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.