THANK YOU MR. HERRITY FOR BRINGING MR. JACK DALE TO HIS SENSES! HOW UNBELIEVABLE THAT THIS SCHOOL SUPERINTENDENT AND FCPS SCHOOL BOARD WANTED TO PURCHASE A BUILDING WORTH 52 MILLION AND THEY WANTED 111 MILLION TO FIX IT UP FOR THEIR OWN BENEFIT WHERE WE HAVE TEACHERS STRUGGLING, THEIR SALARIES FROZEN OR MOST DID NOT GET WHAT THEY ARE PAID TO DO, STUDENTS NOT GETTING THE HELP THAT THEY NEED, AND MR. DALE BEING THE SELF-CENTERED PERSON THAT HE IS GOT WHAT HE NEEDED FROM THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS, NO! PLEASE TAKE OF THE PEOPLE THAT MATTER THE MOST, THE STAFF AND STUDENTS OF FCPS, NOT THE OFFICE WORKERS THAT WERE GOING TO GET A PLUSH OFFICE SUITE WHERE THE BUILDING COULD NOT BE USED BY THOSE THAT WORK IN THE SCHOOLS, AND ATTEND THE SCHOOLS. THANK YOU MR. HERRITY AND THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS FOR YOUR SOUND JUDGEMENT, AND TEACHING MR. JACK DALE A LESSON! YOU DESERVE AN A!

Pass out the clown shoes and red nose to Jack Dale. What a BUFFOON! "I was shocked and disapointed," said Jack--really, Mr. Dale? What Circus world are you residing? "The school board does not know it's next steps"--really, Mr. Dale? Weren't you told what would be next, after the poles were pulled from your $130M Big Top Tent? Let us remind you, Mr. Dale and your school board clown cronies....."schools, teachers and students and not administration..." will come first. Now, get back to the clown car and paint the tears on your face.

Yeah, it sounds like a great idea. Let's not buy a building that will ultimately save the county money over the long run, especially now that building prices are falling and that particular building owner has been trying to unload the property for some time. Way to go Herrity.

As for it being a 'plush office suite' the building is old. It's been renovated, but it is by no means 'plush'. It's just convenient, but we wouldn't want that.

Suburbanite, how will the Taj Schoohal save the county money? My understanding is that the one building will replace several other scattered buildings to make administering the schools a little easier.

Also how much have we sunk into it already? It'd be pointless to abandon if we've already spent a few million.

Suburbanite - please - look at the numbers the Washington Post article relates. 52 million for the building, 130 million requested for refurbishing (on a budget of $11) million - with the extra 20 million for the expected overrun - and a business case that loses money for 8 years and doesn't recognize the entire stated savings of 22 million until a thirty year period has expired. And the savings are predicated on the budgeted figure - not the requested overrun figure - so if there is an overrun, it likely loses money. So the prospect of this purchase saving any money is dim, and frankly unrealistic. And who in the heck can put any confidence in a 30 year business case? It might as well be a 100 years, for the matter. And more to the point, this is hardly the time to be spending money on an administrative center - especially when money for human capital in the classrooms - by far and away the most significant element for education - is being squeezed. And I don't get the School Board. How could they have possibly voted on this without having a very good (if not conclusive) idea of what the County Board would do? This one looked like it was dead on arrival. It boggles the mind. There must be an ethic among the School Board that since its education, we will get what we want - I don't get it.

really now Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Suburbanite - please - look at the numbers the
> Washington Post article relates. 52 million for
> the building, 130 million requested for
> refurbishing (on a budget of $11) million - with
> the extra 20 million for the expected overrun -
> and a business case that loses money for 8 years
> and doesn't recognize the entire stated savings of
> 22 million until a thirty year period has expired.
> And the savings are predicated on the budgeted
> figure - not the requested overrun figure - so if
> there is an overrun, it likely loses money. So
> the prospect of this purchase saving any money is
> dim, and frankly unrealistic. And who in the heck
> can put any confidence in a 30 year business case?
> It might as well be a 100 years, for the matter.
> And more to the point, this is hardly the time to
> be spending money on an administrative center -
> especially when money for human capital in the
> classrooms - by far and away the most significant
> element for education - is being squeezed. And I
> don't get the School Board. How could they have
> possibly voted on this without having a very good
> (if not conclusive) idea of what the County Board
> would do? This one looked like it was dead on
> arrival. It boggles the mind. There must be an
> ethic among the School Board that since its
> education, we will get what we want - I don't get
> it.


Really now,
The school board has no ethic.

notnow - your point is unassailable. I agree.

Gathehouse One did not deliver any promised savings-the numbers were not verifiable by FCPS.

Wy should we believe GH Two would "save money"? And why do we have to spend $130 million so we can then save money?

As far as the owner selling it at a bargain price-nice try. BPG bought the building in October 2006 for $43,545,000 from The American Red Cross. The ARC rented the property for the last 2 years so BPG had 100% occupancy. Over the last 2 years BPG put $5 million into the building in renovations. Fairfax County was going to pay BPG $52 million plus $5 million to "reimburse" them for the renovations. So BPJ invested $48.5 million 2 years ago, had full rental income and then "flips" it 2 years later to the moneybags at FCPS for $57 million.

Do the math. NICE DEAL for BPG. They make $8.5 million profit in 2 years.

I don't see how this building is such a "bargain". Oh and did I mention it was built in 1973?

This whole transaction reeked of corruption and mismanagement from day one.

Way to go BOS for smelling a rat!!

Link please. Boarddocs is broked.

www.fcps.edu

I am sick and tired of all the criticism directed at this wonderful School Board and Administration.

The purchase of Gatehouse II was a wise and fiscally prudent thing to do. Stu Gibson said it best "It is a GREAT time to buy real estate!"

Just examine the results from the online survey-the public supported this purchase pracically 100%!!

There were 489 responders to the online survey. 76% of the survey responders were FCPS employees.

On the survey they were asked on a scale of 1 to 10 whether they strongly agreed or disagreed with the purchase. Let's break it down into 2 catagories-

1-4 (with 1 being strongly agree) and 7-10 (with 10 being strongly disagree).

Let's ignore votes of 5 and 6 because they are basically neutral.

223 out of 489 responders voted 1-4 strongly disagree.

You see, even the employees didn't want the building!

Cut it out people Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I am sick and tired of all the criticism directed
> at this wonderful School Board and
> Administration.
>
> The purchase of Gatehouse II was a wise and
> fiscally prudent thing to do. Stu Gibson said it
> best "It is a GREAT time to buy real estate!"
>
> Just examine the results from the online
> survey-the public supported this purchase
> pracically 100%!!
>
> There were 489 responders to the online survey.
> 76% of the survey responders were FCPS employees.
>
> On the survey they were asked on a scale of 1 to
> 10 whether they strongly agreed or disagreed with
> the purchase. Let's break it down into 2
> catagories-
>
> 1-4 (with 1 being strongly agree) and 7-10 (with
> 10 being strongly disagree).
>
> Let's ignore votes of 5 and 6 because they are
> basically neutral.
>
> 223 out of 489 responders voted 1-4 strongly
> disagree.
>
> You see, even the employees didn't want the
> building!



Oh my, who would have believed that Jack Dale would be so stupid as to post this right here on the Underground. Wow!

Maybe you should get your info from more than just one side. I'm not saying it isn't going to cost money, it is, but then not buying it will cost us too.


Budget Case (Taken from FCPS Fact sheet:

Self-Funding: The purchase, renovation and operation of the BPG building is self-funded through the consolidation of the 14 status quo FCPS owned and leased administrative properties. No direct school operating or capital funds are impacted.

Life-cycle Cost Savings: The 31-year life-cycle cost savings and avoidance over the 14 status quo properties is $22.2 million (net present value $).

Budget Benefits: Specifically within the life cycle cost savings, there are savings as shown below that will help address the budget deficits projected for FY 2010 and beyond. These savings are attributable to vacating leases and position reductions associated with the consolidation:

FY2010 FY2011 FY2012
- Position Savings $ 999,424 $1,045,397 $1,093,486
- Lease Savings $1,077,764 $1,307,811 $1,414,348
Total: $2,077,188 $2,353,208 $2,507,834

Potential Additional Lease Cost Avoidance: In addition, if we do not consolidate, we will have to lease additional space to accommodate staff currently located in the Lacey and Devonshire centers that are planned within the Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) to be returned to use as schools. We estimate the annual lease costs for both buildings to be approximately $1.7 million
per year.



Taken from FCPS Website:
Approval of Phase I in November 2004 resulted in the consolidation of departments and offices from several facilities into Gatehouse Administration Center I at 8115 Gatehouse Road in Falls Church. FCPS demonstrated proven savings with the consolidation of employees into Gatehouse I (maintenance and replacement costs, staff efficiencies) and projects additional savings with the continuation of the consolidation plan.

The following facts are offered about this consolidation:

The project will be fully self-funded through savings and efficiencies.
Not $1 will come from the Capital Improvement Program.
No money will be taken away from schools or students.
Fairfax County residents will not be taxed to pay for the building or renovation costs. The acquisition of the BPG building is self-funded from savings directly attributable to the consolidation. In the short term there are actual cash savings in fiscal years 2010-2012 that total approximately $7 million; these savings can be used to help address our current budget challenges.
Consolidating employees at one site reduces travel between sites for meetings, enables reduction in use of fuel, reduces travel reimbursement costs (green issues).
Because of the increased staffing efficiencies, FCPS expects to save an estimated $1 million per year over the 31-year life cycle.
Acquisition of the BPG building will provide the opportunity for significant improvements to existing parking and traffic challenges at the Gatehouse center.
This is a great time to purchase real estate.
Interest rates are low.
Tax-exempt Interest rates are favorably low.
Motivated seller enabled us to get the building or well below the going rate per square foot of comparable buildings in the county.
No payments will need to be made until fiscal year 2013.
Purchasing this existing building will cost $34.8 million less than constructing a second Gatehouse building and the building is 67,000 square feet bigger than Gatehouse I.
A third party has verified that this is a fiscally prudent move for the school system and the families and communities of Fairfax County.
FCPS demonstrated proven savings with the consolidation of employees into the existing Gatehouse I building (maintenance and replacement costs, staff efficiencies), and plan to do it again with Gatehouse II. Another Smart Move.
This consolidation will centrally locate services to provide “one-stop shopping” for families.
This consolidation may allow us to move some capital improvement projects forward.
FCPS can return some existing administrative office buildings (Lacey, Devonshire) back to their communities for schools.
Depending on growth in the Tysons Corner area, Dunn Loring may be used as a school again.
Three buildings will be conveyed to the county in exchange for increased capital improvement funding.


And for a breakdown of the actual cost savings from Phase 1, see the following link: http://www.fcps.edu/news/office/CostSavingsPhaseI.pdf

Savings are less than originally estimated but that is in part due to deferring savings to Phase 2 which is now on hold now.


And here's a link that details the cost comparison between building a new building and purchasing the Gatehouse 2 building.
http://www.fcps.edu/news/office/docs/purchasevbuild.pdf

As for the value of the building, according to the FCPS Fact Sheet, an independent appraisal has valued the building at $60 mil and the purchase price is $52 mil. It is a bigger building than can be built on the pad site adjacent to Gatehouse 1, allowing more staff to consolidate there.

There are 14 properties that will be impacted by this Phase 2 plan.
6 FCPS owned bldgs will be totally vacated, 4 will be partially vacated, and 4 are leases to be terminated.

A third-party independent assessment of the FCPS Business Model was completed by Alvarez & Marsal, Real Estate Advisory Services, LLC, on June 5, 2008. Among some of the key findings with respect to the soundness of the business model and current market conditions were:

“Downward [real estate] cycles are a good time to buy for those with credit, cash, or leverage capability because when the cycle turns upward, the “deals” immediately dissipate and everyone begins to pay the rising fair market value of the properties or the rising construction costs. However, in either cycle, for those entities buying and holding long term (like FCPS), value for dollar invested equal to fair market value at the time of purchase, and buying sufficient space, is considered a strong investment”.

“...the recommendation to proceed with the purchase of the BPG Building is based upon an understanding of the market, the opportunity available and reflects sound real estate judgment.”

In summary, falling real estate values, favorable interest rates and availability for sale of an adjacent building, provide a unique and timely business opportunity for Fairfax County Public Schools. With the purchase of this building FCPS can save/cost avoid $22.2 million (present value dollars) over the 31- year life-cycle period, consolidate its administrative operations and leverage its existing building assets for school or other uses.

Got a question, Suburbanite. Why did the BOS turn down the SB's request for funding of Gatehouse 11 then especially when your post said the funding is self-funding? Something sounds weird from this whole shindig.

Take any figures from FCPS with a grain of salt. Or perhaps an entire salt shaker.

KeepOnTruckin Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Take any figures from FCPS with a grain of salt.
> Or perhaps an entire salt shaker.
--------------------------------------------------------

I agree. FCPS has a history of providing figures that are not true. They said Gatehouse 1 would save us $20 million dollars. Truth be told, it is and will cost us millions of dollars.

Here is my suggestion.

They spent $6 million dollars for a parking lot that they are not able to use.

Since they love trailers for our kids, lets take 40 trailers and put them on the lot and have Dale, staff and the SB work out of them. Let them walk to Gatehouse 1 EVERY TIME THEY NEED TO GO TO THE BATHROOM. In the rain, in the cold and the heat just like the 20,000 students who use trailers every day in order to attend school.

Trailers for Dale and SB Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Here is my suggestion.
>
> They spent $6 million dollars for a parking lot
> that they are not able to use.
>
> Since they love trailers for our kids, lets take
> 40 trailers and put them on the lot and have Dale,
> staff and the SB work out of them. Let them walk
> to Gatehouse 1 EVERY TIME THEY NEED TO GO TO THE
> BATHROOM. In the rain, in the cold and the heat
> just like the 20,000 students who use trailers
> every day in order to attend school.


Amen, Amen!!

The arrogance of these jerks is astounding.

Va is looking at a possible $3 billion budget shortfall. Yes, that is $3,000,000,000. Imagine the deep cuts and layoffs that will need to happen. Raising taxes during a recession is usually not to effective.

We are in a recession in case nobody noticed.

Imagine if they had built Gatehouse I in Lorton. then instead of building a middle school, they could send the kids there!

As obtuse as Dale and this School Board is, I think they know how dire the budget will be ober the next few years. They figured it is now or never on a new building for the educrats. Which makes their vote even more disgusting.

Let's hope they proceed with all the staff layoffs as promised in their brilliant cost savings models. What every one will soon realize is that the ONLY savings from these building pruchases comes from layoffs-something they should be doing anyways!

We either lay off Dale's people or teachers-you guys decide.

We could lay off Dale...that would give us an extra 400,000 or so a year

Thanks Pat.

This corrupt SB should be recalled and replaced. They are at the edge of the forest, but are not able to see the trees.

I am not sure what newspaper of tv channel this School Board is tuned to.....but to date we have....

Washington Mutual collapse-taken over by JP Morgan
Merrill Lynch forced to merge with Bank of America
Bear Stearns bought by JP MOrgan-facilitated by The Fed
Lehman Brothers-bankrupt
Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac broke-in receivership

Who knows who is next, who knows if $700 billion will cure this financial turmoil.

And yet, our elected public servants wanted to spend $130 million on a building for themselves.

I am at a loss for words. I do not understand what these people are about.

Suburbanite - you are correct that receiving more than one side of the story is helpful.

This is why after reading the material you cite from the FCPS website I am even more persuaded than ever that this prospective purchase was an exercise in poor judgment (although I am inclined to agree with no other reason's guess at the SB's motive).

The notion that a significant expenditure would be fully funded by savings and efficiencies is really hard to swallow, as is the present value calculation which relies on late in cycle savings and a number of static assumptions. And as stated, the savings in total occur well in the out years, which means that any number of variables could impact that analysis. Options are more expensive over great time horizons, and if one were to analogize their business case to a call option as to real estate costs against future administrative needs, my guess is that it is inadequately priced.

And the notion that not one dollar will come out of the hide of the capital improvement program just demonstrates the Board's insularity. The money will come out of bonds that we all must pay to service in the form of long term debt. The sourcing makes no difference to taxpayers, assuming the same cost of capital for each (and the capital budget probably has a lower cost of capital to the extent it relies on current tax receipts).

And more to the point, most every business in America expects significant administrative efficiencies to continue to obtain with the advent of technology. Assuming a steady state in terms of administrative staff is setting a pretty low bar - and in fact - any business case should reflect a movement of resources from administrative resources to classroom resources to take advantage of those efficiencies.

The blunt truth is that the SB wanted a nice building. Ok, I get it. But this is not the time to budget for a nice to have, and no matter how you slice it, it comes off as arrogant and insensitive to current budget conditions and politically naive.

Of course, you may disagree. But my guess is that the overwhelming public opinion will not be of that mind, and with good reason.

Actually, if you factor in the interest costs, the actual total up-front cost of Gatehouse 2 is really more like $286 Million that the County taxpayers would have to pay back in one way or another over the typical 30-year financing period.

Once again Dale and the SB lie. They need to have full disclosure that are truthfull so taxpayers know how their money is being spent.

DO NOT TRUST Jack Dale or the SB with our money.

$286 million Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Actually, if you factor in the interest costs, the
> actual total up-front cost of Gatehouse 2 is
> really more like $286 Million that the County
> taxpayers would have to pay back in one way or
> another over the typical 30-year financing period.
>
>
> Once again Dale and the SB lie. They need to have
> full disclosure that are truthfull so taxpayers
> know how their money is being spent.
>
> DO NOT TRUST Jack Dale or the SB with our money.

If all of the above is true? Someone needs to tell us why? Is it because they are stupid? Is it because they are meat heads? Or is it because there are kick backs in the construction and real estate business?

Who is getting the kick backs, Dale, Staff or the school board? Big questions?

The 286 million dollar figure sounds right, and it is not due to kickbacks. It is simply reflects the overall cost of the project, including interest as it accrues. No different than with a 30 year mortgage, except here the mortgagee are the taxpayers making the scratch on the bonds.

Just not a good deal in today's environment.

I love how the dimwits at FCPS are continuing to stand by their stupid decision to try to ram this deal through. We are lucky that The BOS had the sense to say HELL NO!!

Just for kicks, visit the FCPS website homepage and read how they want to thank all the members of the community for their support in this deal.

Who the HELL in the community wanted to see this deal happen? No parent I have ever spoken with thinks they deserve a $130 million building given the state of affairs.

These people are too far gone for us to help them.

One of the at-large members-Moom-had enough sense to vote against this. Let's show him some love.

I don't get why Bradsher changed her vote. She originally opposed to it. There was a roomful of West Springfield parents at the last SB meeting asking why they have been ignored.

These board members have no clue what the needs of this school district are.

give one of them credit Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> One of the at-large members-Moom-had enough sense
> to vote against this. Let's show him some love.
>
> I don't get why Bradsher changed her vote. She
> originally opposed to it. There was a roomful of
> West Springfield parents at the last SB meeting
> asking why they have been ignored.
>
> These board members have no clue what the needs of
> this school district are.

I give none of them any credit. They are a bunch of corrupt officials that need to go.

Let's all put the champagne away.

Look at the docket for the School Board on October 2nd meeting.

They are planning to talk about Gatehouse II!!! WTF!

They don't get it folks.

Time to call your SB member and the AT Large members and give them HELL!!!

So our Board of Supervisors says no but they are going to do it anyways??

Where is the money coming from? I thought "One dollar was not coming from our schools or students"?

Isn't that what they said?

Just because it is on the agenda does not mean it is going anywhere. This school board needs a half hour or so to self congratulate and applaud their own efforts at doing nothing. They are always so proud of their arrogant motions and difficult long journeys. This calls for a celebration in their mind. Kathy S. is bringing the cupcakes. They will probably send I. Moon out of the room to get the punch and then not save any cupcakes for him. sigh.

By far one of the funniet posts I have ever read on FU.

Are you kidding me?

They are going to waste time talking about what a disaster this idea was from day one?

I hope FCPS got their deposit back from BPG. That building will sit vacant for at least a year-Red Cross is vacating 10/31.

But Stu will stand by his idiotic statement that this is a good time to buy real estate.

Gatehouse II — A Bad Deal
Commentary

By Supervisor Pat Herrity (R-Springfield)
Thursday, October 02, 2008


At the Sept. 22, 2008 meeting, the Board of Supervisors declined to provide the EDA bonding necessary to finance the purchase of the Gatehouse II building. The school system wanted to purchase the Gatehouse II facility in order to consolidate the administrative staff. While the formal vote was unanimous, there was significant disagreement among the Board of Supervisors. The school system is actively working to revise the proposal to bring it back to the Board of Supervisors.

I am a strong believer in consolidation and the efficiencies they typically bring. However, the proposal put forth by the school system was a bad deal. Here are just some of the reasons:

Purchase Price Too High. The school proposed paying $52M for a building that was purchased by the current owner for $44 million just two years ago. Building values have fallen in the last two years. The schools consultant indicated it was a good deal because fully leased up the building would be worth $60 million. However the building has no leases.

Minimal Cost Saving. The estimated cost savings over the 30 years was presented at $22 million. This equals less than $1 million per year. The savings for Gatehouse I was presented at approximately $25 million but is now estimated to be at only $10 million. As noted in the following two paragraphs the savings is both understated (no reductions for personnel efficiencies) and overstated (much of this benefit does not pass to taxpayers).

School Cost Savings Does Not Equal Taxpayer Savings. Much of the $22 million in cost savings results from the elimination of the cost of operating and maintaining the current buildings. However, the project as presented keeps all of the properties in Fairfax County’s hands meaning taxpayers continue to pay the cost. Most of the buildings were proposed to be transferred to the Board of Supervisors but there was no discussion or plan on use or disposal of these properties — especially given our pending reductions — meaning that taxpayers likely would continue to bear the cost even if the schools did not.

No Reduction of Personnel for Efficiencies. The school claims that the consolidation of offices would result in efficiencies. However, the only positions that were eliminated due to this consolidation were the custodial and building maintenance staff. If there are real efficiencies then I would expect to see real reductions in staff being proposed as a result.

Failure to Consider Upcoming Administrative Staff Reductions. The school administrative staff has grown at a significantly higher rate than the school population. Based on the current Lines of Business Review being undertaken by the school I would expect to see a significant reduction in administrative personnel. The proposal kept the school administrative staffing at the same level as current level when looking at the administrative facilities need for Gatehouse II.

There were several positive outcomes from the proposed purchase of Gatehouse II, the biggest being the availability of three schools currently used for administrative staff that are or will be needed as schools — Dunn Loring, Lacy and Devonshire. However, in my opinion, these positives were significantly overshadowed by the points above and may be able to be accomplished with staff reductions. In this time of limited resources, we need to be focusing on our teachers, school and kids and not adding administrative space.

The word on the street in South County is that Dan Storck and Liz Bradsher are telling people that you better support Gatehouse II if you want that new middle school.

Sounds like they are using Mafia tactics/pressure on these taxpayers. If you were at the SB meeting last night your saw several SC people talking in favor of Gatehouse II.

Looks like this pressure has worked.

We must say NO to this building that will cost the taxpayers of FFC $286 million dollars.

be very careful here taxpayers and parent-I think we are being played like a fiddle.

At the SB meeting last night the SB voted unanimously to proceed with the possible aquisition of Gatehouse 2. Shockingly, they are deferring the vote until November to give them time to obtain another appraisal of the property.

Let's see, November, November, what happens in November?

Oh, I know, election day.

Could this be a scam by Connelly and his crew to put this whole thing off until after they reelected.

I think I smell a rat.

wqatch your back folks Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> be very careful here taxpayers and parent-I think
> we are being played like a fiddle.
>
> At the SB meeting last night the SB voted
> unanimously to proceed with the possible
> aquisition of Gatehouse 2. Shockingly, they are
> deferring the vote until November to give them
> time to obtain another appraisal of the property.
>
> Let's see, November, November, what happens in
> November?
>
> Oh, I know, election day.
>
> Could this be a scam by Connelly and his crew to
> put this whole thing off until after they
> reelected.
>
> I think I smell a rat.

So this time Moon voted for the Gatehouse II? Last time he didn't vote for the GHII.

Does this STUPID SB know that we are in a recessing? Where is the fiscal restraint?

SAY NO TO GATEHOUSE II, SAY NO TO INDOOR OUTDOOR RESTAURANT FOR THESE BUMS, SAY NO TO THE HEALTH SPA THAT THEY WANT IN THIS BUILDING,SAY NO TO INDOOR FREE PARKING, SAY NO TO SPENDING $286 MILLION DOLLARS ON THIS FAT CAT BUILDING.

They need to fix unsafe schools, they need to reduce unsafe trailers, they need to reduce classroom size, they need to reduce Dales staff.

Look at what they are trying to do after the BOS told them NO AND HELL NO.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

The following action was taken by the School Board at the October 2, 2008, regular meeting:

Reconsideration of Purchase and Sale Agreement for 8111 Gatehouse Road

The following Board motion passed unanimously:

1) to approve the acquisition of, and financing for, the Facility (the property located at 8111 Gatehouse Road, Falls Church, Virginia) for use as the second centralized administration facility for a purchase price not to exceed that stated in the Original PSA and consistent with the parameters discussed in closed session. The School Board hereby adopts the resolution attached hereto relating to the New Financing of the Facility, and

2) to authorize the Division Superintendent or the Chief Operating Officer, on behalf of the School Board, and with the advice and counsel of the School Board attorney to (i) negotiate, execute and deliver the New PSA in substantial conformity with the foregoing; (ii) negotiate, execute and deliver all documents and amendments related to, in connection with, or in furtherance of the transaction described herein; and (iii) upon approval by the Board of Supervisors of the New Financing, proceed with the transaction and complete the purchase and financing of the Facility.

3) If the Board of Supervisors declines to approve the New Financing during the New Due Diligence Period, if the transaction cannot be completed consistent with the parameters discussed by the School Board in closed session, or it is otherwise determined during the New Due Diligence Period that termination of the New PSA is in the best interest of the School Board, then the School Board hereby authorizes the Division Superintendent or the Chief Operating Officer, with the advice and counsel of the School Board attorney, (i) to terminate the New PSA, (ii) to recover the deposit and any other sums that may be due the School Board, and (iii) to notify the County of the foregoing and to cancel the New Financing

Ya'll are petty and vindictive.

The re-districting is over....face it, your brats are going to South Lakes.

Putting Jack Dale's office in an outhouse ain't going to change that!

$286 MILLION FOR GATEHOUSE II AND NO MONEY FOR THE UNSAFE WSHS.

SEE WHAT IS WRONG WITH WSHS,



Here is an portion of Supervisor Herrity’s newsletter telling us what is wrong with WSHS:

Recently many constituents have emailed me with their concerns about the current condition of WSHS. As a 1978 graduate of WSHS and proud alum, I too am concerned about its current condition. In fact, I recently toured the school and was dismayed at what I witnessed while walking the halls. Broken windows and tiles, mold, leaking pipes, and an aging and dangerous electrical system are just a few of the many unacceptable conditions that I encountered during my tour. I also testified before the Fairfax County School Board at its Capital Improvement Program public hearings about WSHS's current state and advocating it to be put onto and moved up on the CIP. As you know WSHS was built in 1966 and has gone without any major renovations for almost 42 years while other newer schools have seen such renovations in recent years.

SAY NO TO GATEHOUSE II.

SEND THE ABOVE TO A FRIEND

tubby Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Ya'll are petty and vindictive.
>
> The re-districting is over....face it, your brats
> are going to South Lakes.
>
> Putting Jack Dale's office in an outhouse ain't
> going to change that!

Tubby,

Sounds like you need to chill out. This Gatehouse II acquistion attempt by the goons has nothing to do with the re-districting. Looks whose being petty or perhaps vindicative?

Baffled Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> tubby Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Ya'll are petty and vindictive.
> >
> > The re-districting is over....face it, your
> brats
> > are going to South Lakes.
> >
> > Putting Jack Dale's office in an outhouse ain't
> > going to change that!
>
> Tubby,
>
> Sounds like you need to chill out. This Gatehouse
> II acquistion attempt by the goons has nothing to
> do with the re-districting. Looks whose being
> petty or perhaps vindicative?


Bullshit, it's because of the re-districting that the "goons" can't do ANYTHING right.

You peoples' outrage about Gatehouse is amazing...it's nickels and dimes.

I am MUCH, MUCH more outraged about giving a TRILLION dollars of borrowed money to the Wall Street schnooks! At least Gatehouse is of some use and will be owned by the taxpayers UNLIKE some crooks' yachts and mansions in the Hamptons!

Who is responsible for the unsafe conditions at WSHS. Why were these conditions not fixed over the years. Who failed to do their job?

Dale and the entire school board? YES

Here is a list of some of the defects at WSHS:


•The girls and boys bathrooms closest to the main gym in need of repair.


= Major plumbing problems have not been addressed.


• The outdated piping throughout the school needs to be replaced NOW.


•The entire exterior surface needs to be painted, including the rusty fences behind the school.


• All of the single pane windows in the school need to be replaced.


• Carpeting throughout the school needs to be replaced.


•The broken West Springfield High School sign in front of the school needs to be replaced.


• Water fountains throughtout the school are broken and need to be replaced.


•The lights on the main athletic field which currently sit atop unsafe wooden poles need to be replaced.


•The temporary trailers that have never been repaired or replaced need to be removed.


•The track which has large cracks on an uneve unsafen surface needs to be replaced or repaired now. Currently all track meets have been held on other area school tracks due to the unacceptable, unsafe condition of the West Springfield track.

The list of defects in this school are at the level that this school should be closed until all repairs are completed.

Instead of spending $286 million dollars on Gatehouse II, spend the money on fixing WSHS and any school that needs repairs.

FIX WSHS NOW Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Who is responsible for the unsafe conditions at
> WSHS. Why were these conditions not fixed over the
> years. Who failed to do their job?
>
> Dale and the entire school board? YES
>
> Here is a list of some of the defects at WSHS:
>
>
> •The girls and boys bathrooms closest to the main
> gym in need of repair.
>
>
> = Major plumbing problems have not been
> addressed.
>
>
> • The outdated piping throughout the school needs
> to be replaced NOW.
>
>
> •The entire exterior surface needs to be painted,
> including the rusty fences behind the school.
>
>
> • All of the single pane windows in the school
> need to be replaced.
>
>
> • Carpeting throughout the school needs to be
> replaced.
>
>
> •The broken West Springfield High School sign in
> front of the school needs to be replaced.
>
>
> • Water fountains throughtout the school are
> broken and need to be replaced.
>
>
> •The lights on the main athletic field which
> currently sit atop unsafe wooden poles need to be
> replaced.
>
>
> •The temporary trailers that have never been
> repaired or replaced need to be removed.
>
>
> •The track which has large cracks on an uneve
> unsafen surface needs to be replaced or repaired
> now. Currently all track meets have been held on
> other area school tracks due to the unacceptable,
> unsafe condition of the West Springfield track.
>
> The list of defects in this school are at the
> level that this school should be closed until all
> repairs are completed.
>
> Instead of spending $286 million dollars on
> Gatehouse II, spend the money on fixing WSHS and
> any school that needs repairs.

We've read your hundreds of posts about WSHS - do you really think WSHS is the only county school that needs repairs? By all means, argue against Gatehouse II if you want, but stop suggesting that WSHS should jump in line in front of other older schools on the renovation list also needing renovations.

See who is coming to our meeting.


SOAR Town Hall Meeting on Tuesday October 28, 2008 at 7:30PM in the WSHS Cafeteria. Plan to attend to show your support and to learn more about our effort. The WSHS issue affects all members of the West Springfield community to maintain a leading quality high school so West Springfield can continue to thrive as a sought after community. Come to WSHS on October 28 @ 7:30PM to learn more and to discuss the WSHS issue with School Board members and other special guests.

Scheduled attendees include:

1. Fairfax School Board members Liz Bradsher (Springfield District), Tessie Wilson (Braddock District), Chairman Dan Storck (Mount Vernon District), and Tina Hone (At-Large)



2. Dean Tistadt, Chief Operating Officer, FCPS Facilities and Transportation Services



3. Fairfax Supervisor Pat Herrity, Springfield District



4. Virginia General Assembly Delegates Dave Albo (41st) and Dave Marsden (42nd)



5. VA State Senator George Barker (39th)



6. Keith Fimian, Congressional candidate (11th)



Invited special guests include:

1. Entire Fairfax County School Board

2. Gerry Connolly, Chairman Fairfax Board of Supervisors

3. Sharon Bulova and Gerry Hyland, Fairfax Supervisors Braddock & Mt Vernons Districts

4. VA State Senator Ken Cuccinelli (37th)

5. Congressman Tom Davis (11th)

Queue Master Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> We've read your hundreds of posts about WSHS - do
> you really think WSHS is the only county school
> that needs repairs? By all means, argue against
> Gatehouse II if you want, but stop suggesting that
> WSHS should jump in line in front of other older
> schools on the renovation list also needing
> renovations.


High schools are the only ones that matter. As far as FCPS high schools go, WSHS is very bad. Marshall, Falls Church, and TJ are the only one I can think of that are in need.

KeepOnTruckin Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Queue Master Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > We've read your hundreds of posts about WSHS -
> do
> > you really think WSHS is the only county school
> > that needs repairs? By all means, argue
> against
> > Gatehouse II if you want, but stop suggesting
> that
> > WSHS should jump in line in front of other
> older
> > schools on the renovation list also needing
> > renovations.
>
>
> High schools are the only ones that matter. As far
> as FCPS high schools go, WSHS is very bad.
> Marshall, Falls Church, and TJ are the only one I
> can think of that are in need.

TJ and Marshall are in similar shape to WS. Falls Church probably is in better shape than any of these three. There is no reason to bump WSHS above TJ or Marshall; in addition, Oakton was built around the same time as WS and is now showing its age as well. Who knows, given the deteriorating economic conditions, whether money will be found to renovate any of these schools, but the notion that Pat Herrity is going to force the School Board to bump WSHS above schools already on the CIP because that's where he attended school is revolting. It's like Stuart Gibson cramming the South Lakes RD down everyone's throats because that's where his daughters attended school all over again. Does anyone at the SB or the BOS have ANY integrity at all?

Marshall, Oakton, West Springfield and Herndon are all the same design, coincidentally and were built between 1963 and 1967

TJ and Marshall are in similar shape to WS. Falls Church probably is in better shape than any of these three. There is no reason to bump WSHS above TJ or Marshall; in addition, Oakton was built around the same time as WS and is now showing its age as well. Who knows, given the deteriorating economic conditions, whether money will be found to renovate any of these schools, but the notion that Pat Herrity is going to force the School Board to bump WSHS above schools already on the CIP because that's where he attended school is revolting. It's like Stuart Gibson cramming the South Lakes RD down everyone's throats because that's where his daughters attended school all over again. Does anyone at the SB or the BOS have ANY integrity at all?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

NO AND HELL NO, THEY ARE A BUNCH OF CORRUPT ELITISTS WHO ONLY CARE ABOUT THEMSELVES.

Why did Langley rate higher than West Springfield on the latest facilities report?

It seems that they rate shortage of classrrom space the same as crumbling infrastructure.

Either way, WSHS is screwed-they are at least 8-10 years away getting funds.

I think TJ should be at the head of the renovation list.

Face it folks, TJ kids are the ones who will make a mark on this world, find a cure for cancer or some other achievement that will change the world. They need a world class facility in which to study.

The morons at WSHS, with their iPods and cellphones glued to their stupid heads, certainly will not.

And the TJ kids will NOT immediately begin the destruction of the renovated facility.

what about Langley Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Why did Langley rate higher than West Springfield
> on the latest facilities report?
>
> It seems that they rate shortage of classrrom
> space the same as crumbling infrastructure.
>
> Either way, WSHS is screwed-they are at least 8-10
> years away getting funds.

There are many schools that have been screwed and many more will get screwed by this school board.

It's not about the students, It is all about what is good for this out of control SB.

The Fairfax County School Board recently proposed the purchase of a building that is 35 years old for the County’s school administrative staff. The Board of Supervisors declined the funding, and yet the School Board is back at it again, trying to figure out a way to purchase the building for $130 million dollars. In this time of economic downturn and turmoil, the very idea that the School Board would even consider continuing to press for the plan has parents irritated, angry and looking for answers.

By the school board's logic, it will be cheaper to renovate schools and get rid of the maintenence staff, rather than maintain the schools in current conditions

SAY NO TO GATEHOUSE 11.

THIS IS WHAT DALE AND THE SB WANT FOR THEMSELVES, WHILE THE STUDENTS OF FFC GO TO SCHOOL IN RAT TRAPS:


Office space with style and class,

274,690 sf,

Beautifully remodeled lobby, common corridors and lobbies on all six floors,

New elevator system,

Abundant free surface and covered parking,

Large cafeteria with indoor and outdoor seating,

10,000 square foot data center,

State of the art conference center,

Fitness center with showers and locker rooms,

All of the above for Dale and the school board while our kids go to school in unsafe trailers and schools that are falling apart.

Just getting started,

Watchdog

$300 million for Gatehouse 11 and not one penny for WSHS. Something is wrong here.

To all in Fairfax County,


I don't know how much you have been following the Gatehouse II purchase proposed by the School Board. The School Board is at it again. They want to consolidate Administration staff in a luxurious 300,000 square foot building next to Gatehouse I and use the bond we taxpayers approved in 2007 to pay for it. The building has a gym and spa, 10,000 square foot conference room, lobbies on every floor, etc. The Staff will come from existing schools and they claim that they can reuse the space for our children. Imagine that --- the so-called "run down" facilities that they want to return to the school system are not good enough for staff, but good enough for our children. Our children, who are in close to 1,000 trailers throughout the county, with some schools over 46 years old (West Springfield High) and some without enough books (Fox Mill).

I am convinced Gibson told Staff that he would get them Gatehouse II in return for the renovations to South Lakes and the redistricting. The pieces of the puzzle are coming together. Also, the same real estate firm that secured the existing administration building (Gatehouse I) was mysteriously selected to conduct an "independent review of the cost/benefit compiled by the School Board" for Gatehouse II. I have friends in commercial real estate who say that it is "incredible" that they only had one appraisal for a government facility - unheard of.

We are paying $57 million ($52 million + $5 million renovations reimbursement) for a building assessed for $43 Million in 2008.

The School Board's proposal was not approved by the Board of Supervisors, because guess what, the election is coming up…so the School Board went back to the drawing board, playing with the numbers again, and picking new numbers out of thin air, in hopes that the numbers will come out "better" and the BOS will approve. They have until December 1. And again after the election, who cares? The Board of Supervisors certainly won't.

So, bottom line, your tax dollars are going to be wasted on Gibson's Staff while our kids and teachers have to give up their raises, books, supplies, classrooms, new teacher salaries, and the things that truly matter….

NO AND HELL NO TO GATEHOUSE 11

Mr. Herrity,

Do you want to know what is wrong with FCPS? Read the following:

The School Board and Dale are in place to keep STAFF happy. They are there to expand the bureaucracy, make sure the get raises, and great retirement benefits. So of course Stu is looking out for staff and wants to buy them an overpriced building, while kids have their class size increased, and go to those classes outside in drafty trailers. It's NOT ABOUT THE KIDS. It's about STAFF, keeping them happy. Kids have no choice where they go to school or who teaches them but staff does have a choice. They can leave in MoCo or LoCo offers them more money and a fancier building. SB and Dale love the staff and want to do everything to keep them. The heck with the kids, they don't care. It's staff they care about.

Wouldn't it be nice if students had a CHOICE of what kind of building they had to spend their days in? Like Staff has? I bet the kids would rather be in Gate House than stuffed in their cold, drafty, trailers with 35 of their closest buds and one teacher. But staff wants always take priority over the needs of children. Always. What staff wants, staff gets.

Dale and the SB do not give a shit about any students.

Students Lose again Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Mr. Herrity,
>
> Do you want to know what is wrong with FCPS? Read
> the following:
>
> The School Board and Dale are in place to keep
> STAFF happy. They are there to expand the
> bureaucracy, make sure the get raises, and great
> retirement benefits. So of course Stu is looking
> out for staff and wants to buy them an overpriced
> building, while kids have their class size
> increased, and go to those classes outside in
> drafty trailers. It's NOT ABOUT THE KIDS. It's
> about STAFF, keeping them happy. Kids have no
> choice where they go to school or who teaches them
> but staff does have a choice. They can leave in
> MoCo or LoCo offers them more money and a fancier
> building. SB and Dale love the staff and want to
> do everything to keep them. The heck with the
> kids, they don't care. It's staff they care about.
>
>
> Wouldn't it be nice if students had a CHOICE of
> what kind of building they had to spend their days
> in? Like Staff has? I bet the kids would rather be
> in Gate House than stuffed in their cold, drafty,
> trailers with 35 of their closest buds and one
> teacher. But staff wants always take priority over
> the needs of children. Always. What staff wants,
> staff gets.
>
> Dale and the SB do not give a shit about any
> students.

The BOS must say no to spending $300 million dollars when the county is going broke.

SAY NO TO $300 MILLION Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> To all in Fairfax County,
>
>
> I don't know how much you have been following the
> Gatehouse II purchase proposed by the School
> Board. The School Board is at it again. They want
> to consolidate Administration staff in a luxurious
> 300,000 square foot building next to Gatehouse I
> and use the bond we taxpayers approved in 2007 to
> pay for it. The building has a gym and spa, 10,000
> square foot conference room, lobbies on every
> floor, etc. The Staff will come from existing
> schools and they claim that they can reuse the
> space for our children. Imagine that --- the
> so-called "run down" facilities that they want to
> return to the school system are not good enough
> for staff, but good enough for our children. Our
> children, who are in close to 1,000 trailers
> throughout the county, with some schools over 46
> years old (West Springfield High) and some without
> enough books (Fox Mill).
>
> I am convinced Gibson told Staff that he would get
> them Gatehouse II in return for the renovations to
> South Lakes and the redistricting. The pieces of
> the puzzle are coming together. Also, the same
> real estate firm that secured the existing
> administration building (Gatehouse I) was
> mysteriously selected to conduct an "independent
> review of the cost/benefit compiled by the School
> Board" for Gatehouse II. I have friends in
> commercial real estate who say that it is
> "incredible" that they only had one appraisal for
> a government facility - unheard of.
>
> We are paying $57 million ($52 million + $5
> million renovations reimbursement) for a building
> assessed for $43 Million in 2008.
>
> The School Board's proposal was not approved by
> the Board of Supervisors, because guess what, the
> election is coming up…so the School Board went
> back to the drawing board, playing with the
> numbers again, and picking new numbers out of thin
> air, in hopes that the numbers will come out
> "better" and the BOS will approve. They have until
> December 1. And again after the election, who
> cares? The Board of Supervisors certainly won't.
>
> So, bottom line, your tax dollars are going to be
> wasted on Gibson's Staff while our kids and
> teachers have to give up their raises, books,
> supplies, classrooms, new teacher salaries, and
> the things that truly matter….
>
> NO AND HELL NO TO GATEHOUSE 11

The following question needs to be answered. Since Dale and the school board refuse to give up on Gatehouse II, WHO IS GETTING THE KICKBACKS AND HOW MUCH?

Now we know why the FC Chamber of Commerce supported the purchase of Gatehouse II-Jack Dale is on the Board of Directors!

What else do us taxpayers need to know?

As I have been watching the news over the last few days, I began to wonder if Mr. Connolly and Mr. Dale know each other. Mr. Connolly is saying Fairfax County has a $60 Million dollar short fall this year. He is issuing a hiring freeze, no new fire trucks or police cars and in 2010 it will be $500 million dollar shortfall. What will have to be cut then?

Now with the economy in a mess, why does Mr. Dale want to spend $300 million dollars of taxpayers money on a PLUSH office building for his staff and the school board? Why not spend $300 million dollars (if we had it) on the students in the FCPS system.

I suggest the following would be a better use of the money instead of giving Dale and staff a health spa, Indoor/outdoor restaurant and a swimming pool. Renovate broken down old schools, build new schools and reduce the total number of unsafe old trailers in the school system.

Students first

No money for WSHS Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> $300 million for Gatehouse 11 and not one penny
> for WSHS. Something is wrong here.


Mr. Herrity, please use your good judgement and say no to Gatehouse 11.

Vote NO on the bond referendum

--$100 million annual interest payment for what?

The Washington Post cites FCTA opposition to Fairfax County's 2008 bond referendum: Economy Dims Prospects for Fairfax Parks Bond Issue. Thursday, September 25, 2008; Page VA04 (Fairfax Extra). The following supplements the FCTA's quote in the Post.
Fairfax County is wasting about $100 million annually on interest for its $2 billion debt because, for most years, the amount borrowed (bond revenues) is about the same as the cost of borrowing (debt service). See bars on the graph.

When the county does this, its debt (red line on the graph) increases. Between 1983 (first year for which data is available) and 2008, Fairfax County inflation-adjusted debt has increased from about $1.5 billion to $2.3 billion. The $2.3 billion in debt does not include interest owed, which is another $800 million.

If the county had not borrowed, it could have used the debt service funds to pay for capital improvements. Capital spending would have been about the same as with bonds, and there would be no debt and no annual $100-million interest payment.

The high cost of interest for bonds is justified only when the revenues from bond sales significantly exceed the annual debt service payment. While it depends on interest rates and the repayment period (20 years, 30 years, etc), the amount you can borrow is about ten times the annual debt-service payment. This is called "leverage." To get leverage, you cannot sell more bonds until previously sold bonds are paid off. You would have one year where revenues from a bond sale are ten times the annual debt-service payment. Then for the next twenty or thirty years you would pay the debt service but sell no more bonds. However, Fairfax County, except for 1989, sells bonds every year.

If you sell bonds every year you get no leverage. You can only borrow approximately the same amount you paid back. However, the amount you owe increases by the amount you borrow plus interest. This is what Fairfax County is doing. For the county, whose repayment period is usually twenty years, interest costs are about half the amount borrowed. So if the county borrows $200 million through bond sales, it owes another $100 million in interest.

In 1994, the county sold an extra $117M of bonds to purchase the Herrity and Pennino buildings adjacent to the Government Center. The total amount borrowed was twice the debt service. In this case borrowing would have been justified, assuming that the purchase, which was controversial, was justified.

The county did not include the 1994 bond sale for the Herrity and Pennino buldiings in its total debt figure until 2002. That is why there is a jump in the red line in 2002.

(With the purchase of the Herrity and Pennino buildings the supervisors bypassed putting the bond to referendum by having the Fairfax County Economic Development Authority (EDA) sell the bonds. The county also used the EDA to bypass referenda for the South County High School and the new school administration building bonds. The county is not legally obligated to pay off bonds unless they are approved by referendum. Bonds not approved by referendum are therefore riskier, have a lower credit rating and a higher interest rate, and consequently cost the taxpayers more.)

Having gotten itself in the situation where the cost of borrowing about equals bond revenues, the county cannot easily dig its way out. To reduce borrowing, the county would have to reduce operating expenses by $250M to free up money to replace bond revenues. The county should not have gotten into this situation in the first place.

The county should start getting out of debt and should eliminate non-essential borrowing. The bond referendum, for example, pays for maintenance of county recreation centers and golf courses. The county should not be using taxes to compete with the private sector. If golf course and recreation center maintenance cannot be paid for from user fees, then they should be privatized or divested. Funding for the "countywide sportsplex", artificial turf, trail enhancements, development of new parks should wait until they can be funded on a pay-as-you-go basis.

Last June, the Fairfax County Taxpayers Alliance emailed to the supervisors a request to include the projected interest costs for bonds and the annual amounts for bond revenues and debt service in the county's "2008 Bond Referendum Information for Residents" pamphlet.

The county declined to do this.

Moreover, the county's pamphlet states that bonds do not increase taxes. This is false. In FY2009 the county is paying $106 million in interest on its $2.3 billion debt. This $106-million interest payment accounts for 4.6 cents of the county's 92-cent real-estate tax rate. (Each penny of the real estate tax rate generates $22.8 million in tax revenue.)

DID YOU KNOW?

The Fairfax County School Board looking to buy Gatehouse II for administrative staff regardless of huge fiscal shortfalls, economic uncertainty and potential furloughs for county employees

The Fairfax County School Board recently proposed the purchase of a newly renovated facility for the County's school administrative staff, called Gatehouse II.

The Board of Supervisors voted unanimously not to approve the purchase saying it wanted “proof of cost savings of Gatehouse I before moving forward with the second phase of the school system's consolidation.”

School Board is reworking their numbers, trying to figure out a way to obtain approval from the Board of Supervisors to purchase the facility.

WHAT YOU SHOULD ALSO KNOW…

Gatehouse II will actually cost $273 million

The School Board presented the following requests to the Board of Supervisors on September 22, 2008, regarding the proposed purchase:
Approve a new bond issue, not to exceed $130 million, for permanent financing of the Gatehouse II acquisition, with debt service on the permanent bonds projected to be $8.2 million per year, starting in Fiscal Year 2013.

Renovate, vacate and transfer the following facilities to Fairfax County:
o Leis Center
o Sprague Center
o A portion of Wilton Woods Center

Renovate the following facilities, consolidate school staff and services in the facilities but retain the buildings for possible future use as schools:
o Devonshire Center
o Dunn Loring Center
o Lacey Center

The following facts are provided to FairfaxCAPS by construction industry experts:
Using the $130 million projected for permanent financing and a capital construction/activation factor of 1.1 (typical for FCEDA School Bonds), we would actually pay $273 million for this project.

What are the additional costs of all of the renovations to vacated properties and why are they not listed as part of the overall project cost and business case?
There is no data on the costs of the renovations upon vacating these properties in the business case. Devonshire Center, alone, is expected to cost $5.8 million in renovations. The business case only mentions the savings anticipated from lease revenue.
Yet the School Board claims that Gatehouse II is self funding:

“Self-Funding: The purchase, renovation and operation of the BPG building is self-funded
through the consolidation of the 14 status quo FCPS owned and leased administrative
properties. No direct school operating or capital funds are impacted.”
The business case fails to provide return on investment (ROI), the internal rate of return, net present value and payback period calculations for the entire project to support true cost/benefit analyses.

Where is the Appraisal for Gatehouse II?

FairfaxCAPS submitted Freedom of Information Acts (FOIA) to both the School Board and the Board of Supervisors requesting a copy of the appraisal for Gatehouse II.
We have not heard back from the Board of Supervisors, however, the School Board's attorney provided the following explanation as to why our request was denied:
“We have checked with personnel from the Fairfax County Public Schools, and we have been advised that the School Board did not send any such documents to the Board of Supervisors. Staff is aware of only one document that was prepared by the School Board staff for presentation to the Board of Supervisors. That document was prepared to present the proposed acquisition of an administration building to the Board of Supervisors in a closed session.”

Michael Long
Senior Assistant County Attorney
Fairfax County

WHAT YOU CAN DO…

Write to your Board of Supervisors representative http://www.fairfaxcounty.gov/government/board/ and to your School Board representative http://www.fcps.edu/schlbd/members.htm and ask why our tax dollars are funding a new building for staff, instead of new schools and desperately needed school renovations for our kids.

Purchase Price Too High for Gatehouse II. The school board proposed paying $57M for a building that was purchased by the current owner for $43 million just two years ago. Building values have fallen in the last two years. The schools consultant indicated it was a good deal because fully leased up, the building would be worth $60 million. However the building has no leases.

DID YOU KNOW Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> > WHAT YOU CAN DO…
>
> Write to your Board of Supervisors representative
> http://www.fairfaxcounty.gov/government/board/ and
> to your School Board representative
> http://www.fcps.edu/schlbd/members.htm and ask why
> our tax dollars are funding a new building for
> staff, instead of new schools and desperately
> needed school renovations for our kids.


Sorry, but writing to your school board rep is a COMPLETE WASTE OF TIME!

however, the School Board's attorney provided the following explanation

Michael Long is the Board of Supervisors' attorney; not the School Board's.

What is most disturbing about these two acquisitions (GH I and II) is that FCPS has no clue what the savings figures are.

In 2004 when they were negotiating GH I the total svaings was going to be $62 million. Then in 2005 they started talking about $45 million. Last year GH I figure was $20 million in savings and now they say it is $10 million. I don't even believe that number because the travel cost and staff savings are suspect.

FCPS says that GH II is $25 million more than the status quo-which is to keep all the employees where they are.

So, we basically went from $62 million in savings to a cost of $25 million and probably more when it is all over.

Nice projections FCPS-you were only off by $100 million!

One more thing Pat,

Failure to Consider Upcoming Administrative Staff Reductions. The school administrative staff has grown at a significantly higher rate than the school population. Based on the current Lines of Business Review being undertaken by the school staff, I would expect to see a significant reduction in administrative personnel. The proposal kept the school administrative staffing at the same level as current level when looking at the administrative facilities need for Gatehouse II.