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:

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.