Gatehouse II Information…

Washington Post — Monday, October 6, 2008

Letter to the Editor:  Fairfax School‘s Sensible Plan

Regarding the Sept. 23 Metro story “Supervisors Turn Away Fairfax Schools Proposal” —

A few years ago, Fairfax County Public Schools had some lemons - our “central office” employees were scattered across the county, some in expensive leased offices, others in rundown schools.  We owned acres of of vacant land and old schools that could not be used for education.  Fortunately, in 2004 the School Board and the Board of Supervisors decided to make lemonade.  The recipe involved a two phase plan to move our central office staff into two centrally located buildings.  We would transform old schools into new ones or community centers.  Most important, consolidation would reduce our central office staff, saving millions of dollars.

Phase I, completed in 2006, was a success.  We reduced operating costs, paid for the first building with savings from consolidation, and freed up vacant land and school buildings for community use.  Consolidation reduced traffic and air pollution, to boot.

This year, we are ready for Phase II.  The real estate downturn presents a unique opportunity to reap greater savings for taxpayers.  Buying the building known as Gatehouse II now will enable us to consolidate our other central office employees, saving $7.5 million over the next three years and tens of millions long-term.  We can then terminate the leases, return buildings to the community, free up three buildings for use by children who now attend school in trailers.

The Board of Supervisors should support our creative efforts to operate more efficiently, save tax dollars and concentrate resources in the classroom.

Stuart Gibson
Reston
The writer represents Hunter Mill District on the Fairfax County School Board.

(Link to Washington Post article)

The Connection — Thursday, October 02, 2008

Gatehouse II — A Bad Deal
Commentary By Supervisor Pat Herrity (R-Springfield)

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

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

• Purchase Price Too High.  The school proposed paying $52M for a building that was purchased by the current owner for $44 million just two years ago.  Building values have fallen in the last two years.  The school’s consultant indicated it was a good deal because fully leased up, the building would be worth $60 million.  However the building has no leases.
  
  
• Minimal Cost Saving.  The estimated cost savings over the 30 years was presented at $22 million.  This equals less than $1 million per year.  The savings for Gatehouse I was presented at approximately $25 million but is now estimated to be at only $10 million.  As noted in the following two paragraphs, the savings is both understated (no reductions for personnel efficiencies) and overstated (much of this benefit does not pass to taxpayers).
  
  
• School Cost Savings Does Not Equal Taxpayer Savings.  Much of the $22 million in cost savings results from the elimination of the cost of operating and maintaining the current buildings.  However, the project as presented keeps all of the properties in Fairfax County’s hands, meaning taxpayers continue to pay the cost.  Most of the buildings were proposed to be transferred to the Board of Supervisors, but there was no discussion or plan on use or disposal of these properties — especially given our pending reductions — meaning that taxpayers likely would continue to bear the cost even if the schools did not.
  
  
• No Reduction of Personnel for Efficiencies.  The school claims that the consolidation of offices would result in efficiencies.  However, the only positions that were eliminated due to this consolidation were the custodial and building maintenance staff.  If there are real efficiencies, then I would expect to see real reductions in staff being proposed as a result.
  
  
• Failure to Consider Upcoming Administrative Staff Reductions.  The school administrative staff has grown at a significantly higher rate than the school population.  Based on the current Lines of Business Review being undertaken by the school, I would expect to see a significant reduction in administrative personnel.  The proposal kept the school administrative staffing at the current level when looking at the administrative facilities need for Gatehouse II.

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

(Link to The Connection article)

McLean Connection — Tuesday, October 14, 2008

Letter to the Editor

To the Editor:

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

We have kids sitting in over 900 trailers, teachers with minimum pay raises, and old, decrepit schools for many children in the county, and yet they want to spend $52 million for a new building for their staff?  Where are their priorities?

School Board member Stu Gibson states that we will save $7.5 million a year on the old facilities.  He fails to mention that we will be spending $52 million purchasing the new facility, which does not include the interest on the bonds!  According to Mr. Gibson, the “run down” schools where the staff are currently working is not good enough for the staff, but it is good enough for our kids.

Where is the supporting cost/benefit analysis?  Where is the return on investment?  What is the payback period for this investment?  Where is the business case?  Isn’t our government supposed to justify its expenditures?

This is why parents are so angry — the School Board has publicly announced time and time again, that “we can do whatever we want” and “we can spend whatever we want.”

I hope that the Board of Supervisors and the School Board hears our message loud and clear.  The parents and taxpayers of Fairfax County have a vote and we will use it.

Kim Farrell

Vienna

(Link to The Connection article)