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:

“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.