers that Yorktown and Washington-Lee commenced with schematic design.
In light of the County Board’s emphasis on fiscal responsibility, we would expect the School Board to be particularly sensitive to escalating design costs. By proceeding to schematic design, the community can transition to a process that is well understood, that is disciplined, and that will result in a school that meets the community’s needs, is constructed on schedule, and within budget.
As an independently elected school board, we know that you regard the interests of your constituents foremost in any decision, and that your independence exists for expressly that reason. Our community is watching this process closely and is evaluating the performance of our elected School Board based on its ability to show clear and direct leadership that delivers tangible results in a defined timeframe.
Thank you for your support of Wakefield High School.
---end letter---
Date: August 11, 2008
To: Mr. Ed Fendley, APS School Board Chair
Cc: APS School Board: Ms. Sally Baird, Ms. Abby Raphael, Ms. Libby Garvey, Mr. Frank Wilson
From: Beverly Enochs, James Ryan, Michael Dowell, Maki Fife
Re: Wakefield High School Action, 8/12/08 School Board Agenda Item
Thank you for taking the time to meet with us over the last week. We appreciate your candor and, based on our discussions, we are providing you with formal community input.
As we expressed in our meeting, our overriding interest is that the school design process stays on track, so that the bonds can be issued as scheduled and that the school is built as scheduled in the currently approved CIP.
We view failure to approve the Wakefield conceptual design on August 12, 2008 as evidence of the lack of leadership by the School Board during this conceptual design phase. The project requires leadership that delivers tangible results in a defined timeline. Deferring the vote in lieu of ill-defined work sessions does not meet this requirement.
It is apparent from review of BLPC minutes, PFRC summaries and associated school board and county board correspondence that although the BLPC voted to approve the CEF-3 design and the PFRC informally favored the CEF-3 design, the design process is on the verge of stalling. The BLPC and the PFRC have largely accomplished their charters and it is time to move on to the schematic design.
Certainly the new BLPC/PFRC process can be improved. We are confident that it will be in the execution of future capital improvement projects. Like all processes, improvements will be gained only with repeated execution. Process improvements will not be gained by stalling or going backwards on the Wakefield project.
As you acknowledged, there are tensions between the committees. We contest your assertion that these are useful tensions inherent in any creative endeavor. These tensions have resulted from clumsy process design, weak leadership and the elevation by some committee members’ personal agendas over the interests of the community.
To detail these problems: first, the roles and interrelationship of the committees are not clear, nor is the accountability. This result is tension between the school administration and the county administration, as noted in the March 2008 memo from Dr. Smith to Mr. Carlee, the County Manager. It is obvious that this project lacks leadership and guidance. A single committee must guide the design; it is that single committee who should be provided concise direction related to cost, schedule, and regulatory guidance. Review by other committees and commissions should be identified up front, and should occur only at well defined milestones.
Second, the meeting minutes indicate that several committee members have an ongoing concern with the location of the school bus loop, and the “presence” of the school. These issues are not germane to the functioning of the school, and, having been more clearly defined, can be fully addressed in the schematic design phase. The architect can bring such issues to resolution consistent with best design practices.
Third, however well intentioned, the PFRC process is not working. Dr. Smith’s letter clearly indicates that the PFRC lacks effective leadership. We cannot continue to blame the current state of affairs on a “new” process. Failing to notify stakeholders of meetings is a serious matter; it shows that politicking has trumped the community interest. The resulting tensions are clearly not part of a natural creative process. Further, we see no evidence in public record indicating that the tensions and politicking will self-resolve through a joint County-School Board work session intended to develop principles and guidelines for civic architecture. The lesson learned is that the PFRC leaders and members require clear definitions and expectations of their specific roles in the design process prior to further participation in School Board projects. The Wakefield project need not wait for such an evaluation and tweaking to occur by the County.
Despite these problems, which have largely been imposed on the committees by a few members and externalities, the result is good for what was intended as a feasibility phase. The School’s staff and many committee members have clearly overcome the obstacles put before them. The CEF-3 conceptual design is a reasonable place from which to move forward into a schematic design. The schematic design phase is more than sufficient to address the three concerns in Barbara Donnellan’s June 24 letter, especially if one considers that Yorktown and Washington-Lee commenced with schematic design.
In light of the County Board’s emphasis on fiscal responsibility, we would expect the School Board to be particularly sensitive to escalating design costs. By proceeding to schematic design, the community can transition to a process that is well understood, that is disciplined, and that will result in a school that meets the community’s needs, is constructed on schedule, and within budget.
As an independently elected school board, we know that you regard the interests of your constituents foremost in any decision, and that your independence exists for expressly that reason. Our community is watching this process closely and is evaluating the performance of our elected School Board based on its ability to show clear and direct leadership that delivers tangible results in a defined timeframe.
Thank you for your support of Wakefield High School.
---end letter---
Wednesday, August 6, 2008
Superintendent recommends approval, County Board recommends delay
After a protracted and often problematic conceptual design process (more than a year and 13 meetings held by two competing committees), APS Superintendent Dr. Smith has recommended the School Board vote to approve a Wakefield conceptual design. This will enable the project to move to schematic design, where the design details occur.
This vote is currently scheduled for the Tuesday, August 12, 2008 School Board meeting.
In a letter dated Tuesday, August 5, 2008, County Board Chairman, Walter Tejada asked the School Board to “defer” their vote on the Wakefield design. Instead, the County Board is requesting a joint work session to "provide joint leadership" to the competing committees and "agree to a shared vision of how civic buildings are best integrated into the build environment across Arlington."
Note: There are no budgetary or schedule issues raised. Nor are the issues about the functionality as an educational
facility, all credits to APS staff on the issue.
What's our take on this?
First, having read the minutes and meeting summaries from the various BLPC and PFRC meetings, plus correspondence and staff presentations on the design process, our conclusion is that the Superintendent is recommending a solid design that meets the needs of the Wakefield students. It has extensive input and has the support of the majority of committee members who worked on it.
Second, we want to show citizens the most recent course of events:
1) June 24, 2008: The County Manager's office sent memo to APS staff expressing concerns of major issues that need to be addressed prior to moving to schematic design. Upon review, readers will see that the "show stopper" concerns are virtually limited to how the building faces the street and where the bus loop is situated.
2) July 8, 2008: In a memo to the County Board, the County Manager admonishes the School Board for including the Wakefield design funds in the 2008 bond and strongly recommends they reconsider spending those funds.
3) July 22, 2008: County Board changes CIP bond cycles, pushing the 2010 Wakefield construction bond into 2012. Throughout the board meeting, members express their overriding support to see the Wakefield project move ahead with their full support.
3) August 5, 2008: County Board Chairman, Walter Tejada asked the School Board to “Defer” their vote on the Wakefield design.
Here's the issue we see with Mr. Tejada's request. Remember we mentioned the competing committees?
From November 2007 through June 2008, the County-side committee (PFRC), introduced roadblocks into the Wakefield design process. They provided direction directly to the architects -- going so far as to submit a sketch of their liking. We see this as out of scope. Additionally, their charge was to work with the School-side committee (BLPC) during the design process, yet it reached a point where the PFRC became unresponsive to the BLPC. For example, a meeting was cancelled; the PFRC would not respond to re-scheduled. It escalated to the point of a memo in March, 2008, from Dr. Smith to the County Manager, requesting meetings between the committees get put back on track. Important momentum was lost and tensions were now introduced into the project that were pulling the architect in competing directions.
Bottom Line:
If the County Board and School Board wish to undertake a joint session as a "post-mortem" to improve future endeavors, we commend that. But don't further delay Wakefield to go backwards.
This vote is currently scheduled for the Tuesday, August 12, 2008 School Board meeting.
In a letter dated Tuesday, August 5, 2008, County Board Chairman, Walter Tejada asked the School Board to “defer” their vote on the Wakefield design. Instead, the County Board is requesting a joint work session to "provide joint leadership" to the competing committees and "agree to a shared vision of how civic buildings are best integrated into the build environment across Arlington."
Note: There are no budgetary or schedule issues raised. Nor are the issues about the functionality as an educational
facility, all credits to APS staff on the issue.
What's our take on this?
First, having read the minutes and meeting summaries from the various BLPC and PFRC meetings, plus correspondence and staff presentations on the design process, our conclusion is that the Superintendent is recommending a solid design that meets the needs of the Wakefield students. It has extensive input and has the support of the majority of committee members who worked on it.
Second, we want to show citizens the most recent course of events:
1) June 24, 2008: The County Manager's office sent memo to APS staff expressing concerns of major issues that need to be addressed prior to moving to schematic design. Upon review, readers will see that the "show stopper" concerns are virtually limited to how the building faces the street and where the bus loop is situated.
2) July 8, 2008: In a memo to the County Board, the County Manager admonishes the School Board for including the Wakefield design funds in the 2008 bond and strongly recommends they reconsider spending those funds.
3) July 22, 2008: County Board changes CIP bond cycles, pushing the 2010 Wakefield construction bond into 2012. Throughout the board meeting, members express their overriding support to see the Wakefield project move ahead with their full support.
3) August 5, 2008: County Board Chairman, Walter Tejada asked the School Board to “Defer” their vote on the Wakefield design.
Here's the issue we see with Mr. Tejada's request. Remember we mentioned the competing committees?
From November 2007 through June 2008, the County-side committee (PFRC), introduced roadblocks into the Wakefield design process. They provided direction directly to the architects -- going so far as to submit a sketch of their liking. We see this as out of scope. Additionally, their charge was to work with the School-side committee (BLPC) during the design process, yet it reached a point where the PFRC became unresponsive to the BLPC. For example, a meeting was cancelled; the PFRC would not respond to re-scheduled. It escalated to the point of a memo in March, 2008, from Dr. Smith to the County Manager, requesting meetings between the committees get put back on track. Important momentum was lost and tensions were now introduced into the project that were pulling the architect in competing directions.
Bottom Line:
The County Board is too late. They could have and should have stepped in back in the Spring with this joint meeting to accelerate the process at that time, not delay it now. To claim now, after a solid design has been voted on and submitted for approval, that clear guidelines need to be defined, is another County delay tactic. This project needs to get its momentum back. The School Board should not delay its vote. The School Board should approve the Superintendent's recommendation.
If the County Board and School Board wish to undertake a joint session as a "post-mortem" to improve future endeavors, we commend that. But don't further delay Wakefield to go backwards.
Sunday, August 3, 2008
Citizens blast County Board
Check out this op-ed by Wakefield supports with a lot of history on this issue. The actions of the County over time have fostered a high level of mistrust for the motives of the County Board. Not only is the article itself of interest, but the reader comments at the end. Read Now
Saturday, August 2, 2008
The Arlington Connection Gets 2010 Issue Right
Since the July 22 County Board meeting, the Rebuild Wakefield Committee has been fielding responses from our active citizens group and the County Board. Thanks again to everyone who reacted so quickly last week to the County Board's vote. It is clear the County Board will continue to spin their message that their vote was a "win" for Wakefield since it does not alter the construction timeline.
We are pleased the construction timelines have not changed. However,we want to reiterate to our community that the County Board did make a significant change to the CIP: They delayed the 2010 bond referendum into 2012. Based on typical timelines and the painfully slow design process currently underway, the 2010 bond was extremely important to the staging and momentum of the Wakefield project. Without it, there is a real risk of construction timeline delays resulting from the process. We feel it is important for concerned citizens to be aware of the competing messages from the County Board and why we worked so closely with the School Board to move the bond into 2010. If you have any questions on this, feel free to email us or post a comment to thelog (note: the blog is now accepting anonymous posts. This function was turned off; we apologize).
Also, please watch for updates this week on the current challenges Wakefield is experiencing with the conceptual design process. We may need help yet again! In the meantime, read The Arlington Connection article that seems to capture the 2010 issue fairly well.
We are pleased the construction timelines have not changed. However,we want to reiterate to our community that the County Board did make a significant change to the CIP: They delayed the 2010 bond referendum into 2012. Based on typical timelines and the painfully slow design process currently underway, the 2010 bond was extremely important to the staging and momentum of the Wakefield project. Without it, there is a real risk of construction timeline delays resulting from the process. We feel it is important for concerned citizens to be aware of the competing messages from the County Board and why we worked so closely with the School Board to move the bond into 2010. If you have any questions on this, feel free to email us or post a comment to thelog (note: the blog is now accepting anonymous posts. This function was turned off; we apologize).
Also, please watch for updates this week on the current challenges Wakefield is experiencing with the conceptual design process. We may need help yet again! In the meantime, read The Arlington Connection article that seems to capture the 2010 issue fairly well.
Tuesday, July 22, 2008
County Board Changes CIP, delays Wakefield bond
Following is a recap of the County Board actions to the School Board CIP on July 22, 2008. Also included are the Board member positions, the Rebuild Wakefield first-hand observations and the true risk of what transpired tonight.
What we wanted: The School Board CIP which contained extensive community input
2008 Bond -- $11M Wakefield design funds on ballot
2009 - Bonds issued; Wakefield design begins
2010 Bond -- $156M Wakefield construction funds on ballot
2012 - No bonds
2013 - Bonds issued; construction funding begins
What we got: County-Altered & Approved CIP:
2008 Bond -- $11M Wakefield design funds on ballot; County Board is strongly recommending that the School Board does NOT spend these design funds, since construction is too far out. (FYI: County Board actually consulted to determine if/how they could remove these funds from the 2008 bond. They discovered they could not cherry pick the bond from the School Board. They had to accept reject the entire bond. We made it because of the Yorktown project)
2009 - uncertain if/when Wakefield design will begin.
2010 No Bond. Wakefield will not be presented to the voters, per the County Board
2012 - $156M Wakefield construction funds shifted here
2013 - Bonds issued; construction funding begins
Added bonus: County Board adopts new policy that prevents any bonds from being presented to voters unless construction can start within 2 years of the bond cycle and can be completed within 8 years, absent any compelling reason. This new policy effectively prevents Wakefield from being reconsidered for the 2010 bond cycle since construction can't begin until 2013.
Does it really matter if construction cycle remains the same? YES! Much of what transpired in this process should have our community concerned.
What the County Board said:
1) On their New Policy of 2-year proximity: Board members each stated fiscal responsibility and dedication to maintaining their triple A bond rating, which allows the County to borrow at low, low costs, ultimately enabling "these types of projects" to be funded.
Our Position:
First, while we appreciate prudent approaches to major plans like the CIP and strategic positioning, the argument is weak. As the Board itself noted, it has taken many years to build this triple A bond rating -- withOUT such a disenfranchising policy! Why was it suddenly introduced as the crutch that holds our Triple A bond rating up? Why has Wakefield been positioned as the straw that will break the triple A bond rating's back? We are not comfortable with the Board hiding behind this reasoning.
Second, we are shocked and disturbed at the County's Board's adoption of this policy. They are controlling and manipulating the funding initiatives by preventing them from reaching the voters. They have usurped the voice of Arlington citizens, substituting their collective judgement for that of the voting public. Readers should note this policy was introduced by the County Manager and considered at a closed session on July 7 and 8 respectively, AFTER public comment closed on the issue. The public had no chance to comment on this issue -- even at the July 22 meeting. Wakefield aside, this is questionable governance that all community members should be concerned about.
2) On the delayed bond referendum from 2010 to 2012
Each County Board member went to great lengths to get on record stating that the Wakefield construction timeline will not change. That construction funding will be available beginning in 2013 and the horizon takes construction to 2017/2018.
Our Position:
The County Board seemed to think the public -- who had responded in droves since early July urging the Board to reject the County Manager recommendations -- did not understand that changing the 2010 bond to 2012 bond still demonstrated their individual and collective commitment to the project. We can only say this: Our community asked the County Board to approve the bond referendum for 2010, giving the Arlington voters the opportunity to approve the Wakefield bond. We, as a community, were looking for clear and direct approval of 2010 to demonstrate the County Board's commitment to the project. The County Board failed to commit to Wakefield.
3) On the County Board's commitment to Wakefield
Each County Board member re-iterated how they were approving the School Board CIP funding requests and -- while they were very careful never to state directly they were changing the School Board CIP bond cycle -- the County Board was clear to emphasize this CIP does not mean any less commitment to Wakefield.
Our Position:
We disagree. We believe the County Board's delay of the Wakefield bond cycle is a direct and clear statement of the Board's LACK of commitment to this project and this community. In fact, a comment by Ms. Favola seemed to highlight how they truly perceive the South Arlington community. In her opening comments to the CIP discussion, she acknowledged this as a thorny issue for "special interests groups." We reject her characterization of the entire South Arlington community as a "special interest group."
Simply put: More delays = risk. More delays = greater chance of construction delay. More delays = pressure to delay planning. More delays = more delay tactics in the already problematic design phase. Bottom line on bond referenda as we see it: 2010 = commitment. 2012 = delay tactic.
4) On the County Board's Process
The lack of transparency, closed door sessions and lack of opportunity for public comment in the School Board CIP process have created an atmosphere of mistrust with this County Board -- in it's current make up. Someone asked tonight at the meeting: "Do you really think they won't rebuild Wakefield?" We answer that based on one of our very first posts: It's not if Wakefield will get rebuilt -- it will have to get rebuilt eventually, the building will begin falling apart eventually! -- it's about how soon it will be rebuilt.
How soon will we demonstrate a commitment to the Wakefield students that they deserve educational facilities equal to those in the other parts of the County?
Still wonder what the big deal is if the construction timeline hasn't changed? In it's current form, the bonds will be issued in increments starting in May/June 2013 in increments of $31.35 million. The County debt service limitations do not allow for any greater increments. We don't know when construction will start -- possibly late 2013 or into early 2014. Until there is a final bond approved by voters, APS staff can not pin point a start date.
Wakefield is already experiencing significant difficulty meeting unclear County expectations in the current conceptual design process. Should this continue, planning will be delayed. If planning is delayed too long, the argument could be presented that there is no budget defined for construction, thus how could we present a bond referendum to the voters in 2012? Or, if construction is delayed by just a year (2015), the County's new 2-year proximity policy would require the Wakefield bond cycle bump from 2012 into 2014. These are likely scenarios under the current climate the County Board has created. These are not scare tactics. They are real world scenarios with the County Board...in its current make up.
What we wanted: The School Board CIP which contained extensive community input
2008 Bond -- $11M Wakefield design funds on ballot
2009 - Bonds issued; Wakefield design begins
2010 Bond -- $156M Wakefield construction funds on ballot
2012 - No bonds
2013 - Bonds issued; construction funding begins
What we got: County-Altered & Approved CIP:
2008 Bond -- $11M Wakefield design funds on ballot; County Board is strongly recommending that the School Board does NOT spend these design funds, since construction is too far out. (FYI: County Board actually consulted to determine if/how they could remove these funds from the 2008 bond. They discovered they could not cherry pick the bond from the School Board. They had to accept reject the entire bond. We made it because of the Yorktown project)
2009 - uncertain if/when Wakefield design will begin.
2010 No Bond. Wakefield will not be presented to the voters, per the County Board
2012 - $156M Wakefield construction funds shifted here
2013 - Bonds issued; construction funding begins
Added bonus: County Board adopts new policy that prevents any bonds from being presented to voters unless construction can start within 2 years of the bond cycle and can be completed within 8 years, absent any compelling reason. This new policy effectively prevents Wakefield from being reconsidered for the 2010 bond cycle since construction can't begin until 2013.
Does it really matter if construction cycle remains the same? YES! Much of what transpired in this process should have our community concerned.
What the County Board said:
1) On their New Policy of 2-year proximity: Board members each stated fiscal responsibility and dedication to maintaining their triple A bond rating, which allows the County to borrow at low, low costs, ultimately enabling "these types of projects" to be funded.
Our Position:
First, while we appreciate prudent approaches to major plans like the CIP and strategic positioning, the argument is weak. As the Board itself noted, it has taken many years to build this triple A bond rating -- withOUT such a disenfranchising policy! Why was it suddenly introduced as the crutch that holds our Triple A bond rating up? Why has Wakefield been positioned as the straw that will break the triple A bond rating's back? We are not comfortable with the Board hiding behind this reasoning.
Second, we are shocked and disturbed at the County's Board's adoption of this policy. They are controlling and manipulating the funding initiatives by preventing them from reaching the voters. They have usurped the voice of Arlington citizens, substituting their collective judgement for that of the voting public. Readers should note this policy was introduced by the County Manager and considered at a closed session on July 7 and 8 respectively, AFTER public comment closed on the issue. The public had no chance to comment on this issue -- even at the July 22 meeting. Wakefield aside, this is questionable governance that all community members should be concerned about.
2) On the delayed bond referendum from 2010 to 2012
Each County Board member went to great lengths to get on record stating that the Wakefield construction timeline will not change. That construction funding will be available beginning in 2013 and the horizon takes construction to 2017/2018.
Our Position:
The County Board seemed to think the public -- who had responded in droves since early July urging the Board to reject the County Manager recommendations -- did not understand that changing the 2010 bond to 2012 bond still demonstrated their individual and collective commitment to the project. We can only say this: Our community asked the County Board to approve the bond referendum for 2010, giving the Arlington voters the opportunity to approve the Wakefield bond. We, as a community, were looking for clear and direct approval of 2010 to demonstrate the County Board's commitment to the project. The County Board failed to commit to Wakefield.
3) On the County Board's commitment to Wakefield
Each County Board member re-iterated how they were approving the School Board CIP funding requests and -- while they were very careful never to state directly they were changing the School Board CIP bond cycle -- the County Board was clear to emphasize this CIP does not mean any less commitment to Wakefield.
Our Position:
We disagree. We believe the County Board's delay of the Wakefield bond cycle is a direct and clear statement of the Board's LACK of commitment to this project and this community. In fact, a comment by Ms. Favola seemed to highlight how they truly perceive the South Arlington community. In her opening comments to the CIP discussion, she acknowledged this as a thorny issue for "special interests groups." We reject her characterization of the entire South Arlington community as a "special interest group."
Simply put: More delays = risk. More delays = greater chance of construction delay. More delays = pressure to delay planning. More delays = more delay tactics in the already problematic design phase. Bottom line on bond referenda as we see it: 2010 = commitment. 2012 = delay tactic.
4) On the County Board's Process
The lack of transparency, closed door sessions and lack of opportunity for public comment in the School Board CIP process have created an atmosphere of mistrust with this County Board -- in it's current make up. Someone asked tonight at the meeting: "Do you really think they won't rebuild Wakefield?" We answer that based on one of our very first posts: It's not if Wakefield will get rebuilt -- it will have to get rebuilt eventually, the building will begin falling apart eventually! -- it's about how soon it will be rebuilt.
How soon will we demonstrate a commitment to the Wakefield students that they deserve educational facilities equal to those in the other parts of the County?
Still wonder what the big deal is if the construction timeline hasn't changed? In it's current form, the bonds will be issued in increments starting in May/June 2013 in increments of $31.35 million. The County debt service limitations do not allow for any greater increments. We don't know when construction will start -- possibly late 2013 or into early 2014. Until there is a final bond approved by voters, APS staff can not pin point a start date.
Wakefield is already experiencing significant difficulty meeting unclear County expectations in the current conceptual design process. Should this continue, planning will be delayed. If planning is delayed too long, the argument could be presented that there is no budget defined for construction, thus how could we present a bond referendum to the voters in 2012? Or, if construction is delayed by just a year (2015), the County's new 2-year proximity policy would require the Wakefield bond cycle bump from 2012 into 2014. These are likely scenarios under the current climate the County Board has created. These are not scare tactics. They are real world scenarios with the County Board...in its current make up.
Monday, July 21, 2008
School Board Defends CIP
We were pleased to see the School Board take a strong, clear stance AGAINST the County Manager's recommendations in two memos to the County Board this week. The vote is Tuesday, July 22. The meeting starts at 6:30 PM.
Wednesday, July 16, 2008
County Board Should Reject Wakefield Delays
The County Manager made three significant recommendations to delay the Wakefield project in a memo dated July 7, 2008 (Subject: Fiscal Year (FY) 2009-2014 Capital Improvement Program Adoption). Yet, in his memo, the County Manager explicitly states:
We urge the County Board to accept the School Board CIP as is, rejecting the County Manager’s recommendations as follows:
• A – Reject policy addition to the County’s “Financial and Debt Service Policies”
• B.3 – Reject recommendation to School Board to reconsider accelerating the $10.1 million for Wakefield design funds.
• B. 4 – Reject recommendation to delay the $156.68 million Wakefield bond to 2012. Keep the Wakefield bond in 2010.
Why?
A – Reject addition to the County’s “Financial and Debt Service Policies”
• Community input is lacking – The County Managers states that “considerable discussion has taken place in the community…regarding the timing for a bond referendum.” This is not entirely accurate. The discussion regarding the Wakefield funding and timing has taken place during a single joint County-School Board work session and then in a closed-door County Board meeting after the public comment period. This should not be misconstrued as community-level discussion. We urge you to act in The Arlington Way and solicit reasonable public comment before adopting this policy.
• Communication addresses expectations – The County Manager argues that asking for voter approval in 2010 creates unreasonable voter expectations for project timing and affordability. First, the Wakefield project timing remains a 2013 start; this is affordable. Second, setting proper expectations is a communication issue, not a policy issue. We, as citizens in the Wakefield community, are aware of the construction timing. The School Board has openly communicated the timing to us. Ongoing, communication is a problem easily addressed. The County and School Boards have a multitude of tools at their disposal such as email, web sites, newsletters and more.
B. 3 – 2008 Bond: Wakefield design funds are needed; timing is reasonable.
In Item B.3, the County Manager’s admonishment to the School Board is puzzling, particularly since School Board’s CIP meets the Financial and Debt Service Policies. These are major capital projects that require adequate planning – particularly in light of the “guinea pig” nature of the Wakefield planning and approval process through the PFRC. This is the first School Board project of this joint nature, and there have already been challenges in the process. Communication strategies and clear expectations will need to be fine tuned in order for a design to be finalized. The timing of the 2008 design funds is prudent and needed.
B. 4 – 2010 bond referendum should remain. Do not delay Wakefield to 2012.
Should the County delay the bond to 2012, the message to the community will be clear:
• The County Board is not committed to the Wakefield community and moving ahead with the Wakefield project. For the last decade the County has demonstrated commitment to the other two county high schools; Wakefield is not a County Board priority.
• The current County Board has grown less committed to a consistent and strong CIP for Arlington Public Schools.
“The amount requested by the School Board is affordable based on the County’s “Financial and Debt Service Policies.” (p2)
We urge the County Board to accept the School Board CIP as is, rejecting the County Manager’s recommendations as follows:
• A – Reject policy addition to the County’s “Financial and Debt Service Policies”
• B.3 – Reject recommendation to School Board to reconsider accelerating the $10.1 million for Wakefield design funds.
• B. 4 – Reject recommendation to delay the $156.68 million Wakefield bond to 2012. Keep the Wakefield bond in 2010.
Why?
A – Reject addition to the County’s “Financial and Debt Service Policies”
• Community input is lacking – The County Managers states that “considerable discussion has taken place in the community…regarding the timing for a bond referendum.” This is not entirely accurate. The discussion regarding the Wakefield funding and timing has taken place during a single joint County-School Board work session and then in a closed-door County Board meeting after the public comment period. This should not be misconstrued as community-level discussion. We urge you to act in The Arlington Way and solicit reasonable public comment before adopting this policy.
• Communication addresses expectations – The County Manager argues that asking for voter approval in 2010 creates unreasonable voter expectations for project timing and affordability. First, the Wakefield project timing remains a 2013 start; this is affordable. Second, setting proper expectations is a communication issue, not a policy issue. We, as citizens in the Wakefield community, are aware of the construction timing. The School Board has openly communicated the timing to us. Ongoing, communication is a problem easily addressed. The County and School Boards have a multitude of tools at their disposal such as email, web sites, newsletters and more.
B. 3 – 2008 Bond: Wakefield design funds are needed; timing is reasonable.
In Item B.3, the County Manager’s admonishment to the School Board is puzzling, particularly since School Board’s CIP meets the Financial and Debt Service Policies. These are major capital projects that require adequate planning – particularly in light of the “guinea pig” nature of the Wakefield planning and approval process through the PFRC. This is the first School Board project of this joint nature, and there have already been challenges in the process. Communication strategies and clear expectations will need to be fine tuned in order for a design to be finalized. The timing of the 2008 design funds is prudent and needed.
B. 4 – 2010 bond referendum should remain. Do not delay Wakefield to 2012.
Should the County delay the bond to 2012, the message to the community will be clear:
• The County Board is not committed to the Wakefield community and moving ahead with the Wakefield project. For the last decade the County has demonstrated commitment to the other two county high schools; Wakefield is not a County Board priority.
• The current County Board has grown less committed to a consistent and strong CIP for Arlington Public Schools.
County Board moving to delay to Wakefield project
The County Board appears to be moving to delay the Wakefield funding. After a closed session this month, the County Board is looking for options to push back the Wakefield 2010 bond. The County Manager released a memo with the following recommendations specifically targeted at delaying the Wakefield timeline:
1) Adopt a new policy that prohibits bond referenda if the funds can not be spent within 2 years. This directly addresses the School Board CIP's 2010 bond for Wakefield, since construction can not start until 2013. This proximity standard has NEVER been part of the discussions with the School Board. Rules are changing as we go -- which will continue to set Wakefield up for failure if we don't take action on this now.
2) Advises the School Board against spending Wakefield design funds from the 2008 bond, since construction can't begin until 2013.
3) Specifically recommends that the 2010 bond be moved fully to 2012.
Citizens who support the Wakefield funding and the current School Board CIP should take an active role in contacting the County Board by Friday, 7/18. There is no opportunity for public comment on the CIP at this weekend's Board meetings. That closed on June 24th, prior to the Board's closed door session. Citizens only chance to present counter arguments is with quick and direct contact to the County Board. Emails and faxes are part of the public record. LET THEM KNOW WE WILL EXPRESS OUR OPINIONS AT THE POLLS.
1) Adopt a new policy that prohibits bond referenda if the funds can not be spent within 2 years. This directly addresses the School Board CIP's 2010 bond for Wakefield, since construction can not start until 2013. This proximity standard has NEVER been part of the discussions with the School Board. Rules are changing as we go -- which will continue to set Wakefield up for failure if we don't take action on this now.
2) Advises the School Board against spending Wakefield design funds from the 2008 bond, since construction can't begin until 2013.
3) Specifically recommends that the 2010 bond be moved fully to 2012.
Citizens who support the Wakefield funding and the current School Board CIP should take an active role in contacting the County Board by Friday, 7/18. There is no opportunity for public comment on the CIP at this weekend's Board meetings. That closed on June 24th, prior to the Board's closed door session. Citizens only chance to present counter arguments is with quick and direct contact to the County Board. Emails and faxes are part of the public record. LET THEM KNOW WE WILL EXPRESS OUR OPINIONS AT THE POLLS.
Wednesday, July 9, 2008
County Board Weighs In, Holds Closed-Door Session
Is the Wakefield funding moving forward or back with the County Board? We're not sure at the moment. Following are the latest updates since the School Board passed the CIP in May:
June 2008: Joint CIP work session between County and School Boards. Highlights/Concerns:
County Manager, Ron Carlee, in conjunction with County Board members, raised concern about delay between the 2010 bond authorization for full funding and the delay to a 2013 construction start date. Feels bond should be pushed BACK to 2012. Concern also expressed about including Wakefield in the 2008 bond, although the 2010 bond seemed to be more the focus.
School Board members appeared to stand strong behind their recommendations but it is now in the hands of the County Board.
July 8, 2008: County Board held a closed meeting on July 8 about the School Board CIP. We have not been able to determine the discussion points of this meeting.
July 19, 21, 22: The CIP vote is scheduled for on or about July 22 (stay tuned: agenda still to be confirmed for three days of meetings on July 19, 21, 22.)
ACTION: We are currently trying to meet with County Board members individually. It is important for them to hear from the broader Wakefield community often, since many items are competing for their attention before the August recess.
June 2008: Joint CIP work session between County and School Boards. Highlights/Concerns:
County Manager, Ron Carlee, in conjunction with County Board members, raised concern about delay between the 2010 bond authorization for full funding and the delay to a 2013 construction start date. Feels bond should be pushed BACK to 2012. Concern also expressed about including Wakefield in the 2008 bond, although the 2010 bond seemed to be more the focus.
School Board members appeared to stand strong behind their recommendations but it is now in the hands of the County Board.
July 8, 2008: County Board held a closed meeting on July 8 about the School Board CIP. We have not been able to determine the discussion points of this meeting.
July 19, 21, 22: The CIP vote is scheduled for on or about July 22 (stay tuned: agenda still to be confirmed for three days of meetings on July 19, 21, 22.)
ACTION: We are currently trying to meet with County Board members individually. It is important for them to hear from the broader Wakefield community often, since many items are competing for their attention before the August recess.
Thursday, June 12, 2008
Joint Work Session: Wed, June 18, 2008
Attention Citizens! The County board and School Board will hold a joint working session on Wednesday, June 18 at 4 PM at the County Board offices. The time might prove difficult for some schedules. We plan to have attendance, but could use one or two others. If anyone can attend, please let us know. Thanks!
Thursday, May 29, 2008
School Board Approves Wakefield-Friendly CIP
We are happy to report that the School Board unanimously approved a Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) that accelerates the Wakefield bond cycles by 2 years. So what does the timeline look like now?
Nov 2008 - Bond Referendum of $99M on ballot. Funds enable planning and pre-construction to begin for Wakefield.
2009 - Bonds issued and funds spent on Wakefield planning and pre-construction.
Nov 2010 - Bond Referendum of $156M to voters. If approved, the funds are now ready to fully fund Wakefield construction over the proposed 4-year construction cycle.
2011-2012 -- No money spent on Wakefield
2013 - Wakefield construction begins
2017 - Wakefield construction complete
So what's next? Accelerate the 2013 construction start date and/or compress the 4-year construction cycle -- which is a plan that requires County Board engagement. Any comments you have would be helpful.
Nov 2008 - Bond Referendum of $99M on ballot. Funds enable planning and pre-construction to begin for Wakefield.
2009 - Bonds issued and funds spent on Wakefield planning and pre-construction.
Nov 2010 - Bond Referendum of $156M to voters. If approved, the funds are now ready to fully fund Wakefield construction over the proposed 4-year construction cycle.
2011-2012 -- No money spent on Wakefield
2013 - Wakefield construction begins
2017 - Wakefield construction complete
So what's next? Accelerate the 2013 construction start date and/or compress the 4-year construction cycle -- which is a plan that requires County Board engagement. Any comments you have would be helpful.
Sunday, May 18, 2008
School Board CIP Work Session #2 - Consider Accelerating Wakefield Project -- with limitations
EVENT: School Board CIP Work Session #2, 5/13/08
SUMMARY: School Board met to review various questions raised from Work Session #1. Much of the discussion evolved around the Wakefield project. 3 scenarios -- A, B & C -- were reviewed. Scenario B (we call it "Acceleration of Wakefield Bonds") moves Wakefield planning up into the 2008 Bond and full construction of $156M into 2010 Bond. However, construction start is still in 2013 due to County Board constraints.
What do we want? Scenario B with 2 caveats:
1) Consider how to accelerate the Wakefield construction start date. This may take more time and collaboration with the County Board -- since actual construction is dependent on their debt service limitations.
2) The 2012 bond cycle has no bond, which impacts our other school communities in the queue. We do not want to see the bi-annual bond cycle altered, as this is important to a strong and consistent overall CIP strategy.
ACTION
See info at right to come speak or email the School Board in support of Scenario B with 2 caveats noted above. We believe your voices are important. School Board email is schoolbd@arlington.k12.va.us.
DETAILS
Following are the 3 scenarios the School Board discussed in Work Session #2, plus considerations. Note: We gave the "names" in quotations for contextual reference.
Scenario A - "Original Proposal" -- Maintain Wakefield planning in 2010 Bond and full construction of $156M in 2012 Bond. Construction to begin in 2013, lasting ~4 years. Meets budgetary constraints of the County Board.
Scenario B - "Acceleration of Wakefield Bonds" -- Move Wakefield planning up into 2008 Bond and full construction of $156M into 2010 Bond. Construction start is still in 2013 due to County Board constraints.
Scenario C - "Acceleration of Wakefield & Thomas Jefferson" -- Move up Wakefield funding as noted above, plus bump up TJ funding to allow for progress on their capital needs (which are significant). This scenario violates the debt service ceilings set by the County Board.
SUMMARY: School Board met to review various questions raised from Work Session #1. Much of the discussion evolved around the Wakefield project. 3 scenarios -- A, B & C -- were reviewed. Scenario B (we call it "Acceleration of Wakefield Bonds") moves Wakefield planning up into the 2008 Bond and full construction of $156M into 2010 Bond. However, construction start is still in 2013 due to County Board constraints.
What do we want? Scenario B with 2 caveats:
1) Consider how to accelerate the Wakefield construction start date. This may take more time and collaboration with the County Board -- since actual construction is dependent on their debt service limitations.
2) The 2012 bond cycle has no bond, which impacts our other school communities in the queue. We do not want to see the bi-annual bond cycle altered, as this is important to a strong and consistent overall CIP strategy.
ACTION
See info at right to come speak or email the School Board in support of Scenario B with 2 caveats noted above. We believe your voices are important. School Board email is schoolbd@arlington.k12.va.us.
DETAILS
Following are the 3 scenarios the School Board discussed in Work Session #2, plus considerations. Note: We gave the "names" in quotations for contextual reference.
Scenario A - "Original Proposal" -- Maintain Wakefield planning in 2010 Bond and full construction of $156M in 2012 Bond. Construction to begin in 2013, lasting ~4 years. Meets budgetary constraints of the County Board.
Scenario B - "Acceleration of Wakefield Bonds" -- Move Wakefield planning up into 2008 Bond and full construction of $156M into 2010 Bond. Construction start is still in 2013 due to County Board constraints.
Scenario C - "Acceleration of Wakefield & Thomas Jefferson" -- Move up Wakefield funding as noted above, plus bump up TJ funding to allow for progress on their capital needs (which are significant). This scenario violates the debt service ceilings set by the County Board.
Tuesday, May 13, 2008
School Board CIP Work Session #1
We had a great turnout for the School Board’s CIP working session last night. Seven of us were joined by several others from the Oakridge and Wakefield communities. This was not a session for public comment. Rather, our role was to observe and track the discussions and leanings of the School Board.
Summary:
Wakefield is currently proposed for planning and pre-construction in 2011, with construction to begin in 2013 and run approximately 5 years. The School Board is discussing the financial implications of accelerating the planning/pre-construction into 2009 and the construction to begin in 2011. There is no decision made; the School Board raised many questions that staff will be analyzing and answering at the next working session on Tuesday, 5/13.
Details:
First, a primer: How do bonds work?
The citizens (that’s us) vote on bond referenda every two years for the Schools Capital Improvement Plan (CIP). That doesn’t mean the money is spend that same year. For example, if voters approve a $156 million bond in November, 2012 elections, the bonds can then be issued after that. The Superintendent is proposing issuing the bonds evenly over 5 years, which would fund construction at Wakefield from 2013-2018. So it’s this 5-year timeframe where the major costs are incurred – if we accelerate that timeline, the School and County Boards must consider how that affects their overall budgets and debt levels.
Recap of the proposed plan in regards to Wakefield:
2008 Bond – No Wakefield funding
2010 Bond - $11.1 million for Wakefield Planning & Pre-Construction
2012 Bond -- $156 million for Wakefield construction to run from 2013-2018
So, can we accelerate everything by 2 years -- and smooth out the bonds so there is not such a big chunk to stomach in 2012? Here is where the School Board discussions went:
1. Is it possible to begin building Wakefield two years earlier?
Asked about moving construction up from 2013 to 2011, Superintendent Smith replied, “We can do whatever we want.” Yet when the numbers were presented, it became clear that Dr. Smith did not favor the plan. His concern was incurring the expenses two years earlier would violate 5% debt service limits the School Board has agreed to with the County Manager. Another negative implication is that funds available for new projects would drop to $2 million in FY2015.
What does this mean? Simply put, the school’s budget will take on more debt than the County is comfortable with.
What about the School Board?
Of all of the School Board members, Libby Garvey stood out as the strongest champion for this accelerated plan. She proposed alternative funding ideas such as looking into issuing 30-year bonds rather than the traditional 20-year. Dr. Smith’s team indicated that they had discussions with County looking at 25-year bonds, but data was not yet available.
There are pros and cons to this approach. Think about it like a mortgage. A 30-year mortgage offers borrowers lower monthly payments, but it also costs the borrow more interest over the life of the loan.
Alternatively, Garvey proposed a compromise position, which would merely move-up the $11.1M design and pre-construction funding to the 2008 bond and leave options open for 2010 and 2012 referenda. She noted that getting to the design and pre-construction phase earlier seemed prudent to determine how construction in 2011 might be possible.
Accelerating the design and pre-construction phase seems an appropriate strategy since that takes time. In fact, Assistant Superintendent for Facilities, Clarence Stukes, noted that design and pre-construction phase fast-tracked for Washington-Lee still took more than a year.
2. Can we smooth the 2010 ($11.1M) and 2012 ($156M) bond referenda planned for Wakefield?
The 2012 Bond of $156 is proposed as a strategy that will secure all construction funding in a single bond. The risk here is a far-out timeline and very large bond for voters to stomach.
Smoothing the bond referenda between 2010 and 2012 would split construction, which forces the Board to go to voters twice, could increase costs and takes more planning to reach some sort of interim completion. Dr. Smith also pointed out that the actual construction date may still need to remain 2012 or 2013 in this scenario, so there is a risk of not meeting the voters’ expectations with construction funding in the 2010 bond.
What about the School Board?
At first Garvey appeared to stand alone with support for an earlier, phased construction approach, Abby Raphael added her support for the split, stating that the School Board could manage the expectations of the community that money in the referenda not be held, unspent, through the next bond cycle.
What's Next? Next working session is scheduled for Tues, 5/13. We'll have representation there again.
Summary:
Wakefield is currently proposed for planning and pre-construction in 2011, with construction to begin in 2013 and run approximately 5 years. The School Board is discussing the financial implications of accelerating the planning/pre-construction into 2009 and the construction to begin in 2011. There is no decision made; the School Board raised many questions that staff will be analyzing and answering at the next working session on Tuesday, 5/13.
Details:
First, a primer: How do bonds work?
The citizens (that’s us) vote on bond referenda every two years for the Schools Capital Improvement Plan (CIP). That doesn’t mean the money is spend that same year. For example, if voters approve a $156 million bond in November, 2012 elections, the bonds can then be issued after that. The Superintendent is proposing issuing the bonds evenly over 5 years, which would fund construction at Wakefield from 2013-2018. So it’s this 5-year timeframe where the major costs are incurred – if we accelerate that timeline, the School and County Boards must consider how that affects their overall budgets and debt levels.
Recap of the proposed plan in regards to Wakefield:
2008 Bond – No Wakefield funding
2010 Bond - $11.1 million for Wakefield Planning & Pre-Construction
2012 Bond -- $156 million for Wakefield construction to run from 2013-2018
So, can we accelerate everything by 2 years -- and smooth out the bonds so there is not such a big chunk to stomach in 2012? Here is where the School Board discussions went:
1. Is it possible to begin building Wakefield two years earlier?
Asked about moving construction up from 2013 to 2011, Superintendent Smith replied, “We can do whatever we want.” Yet when the numbers were presented, it became clear that Dr. Smith did not favor the plan. His concern was incurring the expenses two years earlier would violate 5% debt service limits the School Board has agreed to with the County Manager. Another negative implication is that funds available for new projects would drop to $2 million in FY2015.
What does this mean? Simply put, the school’s budget will take on more debt than the County is comfortable with.
What about the School Board?
Of all of the School Board members, Libby Garvey stood out as the strongest champion for this accelerated plan. She proposed alternative funding ideas such as looking into issuing 30-year bonds rather than the traditional 20-year. Dr. Smith’s team indicated that they had discussions with County looking at 25-year bonds, but data was not yet available.
There are pros and cons to this approach. Think about it like a mortgage. A 30-year mortgage offers borrowers lower monthly payments, but it also costs the borrow more interest over the life of the loan.
Alternatively, Garvey proposed a compromise position, which would merely move-up the $11.1M design and pre-construction funding to the 2008 bond and leave options open for 2010 and 2012 referenda. She noted that getting to the design and pre-construction phase earlier seemed prudent to determine how construction in 2011 might be possible.
Accelerating the design and pre-construction phase seems an appropriate strategy since that takes time. In fact, Assistant Superintendent for Facilities, Clarence Stukes, noted that design and pre-construction phase fast-tracked for Washington-Lee still took more than a year.
2. Can we smooth the 2010 ($11.1M) and 2012 ($156M) bond referenda planned for Wakefield?
The 2012 Bond of $156 is proposed as a strategy that will secure all construction funding in a single bond. The risk here is a far-out timeline and very large bond for voters to stomach.
Smoothing the bond referenda between 2010 and 2012 would split construction, which forces the Board to go to voters twice, could increase costs and takes more planning to reach some sort of interim completion. Dr. Smith also pointed out that the actual construction date may still need to remain 2012 or 2013 in this scenario, so there is a risk of not meeting the voters’ expectations with construction funding in the 2010 bond.
What about the School Board?
At first Garvey appeared to stand alone with support for an earlier, phased construction approach, Abby Raphael added her support for the split, stating that the School Board could manage the expectations of the community that money in the referenda not be held, unspent, through the next bond cycle.
What's Next? Next working session is scheduled for Tues, 5/13. We'll have representation there again.
Tuesday, April 29, 2008
Call for Help: School Board meeting, Thursday May 1, 7:30 PM
The Committee to Rebuild Wakefield will be speaking at the May 1 School Board meeting. We are hoping to bring other speakers and community members to show unified support. Please use “Comments” at the bottom of this post indicate whether you plan to attend or speak. A little organization goes a long way.
The meeting also provides an opportunity for citizens to speak. Citizens can register to speak. Many of us have discussed how great it would be for a few of us to speak and for the rest of us to cheer them on loudly.
Register to speak: Click Here.
- What: School Board meeting
- When: May 1 (Thursday) 7:30 PM
- Where: 1426 N. Quincy St. (1st floor, Education Center)
The meeting also provides an opportunity for citizens to speak. Citizens can register to speak. Many of us have discussed how great it would be for a few of us to speak and for the rest of us to cheer them on loudly.
Register to speak: Click Here.
Thursday, April 24, 2008
CIP: Proposed Revisions
Wed, April 23: Meeting with SuperIntendent Dr. Smith
We are grateful and supportive of the Yorktown funding in the 2008 bond. We also believe there is significant risk to passing the unusually large School Bond of $156 million in 2012, which could delay construction well beyond 2013 if derailed.
We have counter-proposed that bond cycles be adjusted to smooth the $156 million into more reasonable chunks from 2008 through 2012. The goal is to get Wakefield to construction with the 2010 bond. That means construction begins in 2011. What questions and comments do you have?
Wednesday, April 23, 2008
First: Where is the budget for Wakefield?
Answer: Stuck in a large bond in 2012.
- School Board appoints a Superintendent.
- Superintendent presents a 6-year Capital Improvement Plan to the School Board (CIP is a budget plan for our facilities).
- School Board accepts it or modifies it.
- School Board submits the final plan to the County Board. The County Board has final approval.
We are at Stage 2 right now. We need a School Board (stage 3) who is willing to modify the plan to meet our needs. Let's look at the Superintendent's proposed funding through bond referrals:
- 2008 - $88 million. This covers Yorktown's construction to completion in 2011 plus other general facilities expenses; no funds for Wakefield
- 2010 - $14 million -- $11 million for Wakefield planning in 2011. No funds allocated for work in 2012.
- 2012 - $156 million meant to fully fund Wakefield construction from 2013 through 2016
Are we fully funded in 2012? Unlikely. We need community support in the May School Board elections to ensure the 2 seats open remain pro-Wakefield. See election info at right. Please Vote!!!
Tuesday, April 22, 2008
Welcome to the Blog
Welcome to our community blog in Arlington, Virginia. We have established this forum to foster community feedback in our ongoing struggles to fund the rebuilding of Wakefield High School.
Our goal is to accelerate the Wakefield project. We hope to:
- Communicate concise and timely information to our community
- Build consensus with communities across the County
- Foster action around critical events
- Work constructively with the School and County Boards
This Spring and Summer are critical planning times at the School Board and County Board levels. We need the support of our entire community to impact this challenging situation.
If you are interested in this project or the process, bookmark this blog. To receive news join the Rebuild Wakefield listserv by e-mailing RebuildWakefield@gmail.com.
Thanks for reading; we welcome your comments.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)