HomeFairfax General ForumArrest/Ticket SearchWiki newPictures/VideosChatArticlesLinksAbout
Fairfax County General :  Fairfax Underground fairfax underground logo
Welcome to Fairfax Underground, a project site designed to improve communication among residents of Fairfax County, VA. Feel free to post anything Northern Virginia residents would find interesting.
Pages: 12AllNext
Current Page: 1 of 2
Dale is Wrong on Gatehouse II
Posted by: chipmunk ()
Date: February 13, 2009 05:04PM

Dale is Wrong on Gatehouse II – Bailout Part II

Just when you thought that you have heard enough about bailouts, wait until you hear about this one…

Regarding the Feb. 13 story by Chandler, "Fairfax Schools Try Again on Office Consolidation," we find the school board is shopping a plan to add Gatehouse II. In fact, Superintendent Jack Dale is pushing his marketing message to the Parent Advisory Council (PTA). He hopes to drum up support for spending $94.5 million dollars on his pet project of acquiring another administration building for his staff. The public is expected to believe that purchasing this building will generate cost savings of $62 million – up $40 million from just a few months ago. Wow – imagine that - $40 million in savings appeared out of no where. With that kind of magic, we could solve our economic crisis instantly!

Dale's message to the PTA, “No money will be taken away from schools or students, the project will be fully self-funded through savings and efficiencies, and no payments will need to be made until fiscal year 2013.”

No payments until fiscal year 2013 – yes, and the law of economics says that if you are borrowing money and not repaying the principal, guess what? The debt balance goes up. This is part of the reason for the mortgage mess. Hello? It doesn’t take a finance wizard to figure this one out. Putting off payment for three years is not a savings nor is it efficient.

Dale is wrong. Spending $94.5 million of scare funds to buy and renovate another administration building does take money away from students, teachers, and our schools.

So here are three novel ideas for Dale, school board members, and the Board of Supervisors who will go behind closed doors to discuss and vote on this proposal on February 23. First, the $94.5 million generated by selling EDA bond should be used to renovate those schools that have been sitting in the queue for decades. The parents of West Springfield High School should be appalled that this is not the plan. There is nothing stopping the School Board from spending the EDA bond money to renovate that high school.

Second, under the leadership of the new Board Chair, Sharon Bulova, the discussion between the school board and supervisors should come out from behind closed doors. There should be public vetting with a public hearing for this proposal.


And finally, return the administrators who were once teachers back into the classroom. Then you won’t need another building and the kids would be getting a better education. Imagine that….

We need to have our voices heard – we need reach out to the Board of Supervisors and ask them to take that money and renovate schools - our kids and teachers deserve better – especially the ones stuffed into trailers and in schools that are falling apart.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Dale is Wrong on Gatehouse II
Posted by: STOP GH II ()
Date: February 14, 2009 07:36AM

Gatehouse II is Back!


Dale and the School Board Want to Rush Approval of New Administrative Building Without Public Input

Superintendent Dale and the School Board are back asking the Board of Supervisors to approve borrowing $100 million to buy a new administrative office building. They want final approval by February 23 with no meaningful opportunity for public input. To date, almost all discussions of this proposal by the School Board and the Board of Supervisors have been held in closed sessions and there have been no public hearings. The Board of Supervisors can vote to hold a public hearing before a final vote to give citizens a real opportunity to provide input.

The Purchase Would Divert Financing Resources that Could be Used to Build or Renovate Schools

Dr. Dale and the School Board continue to claim that no money will be taken away from schools or students as a result of this proposal, but the fact is, the resources that would be used to finance the purchase of this building could be used to renovate and construct schools. The Economic Development Authority (EDA) bonds that would be used for this purchase would be counted against the county's borrowing limit and, accordingly, would reduce the available financing capacity for building or renovating schools. Further, these same EDA bonds could be used for school construction or renovation instead of an administrative office building. Given the thousands of students attending class in trailers throughout Fairfax County and the critical need for renovations in many of our schools, utilizing our financing resources to purchase an administrative building is absolutely the wrong priority and does not serve the interests of our students.

The Purchase Relies on the Same Type of Fiscally Irresponsible Behavior that has Caused the Current Economic Crisis

Dr. Dale and the School Board claim that actual cash savings from the initial three years can be used to address the current budget challenges, but they fail to mention that these "actual cash savings" disappear beginning in FY 2013 when the payments on the debt commence. Payments on the EDA bonds will come out of the school operating budget and, accordingly, will divert money from our schools and students. Moreover, the proposal is based substantially on assumed cost savings over a 30-year period that may not be actually realized--for instance, a substantial majority of the promised savings from the Gatehouse I office building the School Board purchased 5 years ago never materialized. In essence, Dr. Dale and the School Board propose to borrow $100 million (and to incur tens of millions in additional interest expense) in exchange for anticipated short term savings that, even if they materialize, will disappear once payments on the debt kick in. This is exactly the type of fiscally irresponsible behavior that has helped caused the current financial and economic crisis.

They Have Not Looked at Alternatives for Consolidating Administrative Office Space

Consolidating administrative space is a worthy goal, but FCPS has only looked at buy vs. build. They have not done an analysis of consolidation opportunities through leasing (in a market that would be very favorable) or through reconfiguring or renovating existing space to be utilized more efficiently. These alternatives could provide opportunities for consolidation that would be more fiscally responsible than borrowing $100 million.


Please contact your Supervisor and urge them to OPPOSE THIS PROPOSAL or, at a minimum, VOTE TO HOLD A PUBLIC HEARING before a final vote. For information about how to contact your Supervisor, you can go to www.fairfaxcounty.gov/government/board/

Please go to www.fairfaxcaps.org for more information.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Dale is Wrong on Gatehouse II
Posted by: guster ()
Date: February 14, 2009 08:05AM

This is insane.

The school board has no problem approving a new school (South County Middle School) and a new office purchase, but they refuse to perform even minimal maintenance to the existing schools (West Springfield H.S. and TJ, for example). These schools have never seen a single renovation, but schools in newer buildings have already had extensive remodeling (South Lakes).

My student is at TJ. The trailer classroom for one class has a strong stench of mold and water damage. Another trailer had a broken air conditioner, and the teacher had a tough time in September when we still had some very hot weather. We love TJ (they have a wonderful perspective about all of this--these kids are terrific and not spoiled). I keep wondering why the disturbed FCPS school board treats TJ and West Springfield like Cinderellas? It's like they get their thrills treating these schools poorly.

Priorities??

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Dale is Wrong on Gatehouse II
Posted by: dono ()
Date: February 14, 2009 09:22AM

Okay my letters are out on this one cc'd everyone I know in the schools. Christ we have class sizes at 29 kids a class in 1st grade for one teacher. I would rather see a few 100k go to each school to keep the class sizes down.

Here is what my rep. sent me back

The purchase price of the building, which is still under negotiation, will be roughly $45 million, with the additional $45 million for renovation. There are extensive details about the proposal on the FCPS web site, including information about an outside appraisal and the business plan. The building would be paid for with Economic Development Bonds and the debt service would be paid by the school system out of operating savings. EDA bonds cannot be used for other school construction or renovation, so we are not impacting our CIP. And the money we are using to pay for the building cannot be used for operating expenses. We currently lease space in multiple buildings throughout the county. In addition, the increased enrollment over the last two years is putting a severe strain on our ability to house children. Two buildings – the Lacey Center and Devonshire – which are currently administrative sites need to be turned back into schools to deal with the increased enrollment. (And since you live near Annandale Terrace, you might know how severely overcrowded that school is. The Lacey Center conversion will bring very badly needed relief to that school.) We must go ahead with that conversion. If we do not have a new administrative building, we will need to rent additional office space to house the personnel in those two buildings. The cost estimate for that is an additional $1.5 to $2.0 a year.



And the way the purchase is structured, we will actually be able to have a net reduction in overall costs for the first 4 or 5 years of the purchase.



Since you are familiar with the ins and outs of the issue, please check out the information on the web site – and if you have more questions, I would be happy to answer them.



We will of course vote in public on this issue. The timing is not yet known as we are still working on some details.




School Board Member

Braddock District




Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/14/2009 12:26PM by dono.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Dale is Wrong on Gatehouse II
Posted by: Junes ()
Date: February 14, 2009 11:34AM

dono Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Okay my letters are out on this one cc'd everyone
> I know in the schools. Christ we have class sizes
> at 29 kids a class in 1st grade for one teacher.
> I would rather see a few 100k go to each school to
> keep the class sizes down.


Hate to tell you t his dono, but the county is talking about raising the bar to 35/class.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Dale is Wrong on Gatehouse II
Posted by: dono ()
Date: February 14, 2009 12:29PM

Junes Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> dono Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Okay my letters are out on this one cc'd
> everyone
> > I know in the schools. Christ we have class
> sizes
> > at 29 kids a class in 1st grade for one teacher.
>
> > I would rather see a few 100k go to each school
> to
> > keep the class sizes down.
>
>
> Hate to tell you t his dono, but the county is
> talking about raising the bar to 35/class.

Anything above 23 is glorified day care. 35 kids to one teacher - that is a joke. If it has to be that way I would suggest that the state provide emergency funding to accredit volunteer parents to serve as classroom aides. A short training program would do the trick. I would volunteer quite a bit of my time to do it. It beats the time required to home-school and the teachers need the help.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Dale is Wrong on Gatehouse II
Posted by: dono ()
Date: February 14, 2009 01:11PM

Here is the 3rd party report on the deal http://www.fcps.edu/news/office/docs/occupancymodel.pdf

I find $189 per square foot a bit high for a vacant 35 yr. old bld. - I am checking on the comps. I suspect the high comps they used included revenue from tenant roles (vs. empty junky bld.) The 'fact' sheet on the FCPS web site cites the fact that $45,000,000 is what the current owner paid 2 years ago - not much to brag about given that was a market high point and prices are on a major downturn.

Oh and for those of you that like to complain about real estate agent fees, Stuabach (now Jones Lang LaSalle) stands to make ~$1.400.000.00 commission of this sale assuming a 3% commission.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/14/2009 01:14PM by dono.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Dale is Wrong on Gatehouse II
Posted by: dono ()
Date: February 19, 2009 05:40AM

Update.

I started my analysis of the deal and found that the purchase price with even generous renovation is sort of okay but the projected improvement costs ($45 million - same as the purchase price) is a major red flag. $189.00 per square foot in improvement costs is extremely high. At that point you are nearly re-building the structure and that brings the rent equivalent into $40 square foot range (>30% over current market rate). I am withholding my judgement on it till the School Financial person gets back to me on this.

Please contact the school board and let them know you are concerned and respectfully ask for more info.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/19/2009 05:47AM by dono.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Dale is Wrong on Gatehouse II
Posted by: Junes ()
Date: February 19, 2009 06:50AM

dono Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Junes Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> > Hate to tell you t his dono, but the county is
> > talking about raising the bar to 35/class.
>
> Anything above 23 is glorified day care. 35 kids
> to one teacher - that is a joke. If it has to be
> that way I would suggest that the state provide
> emergency funding to accredit volunteer parents to
> serve as classroom aides. A short training
> program would do the trick. I would volunteer
> quite a bit of my time to do it. It beats the
> time required to home-school and the teachers need
> the help.

When are you going to sign up?

Maybe Vince will sign up to teach the Hispanic speaking students



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/19/2009 06:50AM by Junes.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Dale is Wrong on Gatehouse II
Posted by: dono ()
Date: February 19, 2009 07:26PM

dono Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Update.
>
> I started my analysis of the deal and found that
> the purchase price with even generous renovation
> is sort of okay but the projected improvement
> costs ($45 million - same as the purchase price)
> is a major red flag. $189.00 per square foot in
> improvement costs is extremely high. At that
> point you are nearly re-building the structure and
> that brings the rent equivalent into $40 square
> foot range (>30% over current market rate). I am
> withholding my judgement on it till the School
> Financial person gets back to me on this.
>
> Please contact the school board and let them know
> you are concerned and respectfully ask for more
> info.


Bump. Its your money folks - 45,000,000 wake up please

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Dale is Wrong on Gatehouse II
Posted by: SB is corrupt ()
Date: February 20, 2009 01:01AM

Did they vote tonight on Gatehouse II? Did any of them vote against it?

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Dale is Wrong on Gatehouse II
Posted by: WHITEY2 ()
Date: February 20, 2009 09:10AM

I will vote YES ... for so many years we have been update our school's building for the kid ..now it is time to take care the staff

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Dale is Wrong on Gatehouse II
Posted by: guster ()
Date: February 20, 2009 09:23AM

Jack Dale's job involves many days of travel:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/02/19/AR2009021903330.html

Interesting--TJ brings Fairfax County so much admiration from South Korea, Saudi Arabia, etc., yet the building desperately needs some renovation, and they put the oldest, most water-damaged trailer classrooms at TJ. Sort of a passive-aggressive response. And they figure the parents are happy with their student at TJ (usually the case), so they'll put up with it.

But the strategy behind their method is stinky. Very stinky and manipulative.

West Springfield and TJ have never been renovated. If students truly matter, the school board will address these concerns before handing administrative staff a brand new, hugely expensive office building.

They keep flip-flopping about the organization of FCPS. First it was a central grouping, then they moved to the *CLUSTER* organization, and now they are back to consolidation.

Make up your minds! Change = more expense, and change does not always = improvement.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Dale is Wrong on Gatehouse II
Posted by: Georg ()
Date: February 20, 2009 09:33AM

guster Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> This is insane.
>
> The school board has no problem approving a new
> school (South County Middle School) and a new
> office purchase, but they refuse to perform even
> minimal maintenance to the existing schools (West
> Springfield H.S. and TJ, for example). These
> schools have never seen a single renovation, but
> schools in newer buildings have already had
> extensive remodeling (South Lakes).
>
> My student is at TJ. The trailer classroom for
> one class has a strong stench of mold and water
> damage. Another trailer had a broken air
> conditioner, and the teacher had a tough time in
> September when we still had some very hot weather.
> We love TJ (they have a wonderful perspective
> about all of this--these kids are terrific and not
> spoiled). I keep wondering why the disturbed FCPS
> school board treats TJ and West Springfield like
> Cinderellas? It's like they get their thrills
> treating these schools poorly.
>
> Priorities??

Sombody needs to call Dateline

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Dale is Wrong on Gatehouse II
Posted by: dono ()
Date: February 20, 2009 09:36AM

WHITEY2 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I will vote YES ... for so many years we have been
> update our school's building for the kid ..now it
> is time to take care the staff


I dont get it - will you vote 'yes' if it is 30% over priced ($30,000,000)? Why not just give that money to the staff so they can all buy a nice vacation home?

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Dale is Wrong on Gatehouse II
Posted by: guster ()
Date: February 20, 2009 10:50AM

Embedded in an article about a Prince George's County school office project, the Washington Post states that the Fairfax County Public Schools Gatehouse II is a $95 million project.

$95 million would go a long way to pay teachers and instructional aides in FCPS. It would allow Langley High School to have its own fleet of buses to take their own students to school at their optimal start times.

Maybe (just maybe) FCPS would even buy TJ a clean, non-moldy trailer.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Dale is Wrong on Gatehouse II
Posted by: chipmunk ()
Date: February 20, 2009 06:43PM

all,
we have it from the horse's month - you CAN use EDA bonds for school construction/renovation and an EDA bond was used to build South County High School. It is buried in the FCPS archives:

http://www.fairfaxcounty.gov/dmb/adopted/FY2009/PDF/CIP/08_Table_C_Debt_Capacity_Analysis.pdf.

http://www.fairfaxcounty.gov/dmb/archives/FY_2005/Overview/41_Sch_Rel_Ser.pdf

This link shows a summary of the EDA and other bond funding relating to schools:
http://www.fairfaxcounty.gov/dmb/archives/FY_2007/PDF/Volume2/debt_fund_200_201.pdf

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Dale is Wrong on Gatehouse II
Posted by: Of course! ()
Date: February 20, 2009 11:53PM

County bonds are county bonds, paid for with our tax dollars.

Heard Pat Herrity say that the Gatehouse II money could be used for school construction and renovation.

West Springfield will be renovated in 2025! It will only be 60 years old then. How many people live in houses built in 1950, that have never been renovated? That's what kids in West Springfield have to look forward to.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Dale is Wrong on Gatehouse II
Posted by: Old building ()
Date: February 21, 2009 05:34AM

This is why Dale is wrong on Gatehouse II:

I vehemently disagree on the value analysis of the BPG building. It is just plain silly to claim that the property has appreciated since 10/2006. FCPS has even misquote the sales price-BPG paid $43.5 million not $45 million, so FCPS is still paying more for the building than it sold for in 2006. I know that the FCPS real estate consultants will tell them what they want to hear. They told FCPS to buy the lot and build-bad advice, they told FCPS the building was worth $60 million and that $52 million was a "good deal"-that also was bad advice. How many more times are we going to accept bad advice from these people. Commercial delinquencies are rising, the credit markets are frozen. This building will keep getting cheaper and cheaper.

This building is 36 years old and has been empty since the middle of last year. In addition, this building needs $75 million dollars worth of renovations before anyone can occupy it.

We must say no to GHII.















.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Dale is Wrong on Gatehouse II
Posted by: Why would they care? ()
Date: February 22, 2009 02:14AM

They don't care what we want. Why would they? the school board works for staff (or so they have always believed) and they want to keep them happy. That's how it always works. The school board cares far more about keeping their staff happy than they care about educating children, much less keeping students or taxpayers happy.

The school board has decided that their precious staff needs another, fancy, building, and children can rot in crumbling buildings and moldy trailers. What does that tell us about their priorities? The school board DOES NOT CARE about we want for our children. They care about staff. Period. End of story.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Dale is Wrong on Gatehouse II
Posted by: Doubts about GHII ()
Date: February 22, 2009 06:46AM

Doubts and Questions about $100 Million
Administrative Building Continue to Grow

Last month, Superintendent Dale presented his school budget for FY 2010 and stated that any further cuts in the budget would compromise the top-quality education provided by Fairfax County Public Schools (FCPS) and require decades to recover. Now, on the eve of his presentation to the Board of Supervisors of a revised proposal to purchase the Gatehouse II administrative office building, the Superintendent has announced that he has found $8 million in additional administrative savings that are unrelated to the Gatehouse II proposal and is attempting to use these savings to win support for the Gatehouse II purchase.

While we applaud the Superintendent for taking another look at his budget and finding the additional $8 million in administrative savings, and we encourage he and his staff to continue to look for administrative savings that will preserve resources for school-based uses, these savings should not be used to help sell a fiscally irresponsible proposal to borrow $100 million to purchase and renovate an administrative office building.

Superintendent Dale claims there is a lot of misinformation in the community about the Gatehouse II, but the fact is the more FCPS attempts to justify Gatehouse II, the more the questions and doubts in the community continue to grow. For instance:

• FCPS bases most of the savings in its revised proposal for Gatehouse II on the elimination of an additional 10 positions, bringing the total reduction in positions to 28. In fact, the proposed position cuts represent $54.9 million (about 90 percent) of the overall promised savings. The school system has not provided details, however, on the specific positions being eliminated. Presumably, the first proposal on Gatehouse II eliminated all positions that would have been redundant as a result of the proposed consolidation, which raises the question whether the savings from these additional position cuts are possible solely due to consolidation or could be realized without borrowing $100 million to purchase Gatehouse II.

Further, FCPS does not specify whether all or some of the position cuts will represent an actual reduction in staff or the elimination of positions that are authorized or budgeted, but not filled. If any of these proposed position elimination's are not actual staff reductions, in raises questions about whether the assumed savings from such elimination's are real savings and whether they are simply “paper” savings.

• The FCPS business model ignores key costs that significantly drive up the cost estimates for Gatehouse II. Examples of items not included in the Gatehouse II cost estimates include:

Costs associated with 7 of the 10 buildings currently owned by school system will be retained in whole or in part by FCPS after the purchase of Gatehouse II. The prorated costs of these properties could add in the neighborhood of $22.9 million in net present value costs.

Non-bond funded major maintenance and base maintenance costs are not included in the business model for Gatehouse II. Although Gatehouse II will be newly renovated when FCPS moves into the building, FCPS already plans parking and traffic improvements. These costs will run into the many millions of dollars.

The Gatehouse II proposal includes no travel costs even though status quo travel cost estimates would total about $2 million in net present value. Given that FCPS claims a majority of the people moving to Gatehouse II fill school-based positions, it seems likely that travel costs will go up, not down, when FCPS moves into Gatehouse II.

• Superintendent Dale admits that FCPS is spending millions per year on rent for old buildings at the end of their life cycle, but fails to acknowledge that many of its leases are up for renewal in the next year and that FCPS can obtain much more favorable rates given the current state of the commercial real estate market. As Supervisor Herrity points out in a recent article (see link below), the alleged savings in the Gatehouse II proposal are distorted because the numbers assume FCPS would have to continue leasing office space at the same prices as its current leases if it does not purchase Gatehouse II.

• Superintendent Dale continues to assert that Gatehouse II will have no negative impact on school renovations or school construction, but ignores the fact that Economic Development Authority (EDA) bonds like those that would be used to fund the purchase of Gatehouse II have been used in the past for school construction. The current Capital Improvement Program (CIP) adopted by the school board limits new construction and new renovations in order to focus resources on capacity issues. EDA bonds could be used for new school construction in order to make up for the limitations in the current CIP.

Fairfax County is in the midst of one of its most difficult budget cycles in decades. Our focus should be on finding administrative savings in the school budget in order to preserve resources that directly impact our students, teachers and schools, not to justify the purchase of an administrative office building for a price considerably above market value and even above the $43.5 million paid by the current owner in late 2006—at the height of the real estate market.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Dale is Wrong on Gatehouse II
Posted by: dono ()
Date: February 22, 2009 08:33AM

I agree with the above post the School Board is making its presentation to the Supervisor Tomorrow Mon. Feb 22 it is open to the public - go.

Send emails of concern to the Supervisor and your school board rep. Ask them:?

1. Why are you paying $45,000,000 for a building when that was its peak value 2 years ago (by the way it was purchased for $43.5 million) and doesnt reflect the downturn (there are no recent comps because no one is purchasing office buildings in the past 6 months!!!

2. Why is it necessary to spend $45,000,000 in improvements. This makes no sense unless they are planning a complete tear-down and re-build - why buy a building just to tear it down. If the property is only worth the land (less demolition fees) then why are we paying a price that reflects value as developed land?

Is this 'pimp-my-admin-building'? You buy a broken down property for top dollar then improve it beyond the quality of brand new buildings where it would be cheaper just to buy a new class-A building?!?

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Dale is Wrong on Gatehouse II
Posted by: dono ()
Date: February 22, 2009 09:21AM

And one more thing...

I have been in commercial real estate for over 20 years so these seem like simple questions. I realize that may not be the case for others so I submit an anology:

A friend asks you to loan them money to purchase a used Lexus. They are buying it for $45,000 (a little more than it sold for 2 years ago). Once they purchase it they need to put $45,000 into fixing it up so they need to borrow $90,000.

As someone approving (giving) the funds what questions would you ask? Add three zeros ($000), change 'Lexus' to 'Gatehouse II' and send your questions to the board of supervisors.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 02/22/2009 11:34AM by dono.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Dale is Wrong on Gatehouse II
Posted by: tubby ()
Date: February 22, 2009 11:19AM

Knowing the corruption that is rampant in this country, I wouldn't be a bit surprised if the politicians publicly against GHII (Herrity, et al) are actually FOR it...and are just using their hired hand, Dale, for cover.

Why would Dale give a shit about GHII? As Superintendant, he will have the poshest office in FCPS, no matter where it's located.

Nope, I'd look at who owns this building and what their relationship is with the politicians....somebody's brother-in-law maybe?

You people are every bit as dumb as the politicians think you are....Dale is just a pawn in this game. Follow the money to see what's REALLY going on!

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Dale is Wrong on Gatehouse II
Posted by: dono ()
Date: February 22, 2009 11:33AM

So Tubby what are YOU doing about it? Lets go we need you man. so far you have added nothing whatsoever.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/22/2009 11:35AM by dono.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Dale is Wrong on Gatehouse II
Posted by: chipmunk ()
Date: February 22, 2009 11:35AM

you are right on - the money trail is well hidden. Look at BPG, Alvarez and Marsal, Robert Cordova and John Gibb.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Dale is Wrong on Gatehouse II
Posted by: Gatehouse II is dead! ()
Date: February 23, 2009 10:26AM

Finally a victory for the people!!!

BOS says NO to Gaethouse II.

Add that to the long list of Jack Dale's failures!

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Dale is Wrong on Gatehouse II
Posted by: guster ()
Date: February 23, 2009 10:43AM

Update here:

http://commweb.fcps.edu/newsreleases/newsrelease.cfm?newsid=1078

Central staff office--clusters--back to consolidation. How much do these changes cost each time someone decides to reorganize?

Tubby has an excellent question: Who owns this property? Who are the unmentioned parties who stood to profit if this Gatehouse II idea was approved?

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Dale is Wrong on Gatehouse II
Posted by: SBS ()
Date: February 23, 2009 10:59AM

From the school board news release...

Quote from Stork:

“However, this was a creative solution that would have significantly reduced our administrative costs and enabled us to serve children better. This is a great disappointment to the School Board.”


Boo-hoo. Cry us a fucking river, Stork.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Dale is Wrong on Gatehouse II
Posted by: Robin Hood ()
Date: February 23, 2009 11:01AM

"freed up two facilities to be returned to use as elementary schools, relieved overcrowding at several elementary schools, and reduced central office staff."

I copied and pasted this statement from the FCPS website that Guster has provided. What elementary schools were they referring to that were overcrowded that as a result if the BPG building was purchased, the two FCPS centers would have been converted to elementary schools giving these overcrowded schools? I am just curious if anybody knows this information. According to the statement, the school board was greatly disappointed, but it is just not prudent to purchase GHII right now.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Dale is Wrong on Gatehouse II
Posted by: Score one for the people ()
Date: February 23, 2009 11:35AM

SBS Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> From the school board news release...
>
> Quote from Stork:
>
> “However, this was a creative solution that would
> have significantly reduced our administrative
> costs and enabled us to serve children better.
> This is a great disappointment to the School
> Board.”
>
>
> Boo-hoo. Cry us a fucking river, Stork.


Fuck Dale, Storck and the rest of the FCPS school board.

Score one for the people of FFC and the students who are in the FCPS system.

Now they need to fix the schools that are unsafe.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Dale is Wrong on Gatehouse II
Posted by: dono ()
Date: February 23, 2009 01:03PM

The mistake was to presume that saving money in other facilities justifies a bad real estate transaction on the other end. They focused so much on the internal accounting that they forgot to make sure their acquisition of property wasnt a joke - it appears it was. Sorry Jones Lang Wooton go get your 1.4 million dollar commission off some other sucker.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Dale is Wrong on Gatehouse II
Posted by: an idea ()
Date: February 23, 2009 01:36PM

We have a number of high schools that are underenrolled-Falls Church, South Lakes, and Mount Vernon.

Let's move these cluster people out of the ivory tower and into the schools so they can justify their inflated paychecks.

Put them in the schools with the highest drop outs, lowest SAT take rates, highest suspension rates, etc.

We will give them one school year to show improvements and then we grade them.

If they fail, then we eliminate that layer of oversight-clearly we don't need them.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Dale is Wrong on Gatehouse II
Posted by: FCPSEmployee ()
Date: February 23, 2009 01:36PM

As an FCPS employee and one of the ones that would have been heavily involved in the consolidation project. I am glad they came to their senses as I and alot of other employees were against this from the start especially considering the current budget issues and all the cuts that are being made(With more likely to come). The whole consolidation Idea makes good sense and would help overall productivity but it's just a good idea at a bad time with rushed planning. This will probably not be the definite end of Gatehouse II though unfortunately.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Dale is Wrong on Gatehouse II
Posted by: Ding dong Gatehouse II is dead ()
Date: February 23, 2009 02:10PM

FCPSEmployee Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> As an FCPS employee and one of the ones that would
> have been heavily involved in the consolidation
> project. I am glad they came to their senses as I
> and alot of other employees were against this from
> the start especially considering the current
> budget issues and all the cuts that are being
> made(With more likely to come). The whole
> consolidation Idea makes good sense and would help
> overall productivity but it's just a good idea at
> a bad time with rushed planning. This will
> probably not be the definite end of Gatehouse II
> though unfortunately.

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

$100M school project scrapped in Fairfax County
February 23, 2009 - 1:05pm

Hank Silverberg, WTOP Radio

FAIRFAX, Va. - A second headquarters for Fairfax County schools, priced at about $100 million, has become the first major casualty of the tight local economy.

The Board of Supervisors needed just five minutes Monday to kill the so-called "Gatehouse II" project, which the school district wanted to consolidate the administration. Supervisor Chairman Sharon Bulova says the expense just can't be justified under the current fiscal restraints.

"An acquisition of an administrative building at this time while we are struggling with a challenging budget and a volatile and unstable economy, is not in our best interest."

There has been substantial opposition to the school board's proposal.

The vote came before County Executive Anthony Griffin made his budget presentation that includes proposals for millions of dollars worth of other cutbacks.

Griffin has proposed a $3.3 billion budget -- an almost a 4 percent decrease in spending that includes a pay freeze for county employees. The county needs to close a $650 million budget shortfall.

The Supervisors won't vote on the budget until April 27.

SCORE THIS VICTORY OF FISCAL RESTRAINT FOR THE TAXPAYERS OF FAIRFAX COUNTY.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Dale is Wrong on Gatehouse II
Posted by: dono ()
Date: February 23, 2009 02:16PM

do we need holy water and wooden stakes at the ready for next year?

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Dale is Wrong on Gatehouse II
Posted by: Bulovas statement ()
Date: February 23, 2009 04:36PM

COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA
County of Fairfax
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
12000 GOVERNMENT CENTER PKWY
SUITE 530
FAIRFAX, VIRGINIA 22035-0071
TELEPHONE: 703/324-2321
FAX: 703/324-3955
TTY: 711
chairman@fairfaxcounty.gov

SHARON BULOVA
CHAIRMAN
Feb. 23, 2009

Statement by Fairfax County Board of Supervisors Chairman Sharon Bulova on Gatehouse II

Exercising the Chairman’s prerogative, I am making a change to our agenda for today’s meeting. Listed on the agenda is a 2:45 p.m. briefing by the Superintendent of Schools on a proposal to purchase “Gatehouse II”, as part of a consolidation plan for School Administration.

I have removed this briefing from our agenda. Further, I am moving that we discontinue any further consideration of the purchase of Gatehouse II.
This proposal was first brought to our Board in October of last year. Following discussion in Closed Session of the potential acquisition, I made a motion to reject the proposal. Members of our board were concerned about a number of aspects of the proposal, including the relatively narrow margin of savings expected over the long term.

At our Board’s last meeting, we were briefed once again, this time on an amended proposal. No action was taken at that time and direction was given for the Schools to do outreach into the community regarding the new proposal. Some outreach has taken place. Some community groups (such as the Chamber of Commerce) have expressed support, others (such as the FEA) neutrality, and others opposition.

While the business plan for Gatehouse II has a number of positive features, including the opportunity to return some school facilities back into classrooms, I have concerns, which my colleagues have also expressed, that an acquisition of an administrative building at this time, while we are struggling with a challenging budget and a volatile and unstable economy, is not in our best interest.

Over the weekend, I called School Board Chairman Dan Stork and Superintendent Jack Dale to let them know I thought it best that the Schools discontinue all efforts to acquire Gatehouse and I move now that our Board communicate this position to The Fairfax County School Board.
###

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Dale is Wrong on Gatehouse II
Posted by: Mozart ()
Date: February 23, 2009 04:53PM

Props to Bulova for recognizing what a PR disaster this had become for FCPS and tabling this for now. It really has been incredibly irritating to see how much effort the School Board and Superintendant put into justifying and publicizing its purported need for another building when there are so many other pressing needs to address.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Dale is Wrong on Gatehouse II
Posted by: good idea ()
Date: February 23, 2009 05:08PM

an idea Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
Brilliant idea...I would hope they would succeed, but know they would fail. Those who can do, those who cannot teach, those who cannot teach, administrate.

> We have a number of high schools that are
> underenrolled-Falls Church, South Lakes, and Mount
> Vernon.
>
> Let's move these cluster people out of the ivory
> tower and into the schools so they can justify
> their inflated paychecks.
>
> Put them in the schools with the highest drop
> outs, lowest SAT take rates, highest suspension
> rates, etc.
>
> We will give them one school year to show
> improvements and then we grade them.
>
> If they fail, then we eliminate that layer of
> oversight-clearly we don't need them.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Dale is Wrong on Gatehouse II
Posted by: KeepOnTruckin ()
Date: February 23, 2009 08:13PM

They wouldn't need another building if they were like any other office building and gave employees cubicals. Nope, everyone has their own office. They could fit 3 people into these offices, and then would not need another building.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Dale is Wrong on Gatehouse II
Posted by: FCPSEmployee ()
Date: February 24, 2009 07:33AM

KeepOnTruckin Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> They wouldn't need another building if they were
> like any other office building and gave employees
> cubicals. Nope, everyone has their own office.
> They could fit 3 people into these offices, and
> then would not need another building.



While i did not support Gatehouse II but your statement is wrong and not based on fact, not everyone has their own office, in fact the majority of employee's are in cubicles where possible, Some even share a single cubicle. Only certain paygrades and higher have or would have had their own private office space.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Dale is Wrong on Gatehouse II
Posted by: tubby ()
Date: February 24, 2009 07:50PM

I don't/didn't give a shit about Gatehouse II one way the other....but it amazes me how the plan worked you people into a lather.

What pisses me off is a company like Merrill Lynch giving out 3.6 BILLION taxpayers' dollars in bonuses after losing $27 BILLION dollars in 2008 and going belly-up! That's THIRTY SIX Gatehouse IIs!

John Thain is out of work....maybe the the SB will replace Dale with him...would y'all like that?

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Dale is Wrong on Gatehouse II
Posted by: boo ()
Date: March 19, 2009 12:59PM

As was said earlier, gatehouse II is not over. Tonights School board meeting there will be a vote to lease instead of buying the 8111 gatehouse road building and if approved it does not have to go through the BOS

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Dale is Wrong on Gatehouse II
Posted by: arrogance 101 ()
Date: March 19, 2009 01:53PM

boo Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> As was said earlier, gatehouse II is not over.
> Tonights School board meeting there will be a vote
> to lease instead of buying the 8111 gatehouse road
> building and if approved it does not have to go
> through the BOS


This would be such an "in your face" to The BOS-I can't imagine,even as stupid as the SB members are, that they would do this.

I am sure FCPS will pay above market rates for the lease just like they were willing to pay $60 million for a building worth maybe $40 million.

Stu Gibson quote in July 2008: "It's a GREEEAAAT time to buy real estate!!!".

They think the budget money is monopoly money. They make the schools live like paupers, buying their own supplies, etc, yet they live like kings.

We need to vote these jokers out in 2011.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Dale is Wrong on Gatehouse II
Posted by: notme ()
Date: March 19, 2009 04:30PM

arrogance 101 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> boo Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > As was said earlier, gatehouse II is not over.
> > Tonights School board meeting there will be a
> vote
> > to lease instead of buying the 8111 gatehouse
> road
> > building and if approved it does not have to go
> > through the BOS
>
>
> This would be such an "in your face" to The BOS-I
> can't imagine,even as stupid as the SB members
> are, that they would do this.
>
> I am sure FCPS will pay above market rates for the
> lease just like they were willing to pay $60
> million for a building worth maybe $40 million.
>
> Stu Gibson quote in July 2008: "It's a GREEEAAAT
> time to buy real estate!!!".
>
> They think the budget money is monopoly money.
> They make the schools live like paupers, buying
> their own supplies, etc, yet they live like
> kings.
>
> We need to vote these jokers out in 2011.




by the way it is a closed session vote too, I don't support it out of principal as i think consolidating is a good idea but considering the economic crises, the lay offs, the pay freezes, hiring freezes, and the fact this stinks of i've been told no but i'm going to go behind the back and do it anyways just doesn't make sense.

The supposed savings that have been publicly released has no publicly released ROV analysis or anything of the sort to back up the "Facts" they say about gatehouse II, besides that the savings are only for the school system not taxpayers as the general county would just pick up the tab for these reasons i say no and hope they all get voted out.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Dale is Wrong on Gatehouse II
Posted by: chipmunk ()
Date: March 19, 2009 04:44PM

your poor things....our kids our stuffed into chicken coops they call "trailers." would you like to spend the day or how about a few years in a trailer?

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Dale is Wrong on Gatehouse II
Posted by: notme ()
Date: March 19, 2009 05:52PM

chipmunk Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> your poor things....our kids our stuffed into
> chicken coops they call "trailers." would you like
> to spend the day or how about a few years in a
> trailer?

you are right the trailers should go to, but the only way to get that done is for new schools to either be built which 2 new schools will open this coming year, or enlarge the current school to accommodate the ones in the trailer. Some of the trailers are not that bad, quite a bit are being replaced with modular(annex) buildings which include running water, restrooms etc, etc. These things are about a million dollars a peice so only a few get installed each year.

The trailers that are rundown are ones that move around for renovations for the most part but some sites where trailers were only supposed to be temp solutions have become basically permanent, these sites are the ones that are slowly getting replaced with modulars if there is enough trailer occupants to fill it as each modular has anywhere from 14 to 20 full size classrooms, restrooms, work/lounge rooms, resource and storage rooms etc. other than building new or adding addition to schools modulars are the next best thing.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Dale is Wrong on Gatehouse II
Posted by: notme ()
Date: March 19, 2009 05:54PM

notme Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> chipmunk Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > your poor things....our kids our stuffed into
> > chicken coops they call "trailers." would you
> like
> > to spend the day or how about a few years in a
> > trailer?
>
> you are right the trailers should go to, but the
> only way to get that done is for new schools to
> either be built which 2 new schools will open this
> coming year, or enlarge the current school to
> accommodate the ones in the trailer. Some of the
> trailers are not that bad, quite a bit are being
> replaced with modular(annex) buildings which
> include running water, restrooms etc, etc. These
> things are about a million dollars a peice so only
> a few get installed each year.
>
> The trailers that are rundown are ones that move
> around for renovations for the most part but some
> sites where trailers were only supposed to be temp
> solutions have become basically permanent, these
> sites are the ones that are slowly getting
> replaced with modulars if there is enough trailer
> occupants to fill it as each modular has anywhere
> from 14 to 20 full size classrooms, restrooms,
> work/lounge rooms, resource and storage rooms etc.
> other than building new or adding addition to
> schools modulars are the next best thing.

correction, it's not 14 to 20, it is 6 to 14 full size classrooms

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Dale is Wrong on Gatehouse II
Posted by: chipmunk ()
Date: March 19, 2009 06:33PM

wow - you certainly went down a rathole with that tangential block!

The message is loud and clear - WHY SPEND OUR TAX DOLLARS ON THE TAJ MAHAL FOR STAFF WHEN WE EXCEED STATE STANDARDS FOR CLASS SIZES, OUR KIDS ARE STUFFED IN TRAILERS, WE HAVE 63 SCHOOLS ON THE CIP, 3,000 WORK ORDER BACKLOG. AND WE CAN'T EVEN GET TRANSPORTATION TO THE #1 SCHOOL IN THE COUNTRY?

You obviously work for the school board or the school board staff...

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Dale is Wrong on Gatehouse II
Posted by: notme ()
Date: March 19, 2009 06:56PM

chipmunk Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

>
> You obviously work for the school board or the
> school board staff...

you obviously make assumptions about who/what someone is affiliated to without knowing the facts.

Fact 1 = your above statement is not true, if it was i'd be at Jackson MS voting to waste your tax dollars at this very moment.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Dale is Wrong on Gatehouse II
Posted by: Shadow ()
Date: March 19, 2009 08:54PM

notme Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> chipmunk Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > your poor things....our kids our stuffed into
> > chicken coops they call "trailers." would you
> like
> > to spend the day or how about a few years in a
> > trailer?
>
> you are right the trailers should go to, but the
> only way to get that done is for new schools to
> either be built which 2 new schools will open this
> coming year, or enlarge the current school to
> accommodate the ones in the trailer. Some of the
> trailers are not that bad, quite a bit are being
> replaced with modular(annex) buildings which
> include running water, restrooms etc, etc. These
> things are about a million dollars a peice so only
> a few get installed each year.
>
> The trailers that are rundown are ones that move
> around for renovations for the most part but some
> sites where trailers were only supposed to be temp
> solutions have become basically permanent, these
> sites are the ones that are slowly getting
> replaced with modulars if there is enough trailer
> occupants to fill it as each modular has anywhere
> from 14 to 20 full size classrooms, restrooms,
> work/lounge rooms, resource and storage rooms etc.
> other than building new or adding addition to
> schools modulars are the next best thing.


Yeah, modulars, uh huh, sure. WSHS has had trailers for over thirty years. They suck. They look like crap, are cold in the winter, and hot in the spring, the stairs into them are death traps and they aren't even dedicated to one particular course. School board doesn't give a shit about the students or the teachers. Shit, they're building schools that open with trailers. Assinine.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Dale is Wrong on Gatehouse II
Posted by: KeepOnTruckin ()
Date: March 19, 2009 10:32PM

I saw some pictures of the interior of Gatehouse II. That place is just as nice as Gatehouse 1. There is no way they need to spend the same amount of money as they payed to buy it to renovate it. THey can spend maybe 10,000 on cubicles and stuff and thats all they will need

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Dale is Wrong on Gatehouse II
Posted by: Trailers for Dale ()
Date: March 19, 2009 11:15PM

KeepOnTruckin Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I saw some pictures of the interior of Gatehouse
> II. That place is just as nice as Gatehouse 1.
> There is no way they need to spend the same amount
> of money as they payed to buy it to renovate it.
> THey can spend maybe 10,000 on cubicles and stuff
> and thats all they will need

Make them work out of trailers and save the $10,000.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Dale is Wrong on Gatehouse II
Posted by: chipmunk ()
Date: March 20, 2009 06:31AM

so how did you know that they were going to vote on lease of GHII? It wasn't on board docs...and no where on fcps web site...

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Dale is Wrong on Gatehouse II
Posted by: Corruption ()
Date: March 20, 2009 07:09AM

Since Dale and the school board will not let go of GHII, then who is being paid off? KICKBACKS?

Is it Dale? Entire SB? Or Dean Tistadt?

I believe we have corruption in the FCPS system.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Dale is Wrong on Gatehouse II
Posted by: chipmunk ()
Date: March 20, 2009 07:28AM

bingo.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Dale is Wrong on Gatehouse II
Posted by: Shadow ()
Date: March 20, 2009 08:13AM

KeepOnTruckin Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I saw some pictures of the interior of Gatehouse
> II. That place is just as nice as Gatehouse 1.
> There is no way they need to spend the same amount
> of money as they payed to buy it to renovate it.
> THey can spend maybe 10,000 on cubicles and stuff
> and thats all they will need


I've actually been inside the building. The lobby looks good, but the rest of the building is ancient and crap. There's no way they'll just move it and occupy. It isn't nice enough for them.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Dale is Wrong on Gatehouse II
Posted by: More money being spent ()
Date: March 20, 2009 12:14PM

Shadow Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> KeepOnTruckin Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > I saw some pictures of the interior of
> Gatehouse
> > II. That place is just as nice as Gatehouse 1.
> > There is no way they need to spend the same
> amount
> > of money as they payed to buy it to renovate
> it.
> > THey can spend maybe 10,000 on cubicles and
> stuff
> > and thats all they will need
>
>
> I've actually been inside the building. The lobby
> looks good, but the rest of the building is
> ancient and crap. There's no way they'll just
> move it and occupy. It isn't nice enough for
> them.

How much will it cost to fix this building?

How many teachers will lose their jobs due to the cost of this building?

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Dale is Wrong on Gatehouse II
Posted by: Shadow ()
Date: March 20, 2009 12:39PM

Estimates are around 45 million to refurbish it.

Gee, what a bargain.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Dale is Wrong on Gatehouse II
Posted by: Dr. No ()
Date: March 20, 2009 01:21PM

Shadow Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Estimates are around 45 million to refurbish it.
>
> Gee, what a bargain.

What a waste of our money. These people do not understand NO & HELL NO.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Dale is Wrong on Gatehouse II
Posted by: boo ()
Date: March 20, 2009 02:43PM

chipmunk Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> so how did you know that they were going to vote
> on lease of GHII? It wasn't on board docs...and no
> where on fcps web site...

lets just say, i have my sources and leave it at that, by the way the SB did vote to approve the leasing of the 1st 3 floors of the building in the close session last night.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Dale is Wrong on Gatehouse II
Posted by: boo ()
Date: March 20, 2009 02:50PM

Shadow Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Estimates are around 45 million to refurbish it.
>
> Gee, what a bargain.

that is correct about the estimate, as only the lobby area is in good shape(recently renovated by owner including the lobby restrooms), but the rest of the building is pretty crap, there is no usuable cabling infrastructure, cubicles are mostly decent but some partitions would need to be replaced, building is energy inefficient needs window replacements, roof needs to be repaired/replaced, etc, etc, among many other things to make the building able to support the personnel to do their jobs (IT Equipment(Core/end users)\office supplies).

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Dale is Wrong on Gatehouse II
Posted by: Dirt Bags ()
Date: March 20, 2009 02:53PM

boo Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> chipmunk Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > so how did you know that they were going to
> vote
> > on lease of GHII? It wasn't on board docs...and
> no
> > where on fcps web site...
>
> lets just say, i have my sources and leave it at
> that, by the way the SB did vote to approve the
> leasing of the 1st 3 floors of the building in the
> close session last night.

What a bunch of dirt bags. NO TRANSPARENCY HERE.

Dale is the big dog dirt bag and the SB is the twelve little dog dirt bags.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Dale is Wrong on Gatehouse II
Posted by: chipmunk ()
Date: March 20, 2009 03:41PM

boo - you rock!

you should come to the big meeting on 3/24 at 7:30 pm at TJ where everyone will be there to discuss the school budget. one of the little dirt bags will be there - Dr. Phil...
hee hee

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Dale is Wrong on Gatehouse II
Posted by: KeepOnTruckin ()
Date: March 20, 2009 03:51PM

Shadow Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> KeepOnTruckin Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > I saw some pictures of the interior of
> Gatehouse
> > II. That place is just as nice as Gatehouse 1.
> > There is no way they need to spend the same
> amount
> > of money as they payed to buy it to renovate
> it.
> > THey can spend maybe 10,000 on cubicles and
> stuff
> > and thats all they will need
>
>
> I've actually been inside the building. The lobby
> looks good, but the rest of the building is
> ancient and crap. There's no way they'll just
> move it and occupy. It isn't nice enough for
> them.


Of course, the FCPS would only have pcitures of the good part of the building. i saw the lobby and some of the IT areas (which yes, are lacking)

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Dale is Wrong on Gatehouse II
Posted by: dono ()
Date: March 20, 2009 03:54PM

sorry but when you Double the price of a building acquisition for improvements when the purchase price is already high its a looser (unless you are building a data hub or some kind of special capital improvements. For general office use it is like buying a used lexus for 45k then putting another 45k into it - just dumb...

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Dale is Wrong on Gatehouse II
Posted by: boo ()
Date: March 20, 2009 04:23PM

chipmunk Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> you should come to the big meeting on 3/24 at 7:30
> pm at TJ where everyone will be there to discuss
> the school budget. one of the little dirt bags
> will be there - Dr. Phil...
> hee hee

well i won't be there, have other responsibilities, i'm not a virginia or fairfax taxpayer anyways but not to say the budget would not affect me in other ways.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Dale is Wrong on Gatehouse II
Posted by: Dumb and Dumber ()
Date: March 21, 2009 06:47AM

dono Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> sorry but when you Double the price of a building
> acquisition for improvements when the purchase
> price is already high its a looser (unless you are
> building a data hub or some kind of special
> capital improvements. For general office use it
> is like buying a used lexus for 45k then putting
> another 45k into it - just dumb...

You hit the nail on the head. Dale and the entire SB do not get it. It may be because they are DUMB or rather they do not care about students or parents.

Two more years of this BS, then the taxpayers in this county need to vote them out and replace them with people who are smart and care about the students.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Dale is Wrong on Gatehouse II
Posted by: Teachers lose out ()
Date: March 22, 2009 08:27AM

How many teachers will lose their job because of GHII?

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Dale is Wrong on Gatehouse II
Posted by: dono ()
Date: March 22, 2009 12:55PM

Teachers lose out Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> How many teachers will lose their job because of
> GHII?

none they scrubbed the plan for now...

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Dale is Wrong on Gatehouse II
Posted by: papergirl ()
Date: March 22, 2009 01:04PM

Does anyone have contacts at the Washington Post that could run a story on this topic? Everything about this smells...

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Dale is Wrong on Gatehouse II
Posted by: Dale is NFG ()
Date: March 22, 2009 03:29PM

papergirl Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Does anyone have contacts at the Washington Post
> that could run a story on this topic? Everything
> about this smells...

The Washington Post is in the tank for the SB, which is part of the FCDC.

No help here.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Dale is Wrong on Gatehouse II
Posted by: dono ()
Date: March 22, 2009 05:13PM

Im inclined to agree about the stink factor. The improvement number is not even close to being reasonable in my opinion (I have been in Commercial leasing for 20 yrs). Obviously the location was prime relative to GH I but no way with the improvement numbers

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Dale is Wrong on Gatehouse II
Posted by: notme ()
Date: March 22, 2009 07:38PM

dono Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Teachers lose out Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > How many teachers will lose their job because
> of
> > GHII?
>
> none they scrubbed the plan for now...


nothing is scrubbed, gatehouse II is alive and well.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Dale is Wrong on Gatehouse II
Posted by: dono ()
Date: March 22, 2009 08:56PM

alive and well, how is that? I thought SB removed it from consideration for FY0/10 - please to be explaining...

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Dale is Wrong on Gatehouse II
Posted by: notme ()
Date: March 22, 2009 10:22PM

dono Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> alive and well, how is that? I thought SB removed
> it from consideration for FY0/10 - please to be
> explaining...

if you read a few posts above, 3/19 there was a closed session vote to lease gatehouse II, infact they approved the leasing of 3 floors and are moving forward with plans to move in. None of this is actually public yet but it is true

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Dale is Wrong on Gatehouse II
Posted by: No way ()
Date: March 23, 2009 02:04AM

Dumb and Dumber Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> You hit the nail on the head. Dale and the entire
> SB do not get it. It may be because they are DUMB
> or rather they do not care about students or
> parents.
>
> Two more years of this BS, then the taxpayers in
> this county need to vote them out and replace them
> with people who are smart and care about the
> students.

Won't happen. Voters don't know anything about the school board and they care less. They'll re-elect the goons because they will all be on the democrat sample ballot. Voters will vote for whoever the democrats tell them to vote for. That's how we got the goons in the first place and how they got re elected, time after time. They'll get re-elected again. That's just how dumb voters are, they vote anyone with D next to their name.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Dale is Wrong on Gatehouse II
Posted by: dono ()
Date: March 23, 2009 07:48AM

notme Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> dono Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > alive and well, how is that? I thought SB
> removed
> > it from consideration for FY0/10 - please to be
> > explaining...
>
> if you read a few posts above, 3/19 there was a
> closed session vote to lease gatehouse II, infact
> they approved the leasing of 3 floors and are
> moving forward with plans to move in. None of
> this is actually public yet but it is true


wow that is rather sick. A rather huge liability to take on with budget cuts especially with no public input. WRITE YOUR SCHOOL BOARD REP; SHARRON B; DALE AND THE POST. I plan to today and wish the rest of you would as well.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Dale is Wrong on Gatehouse II
Posted by: dono ()
Date: March 23, 2009 07:57AM

Here is the reply from my school board rep.

'No, there is no truth to the rumor. The Board does not and cannot take action in closed session.

We are looking for leased space though. We need to move employees out of both Devonshire and Lacey to return those buildings back to schools. In addition, we have multiple leases which are expiring this summer and it makes sense to consolidate those employees in common space.'

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Dale is Wrong on Gatehouse II
Posted by: Fact ()
Date: March 23, 2009 08:21AM

dono Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Here is the reply from my school board rep.
>
> 'No, there is no truth to the rumor. The Board
> does not and cannot take action in closed session.
>
>
> We are looking for leased space though. We need
> to move employees out of both Devonshire and Lacey
> to return those buildings back to schools. In
> addition, we have multiple leases which are
> expiring this summer and it makes sense to
> consolidate those employees in common space.'

FCPS LIES AGAIN.

Dean Tistadt has told taxpayers that FCPS will lease three floors of GHII after $45 million in renovation with the option to buy after three years.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Dale is Wrong on Gatehouse II
Posted by: notme ()
Date: March 23, 2009 08:24AM

dono Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Here is the reply from my school board rep.
>
> 'No, there is no truth to the rumor. The Board
> does not and cannot take action in closed session.
>
>
> We are looking for leased space though. We need
> to move employees out of both Devonshire and Lacey
> to return those buildings back to schools. In
> addition, we have multiple leases which are
> expiring this summer and it makes sense to
> consolidate those employees in common space.'

of course they are not going to admit to it yet until the actual lease agreement is signed with the owner due to the public backlash they will get(Leases do not have to be approved by the Board of Supervisors). The truth is they can and have approved to partially lease the building. This will come out sometime in the future publically i'm sure but until then expect them to deny what they call a "rumor" but is in fact reality. Do not ask me how i know this because i cannot say.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Dale is Wrong on Gatehouse II
Posted by: notme ()
Date: March 23, 2009 08:25AM

Fact Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> dono Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Here is the reply from my school board rep.
> >
> > 'No, there is no truth to the rumor. The Board
> > does not and cannot take action in closed
> session.
> >
> >
> > We are looking for leased space though. We
> need
> > to move employees out of both Devonshire and
> Lacey
> > to return those buildings back to schools. In
> > addition, we have multiple leases which are
> > expiring this summer and it makes sense to
> > consolidate those employees in common space.'
>
> FCPS LIES AGAIN.
>
> Dean Tistadt has told taxpayers that FCPS will
> lease three floors of GHII after $45 million in
> renovation with the option to buy after three
> years.



i've been saying this since last thursday. :P

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Dale is Wrong on Gatehouse II
Posted by: dono ()
Date: March 23, 2009 08:29AM

I dont get it you are saying they are looking for office space to lease or you are saying they are going to lease GHII and put 45 million into 3 floors?

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Dale is Wrong on Gatehouse II
Posted by: notme ()
Date: March 23, 2009 08:32AM

dono Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I dont get it you are saying they are looking for
> office space to lease or you are saying they are
> going to lease GHII and put 45 million into 3
> floors?

pretty much that is what he is saying, they are leasing 3 floors(for now) but it still has to be renovated. Don't be fooled they will eventually get the other floors too and they will purchase the building in the future.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Dale is Wrong on Gatehouse II
Posted by: Shadow ()
Date: March 23, 2009 08:42AM

No way Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Dumb and Dumber Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
>
> > You hit the nail on the head. Dale and the
> entire
> > SB do not get it. It may be because they are
> DUMB
> > or rather they do not care about students or
> > parents.
> >
> > Two more years of this BS, then the taxpayers
> in
> > this county need to vote them out and replace
> them
Well, we've already tried Republicans and they screwed us over.

McConnell was in office in Springfield for twenty some odd years, lived next door to West Springfield High and didn't do anything to improve the ancient school, among other things. Of course, she was replaced by another Republican with big name recognition, Herrity.

Dix (R) was in office in Hunter Mill and was replaced by a Democrat after the scandal around a sexual harrassment payoff with tax payer dollars.

Stuart Mendelsohn (R) was the Dranesville rep for eight years before being replaced with a Dem. He chose not to run for re-election, but I suspect his opposition to the Dulles rail and his support of expansive housing developments in his district killed any chance a republican would be elected there, at least for a while.

Lee District's McKay (D) actually replaced a long term Democrat, so I guess that area likes the Dems.

Mason Ditrict seems to be happy with Penelope Gross (D) since she's been in office since the 95 elections.

Mason District has kept Hyland since 1988. Another Dem.

Linda Smyth of the Providence district is on her second term following well known Dem Gerry Connolly.

The Sully district has had the same republican as supervisor since it was created in 91.

And the Braddock district just elected a Republican to replace Bulova (D).

So your statement about Fairfax only voting Democratic is quite inaccurate. There are areas that vote more democratic than others, but it is by no means the whole county.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/23/2009 08:43AM by Shadow.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Dale is Wrong on Gatehouse II
Posted by: dono ()
Date: March 23, 2009 09:03AM

to all

Here is a note I sent to my school board rep.

'...and please pass along to Dean Tistadt tenant improvements for a retrofit need not be $100/rentable square foot - $15-25 is more the norm with the bulk of that paid by the Landlord not the tenant. It will be another PR nightmare if he settles for another sweetheart deal with GHII or any other Landlord.'

For reference Dean Tistadt is the Chief Operating Officer for the Schools - he is in charge of facilities. How he got 'sold' the Gatehouse II purchase deal is a wonder to me. It may, maybe sort of might have been non-criminal at the height of the market 1 year ago but no way no how when they went to approve it.

Like I said I have been representing people leasing office space in Fairfax for 20 years and that deal stunk. The improvement costs for a retrofit would have made a downtown law firm blush. For a Municipality to require more than $15-$25 per rentable square foot in improvements in a finished building (I assume GHII has a finished ceiling and floors) is absurd. To be 3 times that amount must have been a total building upgrade including all building systems.

Dont get me wrong a consolidation of office space can save a lot of money but not if you move into a building that needs re-building. There are lots of spaces in Fairfax that are nicely built out or in raw condition with ample Landlord buildout allowance to house the school offices for $25.00 per rentable square foot per year gross full service. I would be glad to provide a survey of same.

If this deal comes in above $30 per rentable square foot per year gross full service more than likely we are being seriously screwed. I personally represented a municipality in the placement of its offices in the DC metro area at the very height of the market (1.5 years ago) and they got brand new space in a brand new building in a prime location for well under $30...

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Dale is Wrong on Gatehouse II
Posted by: Stupid SB/Dale ()
Date: March 24, 2009 07:34AM

Dale and SB do not no the rules.

In the advertised budget, the County Executive proposed cutting school capital construction from $155 million to $140 million because we were bumping up against our self imposed 10 percent cap for debt repayment. The 10 percent cap is an important factor in keeping our AAA bond rating. During their push for Gatehouse II, the school system came up with a creative way to increase the funding available under the 10 percent debt cap. They pledged the operating funds they receive annually from the state for debt repayment. This increased the size of the number the debt cap is calculated on. The school staff justified this by saying the Gatehouse II proposal resulted in operating savings (a point disputed by many people in opposition to Gatehouse II). School Board members, were not aware the deal involved pledging these funds.

Is this School Board STUPID? YES

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Dale is Wrong on Gatehouse II
Posted by: Prison building ()
Date: March 25, 2009 02:17PM

Stupid SB/Dale Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Dale and SB do not no the rules.
>
> In the advertised budget, the County Executive
> proposed cutting school capital construction from
> $155 million to $140 million because we were
> bumping up against our self imposed 10 percent cap
> for debt repayment. The 10 percent cap is an
> important factor in keeping our AAA bond rating.
> During their push for Gatehouse II, the school
> system came up with a creative way to increase the
> funding available under the 10 percent debt cap.
> They pledged the operating funds they receive
> annually from the state for debt repayment. This
> increased the size of the number the debt cap is
> calculated on. The school staff justified this by
> saying the Gatehouse II proposal resulted in
> operating savings (a point disputed by many people
> in opposition to Gatehouse II). School Board
> members, were not aware the deal involved pledging
> these funds.
>
> Is this School Board STUPID? YES

Now I know why they want GHII. They want to use it as a prison building for all of their sexual deviants, predators, dopers, child molestors, and reprobates.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Dale is Wrong on Gatehouse II
Posted by: QW ()
Date: March 25, 2009 02:37PM

"Now I know why they want GHII. They want to use it as a prison building for all of their sexual deviants, predators, dopers, child molestors, and reprobates"

LOL..very, very funny.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Dale is Wrong on Gatehouse II
Posted by: Good by Jack ()
Date: March 28, 2009 06:22AM

Dale is like a weather man. He is wrong more then 50% of the time when it comes to budget or student issues.

With his record he is failing and must be expelled. So long Jack.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Dale is Wrong on Gatehouse II
Posted by: Jill ()
Date: March 28, 2009 04:04PM

Except that no weatherman has ever wreeked the destruction on Fairfax County that the Dale administration has.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Dale is Wrong on Gatehouse II
Posted by: Nitwits in FCPS ()
Date: March 29, 2009 05:50AM

Jill Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Except that no weatherman has ever wreeked the
> destruction on Fairfax County that the Dale
> administration has.

Dale, his staff and the school board are destroying the FCPS system one brick at a time. All you have to do is read what is on the FU and you see that students, parents and taxpayers have had it with this group of nitwits.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Dale is Wrong on Gatehouse II
Posted by: Jack's got to go ()
Date: March 30, 2009 11:28AM

All, the only way we can get rid of Jack is:
1) find him another job
2) make sure all of the current school board members are not re-elected.
3) elect parents who care about the kids and the teachers - all who are their customers - and know how to do the RIGHT thing when it comes to managing the schools.

Please get the message out to the community - do NOT re-elect these "dirt bags" back to the school board. They are there just passing time to move up to the next political pit stop....

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Dale is Wrong on Gatehouse II
Posted by: SB LIES TO TAXPAYER ()
Date: April 03, 2009 11:34AM

SOUNDS LIKE THE SCHOOL BOARD IN PRINCE GEORGE, IS AS STUPID AS THE SCHOOL BOARD IN FCPS.

EVERYBODY WANTS A TAJ MAHAL AT THE SAME TIME THAT TEACHERS WILL LOSE THEIR JOBS.

MAYBE THESE TWO SB ARE DRINKING THE SAME COOL AID OR SMOKING THE SAME POT.



Doubts About Deal In Prince George's
School Headquarters Plan Scrutinized

By Nelson Hernandez
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, February 20, 2009; B01



As the Prince George's County school board considers closing a dozen schools and eliminating more than 1,000 jobs, its decision last summer to spend $36 million for a new headquarters faces mounting criticism while the costs of the project grow and the payoff remains uncertain.

The school system has spent nearly $2 million to rent and renovate a pair of office buildings outside the Capital Beltway along the Pennsylvania Avenue corridor. But officials have not announced a timetable for moving out of the aging, decrepit Sasscer Administration Building on School Lane in Upper Marlboro and into Washington Plaza on Presidential Parkway.

Meanwhile, the board is expected to vote Thursday on a $1.6 billion budget for the next fiscal year that would squeeze programs in the 128,000-student school system and possibly raise class size and force employee furloughs. Those cuts have made the headquarters move an easy target.

At a meeting in Glenarden this week, school officials faced parents upset about the school closure plan. Board Vice Chairman Ron Watson (At Large) fielded a question about the headquarters move.

"The plan for [office] consolidation has nothing to do with the budget," Watson said. "That was a long-range plan. There's been a lot of misinformation." As he outlined the case for a move -- that costs would be paid over a long term and that schools would save money and gain a better central office -- parents snorted and grumbled.

"We continue to revisit this decision," he said. "Even if the school system were somehow able to back out of this contract, it doesn't even come close to the $76 million we are short in this year's budget."

Headquarters moves are often sensitive. The Fairfax County Board of Supervisors rejected a $110 million proposal for a school office consolidation in September, but school officials returned this month with a $95 million plan they say will save money in the long run.

The Prince George's experience shows that political and financial complications can linger or multiply even after a contract is signed.

The school board's 6 to 4 vote June 26, approving a 10-year lease of Washington Plaza with an option to purchase, exposed divisions at the start. John E. Deasy, then superintendent, sought to delay action but was rebuffed. Opponents on the board said the project would force program cuts; supporters said it would save money and improve services for Maryland's second-largest school system.

The 200,000-square-foot Washington Plaza has as much space as the Sasscer building and several others combined, and the proposed consolidation is meant to help parents and teachers to take care of all their needs in a single visit. A design schematic calls for a "clean, fresh, no-frills look," with executive offices that would appear "contemporary . . . without looking either fancy or cheap."

Expenses were supposed to be minimal: $30 million for the two buildings and $6 million for renovations and closing costs. Deasy told the board that the consolidation of several offices around the county would save about $40,000 a year.

But the estimates started to crumble under questions from some board members, according to internal documents The Washington Post obtained through the Maryland Public Information Act and from sources.

Board member Donna Hathaway Beck (At Large), an opponent of the deal, asked how the $6 million would be spent. School officials replied in a memo: "As explained during the Board of Education closed session, the $6m is not totally available for construction and renovation. . . . An additional funding source will need to be identified."

Under the lease-purchase agreement, if the school system buys Washington Plaza, it must pay an additional amount equivalent to most of the renovation money. According to school officials, the size of the payment depends on short-term interest rates. In December, the projection rose as high as $5 million, and this month, it is about $3.7 million.

After making the additional payment, the board would be looking for money to renovate such facilities as its offices and public meeting room, estimated in October to cost $1.5 million. An additional $1 million might be needed to add parking. The site has 600 parking spots for 1,000 projected employees, documents show.

Documents show that the $36 million estimate also omitted "one-time costs" of $8.2 million for moving and for renovations to another building involved in the consolidation. Officials said federal funds related to telecommunications would reimburse about half that expense.

How much the consolidation would save -- if anything -- seems to change from scenario to scenario. After the initial estimate of a $40,000-a-year saving, a school system fact sheet in October showed the lease-purchase deal would cost $156,000 a year more than the current arrangement. In addition, the system is saddled with leases on some buildings it plans to vacate.

Yet another report, in December, indicated that consolidation would save the school system $2.5 million a year. But an asterisk was attached to that projection, with the fine print noting that it assumed that Sasscer, which was built in 1949, and another building would be renovated if the consolidation did not occur. The school board has not made such plans.

Now, the school board is seeking to renegotiate the agreement with the Washington Plaza owners: Dean F. Morehouse, president of MTM Builder/Developer Inc.; and Kenneth Michael, head of NAI The Michael Cos., which is brokering the deal. The new deal would be roughly equivalent to a purchase with a long-term mortgage, and officials said it could save $390,000 a year.

Deasy left for another job in December. It fell to Interim Superintendent William R. Hite Jr. to shepherd the project and draft a budget in a severe recession. His school closure plan, intended to save $10 million a year, could come to a vote as early as next month.

This week, the Prince George's County Educators' Association wrote that it could not support the headquarters project "given the level of agitation that exists in the community."

Maryland Senate President Thomas V. Mike Miller Jr. (D-Calvert) said the project should be delayed. "It is morally wrong to put offices for bureaucrats at the front of the line and the health and safety of children in public schools last," he wrote in December.

But school board member Pat Fletcher (District 3) said the state hasn't hesitated to renovate buildings, including one named for Miller.

Board Chairman Verjeana M. Jacobs (At Large) said this week that something has to be done about the situation at Sasscer and that the economic downturn provides a bargain opportunity.

"The dynamics around the reason to have a [new] building have not changed," she said. "We have to do something."

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Dale is Wrong on Gatehouse II
Posted by: FISCAL RESTRAINT ()
Date: April 03, 2009 11:45AM

Sounds like FCPS, but FCPS will be short well over 100 million dollars.

FISCAL RESTRAINT PLEASE.


Pr. George's Education Funds Face Possible Cut
Senate Tells Board To Drop New Office Or Lose $36 Million

By Rosalind S. Helderman and Nelson Hernandez
Washington Post Staff Writers
Friday, April 3, 2009; B01



For months, the Prince George's County Board of Education has taken heat for leasing a new headquarters building during an economic downturn that has led to school closures and job losses.

Now the state Senate has upped the ante: Give up the $36 million headquarters, the Senate said yesterday, or lose $36 million in school funding.

"The economic condition does not really afford them to move ahead," Sen. C. Anthony Muse (D-Prince George's) said as he proposed the amendment to the state budget calling for reduced funding if the county forges ahead with the move.

The Board of Education decided this summer to move its offices from a decrepit former school to a pair of leased office buildings called Washington Plaza.

Advocates on the school board, which backed the plan in a contentious 6 to 4 vote, said the move would save money over the long run by consolidating scattered offices and give parents and staff a single place to go for business, as well as more attractive lodgings than in the aging Sasscer Administration Building in Upper Marlboro.

Two board members said yesterday that they were infuriated by the Senate's action.

Rosalind Johnson (District 1) called the decision "unconscionable" and said she believes the state is usurping the board's authority to make independent decisions.

"Home rule in Prince George's County, electing their own members of the board, it cuts it," she said of the Senate's action. "It says, 'You can elect somebody, but we'll neuter them.' "

Of Senate President Thomas V. Mike Miller Jr. (D-Calvert), who had called the purchase "morally wrong" in a December letter to county leaders, Johnson said: "He is a person. He's not God."

Miller represents part of Prince George's.

Board of Education member Pat Fletcher (District 3) called the decision wrong.

"I wouldn't go down there and tell them how to do their job. I wouldn't," she said.

It is not clear whether the school board can legally back out of its lease, which includes an option to buy the office buildings. The board has signed a contract, and 28 staff members have moved in.

An internal school system memo written in October and obtained by The Washington Post predicted "severe adverse financial consequences to the school system" if the lease is broken.

The Senate's action might turn out to be a largely symbolic swat at school leaders. The House of Delegates did not include a similar item in its budget, adopted last week, and the proposal might not survive a conference between the chambers.

The Senate amendment also indicates that the funding is contingent on the board not proceeding with the move "and paying no damages due to terminating, canceling, or not proceeding with any contract." The board, which has gutted a floor in one building, would probably pay damages if it canceled the lease.

Board members have said they made the decision when the economy was more stable and have been reexamining it in recent months. Del. Melony G. Griffith (D), who heads the county's House delegation, said school board members made the best decision they could "based on information they had at the time."

"Then the economy spiraled, and because of the strain on the resources of the Board of Education, it's very clear this project is unaffordable," she said.

Staff writers John Wagner and Lisa Rein contributed to this report.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Dale is Wrong on Gatehouse II
Posted by: Dirt bags need to go ()
Date: April 04, 2009 06:04AM

Jack's got to go Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> All, the only way we can get rid of Jack is:
> 1) find him another job
> 2) make sure all of the current school board
> members are not re-elected.
> 3) elect parents who care about the kids and the
> teachers - all who are their customers - and know
> how to do the RIGHT thing when it comes to
> managing the schools.
>
> Please get the message out to the community - do
> NOT re-elect these "dirt bags" back to the school
> board. They are there just passing time to move up
> to the next political pit stop....

YES, YES, AND YES. Do not elect any of the current ass hole SB members again.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Dale is Wrong on Gatehouse II
Posted by: Dale wrong ()
Date: April 05, 2009 07:02AM

Dale is wrong on a lot of things like boundry issues, fairgrade and Gatehouse I/II.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Dale is Wrong on Gatehouse II
Posted by: Say this is not true ()
Date: April 10, 2009 04:01PM

dono Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> to all
>
> Here is a note I sent to my school board rep.
>
> '...and please pass along to Dean Tistadt tenant
> improvements for a retrofit need not be
> $100/rentable square foot - $15-25 is more the
> norm with the bulk of that paid by the Landlord
> not the tenant. It will be another PR nightmare
> if he settles for another sweetheart deal with
> GHII or any other Landlord.'
>
> For reference Dean Tistadt is the Chief Operating
> Officer for the Schools - he is in charge of
> facilities. How he got 'sold' the Gatehouse II
> purchase deal is a wonder to me. It may, maybe
> sort of might have been non-criminal at the height
> of the market 1 year ago but no way no how when
> they went to approve it.
>
> Like I said I have been representing people
> leasing office space in Fairfax for 20 years and
> that deal stunk. The improvement costs for a
> retrofit would have made a downtown law firm
> blush. For a Municipality to require more than
> $15-$25 per rentable square foot in improvements
> in a finished building (I assume GHII has a
> finished ceiling and floors) is absurd. To be 3
> times that amount must have been a total building
> upgrade including all building systems.
>
> Dont get me wrong a consolidation of office space
> can save a lot of money but not if you move into a
> building that needs re-building. There are lots
> of spaces in Fairfax that are nicely built out or
> in raw condition with ample Landlord buildout
> allowance to house the school offices for $25.00
> per rentable square foot per year gross full
> service. I would be glad to provide a survey of
> same.
>
> If this deal comes in above $30 per rentable
> square foot per year gross full service more than
> likely we are being seriously screwed. I
> personally represented a municipality in the
> placement of its offices in the DC metro area at
> the very height of the market (1.5 years ago) and
> they got brand new space in a brand new building
> in a prime location for well under $30...

It is my understanding that Dale and the SB are moving ahead with leasing Gatehouse II for three years with the option to buy.

They will need to spend 45 million on upgrades.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Dale is Wrong on Gatehouse II
Posted by: Facts ()
Date: April 13, 2009 05:55AM

Jack's got to go Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> All, the only way we can get rid of Jack is:
> 1) find him another job
> 2) make sure all of the current school board
> members are not re-elected.
> 3) elect parents who care about the kids and the
> teachers - all who are their customers - and know
> how to do the RIGHT thing when it comes to
> managing the schools.
>
> Please get the message out to the community - do
> NOT re-elect these "dirt bags" back to the school
> board. They are there just passing time to move up
> to the next political pit stop....

As further proof that Dale does not care about students or teachers he is moving ahead with his second TAJ MAHAL for his staff and his fat butt.

Spend, spend, spend on this building that is not needed, when he should spend the money on students/teachers.

$50,000 million down the drain on perks for Dale and his staff.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Dale is Wrong on Gatehouse II
Posted by: formerhick76 ()
Date: April 13, 2009 08:56AM

I can understand the desire to consolidate staff under a single roof. But is/was Gatehouse *really* the best way to go?

On the other hand, I remember Mychele Brickner (I suspect she is a fave among the disaffected here on FFXU) was tossed on her rear a few years ago. I wonder if 'back to basics' is going to do well in 2011.

Maybe staggered SB terms ought to be put into place?

Options: ReplyQuote
Pages: 12AllNext
Current Page: 1 of 2


Your Name: 
Your Email (Optional): 
Subject: 
Attach a file
  • No file can be larger than 75 MB
  • All files together cannot be larger than 300 MB
  • 30 more file(s) can be attached to this message
Spam prevention:
Please, enter the code that you see below in the input field. This is for blocking bots that try to post this form automatically.
  *******   **     **  **    **  ********   ********  
 **     **  **     **  **   **   **     **  **     ** 
 **     **  **     **  **  **    **     **  **     ** 
  ********  **     **  *****     **     **  ********  
        **  **     **  **  **    **     **  **     ** 
 **     **  **     **  **   **   **     **  **     ** 
  *******    *******   **    **  ********   ********  
This forum powered by Phorum.