Author: Peter Rousselot

Peter’s Take is a weekly opinion column. The views and opinions expressed in this column are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of ARLnow.com.

On May 9, APS Superintendent Patrick Murphy presented his preliminary recommendations regarding how APS’ Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) could reduce APS’ 4,600 total seat deficit in 2025. Murphy’s preliminary recommendations reduced only 53% of that deficit.

On May 17, the School Board (SB) reviewed and discussed Murphy’s recommendations. Dissatisfied with Murphy’s priorities, the SB adopted its own series of “key points,” including:

• Increasing enrollment in the Arlington Tech Program at the Arlington Career Center.
• Other options that place a higher priority on reducing the projected 2,775 HS seat deficit in 2025.
• Possibilities for using the Reed building and site to develop a new elementary school to help reduce the projected 1,387 ES seat deficit in 2025.
• Future additions at several North Arlington elementary schools further to relieve elementary overcrowding.

On May 24, in a joint work session with the County Board, the SB made significant further proposed changes to its CIP. These had not been posted on the County’s website when this column was submitted.

As a top instructional priority, APS should commit to a fourth comprehensive high school

The SB was correct to place a higher priority on solutions for the HS seat deficit, and the SB’s May 24 presentation claims to eliminate that deficit by 2025. However, the SB has not yet committed to making a fourth comprehensive HS part of the solution. It should.

In an earlier column, I outlined the case for a fourth comprehensive HS, including the extensive academic research documenting why 3,000 seat comprehensive high schools are a bad idea. Arlington cannot and should not rely solely on other initiatives like Arlington Tech, online learning, university partnerships, double shifting, or extending the school day.

On its own, and working collaboratively with the County, APS must significantly reduce the per-square-foot cost of new facilities construction

Under the CIP scenario presented on May 24, there are still significant elementary and middle school seat deficits in 2025, and those assume that actual enrollment does not exceed projected enrollment.

APS needs to adopt new approaches to reducing per-square foot costs:

• In consultation with disinterested outside experts, APS and the County should conduct a stem-to-stern review of all aspects of APS’ procurement, bidding, design, and construction practices. If Arlington continues to pay for APS’ current version of new facilities customization, overcrowding will grow and instructional quality will erode.
• Other school systems are embracing new modular school technologies. APS staff insists modular isn’t a good option in most Arlington circumstances. Do disinterested outside experts agree with APS?

In exchange for APS’ agreement to significantly reduce the per-square-foot cost of new facilities construction, the County should provide APS with land and a higher % share of bonding capacity

If APS commits to a new era of more frugal construction through standardization, the County — within the constraints of its “10% rule” on debt service — should give:

• APS county land (but not current parkland), and
• a higher % share of total Arlington bonding capacity.

To finance this commitment, the County should defer some proposed County investments until later in the CIP planning period.

Conclusion

Adopting a more frugal approach to procurement, bidding, design and construction, in exchange for county land and greater bonding capacity, will get us much closer to eliminating our current capacity crisis at a price we can afford.

Peter Rousselot is a former member of the Central Committee of the Democratic Party of Virginia and former chair of the Arlington County Democratic Committee.

Peter’s Take is a weekly opinion column. The views and opinions expressed in this column are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of ARLnow.com. 

Last month, Arlington County unveiled its latest proposal for an Aquatics Center at Long Bridge Park. The County has dropped a few of the more excessive features from its last public proposal, but only after a firestorm of justified public opposition. The County also has acknowledged that the facility should be “community” focused, highlighting the relative lack of aquatics resources in South Arlington.

The latest Aquatics Center concept presents multiple unanswered questions needing resolution, e.g. who are the most likely users, has the clear demand for aquatics resources been equitably addressed? Fortunately, the County Board need not rush to judgment in the short period until the July adoption of the next CIP. Instead, the Board simply should incorporate into that CIP an appropriate dollar cap on what Arlington should spend on the revised Aquatics Center, permitting several more months of community discussion followed by a fall decision.

Discussion

A fundamental disconnect remains between the latest Aquatics Center base proposal and the aquatic resources Arlington most needs: community pools

Arlington primarily has followed a model of distributed park and recreation resources, endeavoring equitably to locate such resources within reasonable access of the surrounding neighborhoods. The “community” for the proposed Aquatics Center should be southeast Arlington–with the exception of the 50-meter pool. If a 50-meter pool is indeed needed in Arlington, that pool should be located at this site because we probably don’t have space elsewhere.

Consistent with a southeast Arlington focus, the Aquatics Center should be down-sized by deleting certain elements from the latest base proposal

Assuming that the 50-meter pool is retained, then the 25-meter “leisure” pool at Long Bridge should be dropped because the dollars saved can better be spent for another 25-meter pool in a different South Arlington location.

(Update on 5/13/16 — “A 25-meter pool is not part of the new facility plan as recommended by both the Long Bridge Park Advisory Committee and the County Manager,” says Arlington Dept. of Parks and Recreation spokeswoman Susan Kalish. Responds Rousselot: “The 10,000 square foot second pool being proposed by the County is indeed not precisely described as a ’25 meter pool,’ but instead is described as ‘A multi-purpose pool’ or a ‘Combined Teaching and Family Pool,’ etc. However, the 10,000 square foot size assigned by the County to this second pool was the basis for my rough estimate of $5.7 million potentially saved by the deletion of this second pool at Long Bridge.”)

Using a rough dollar-per-square-foot cost based on County staff’s cost projections, dropping the 25-meter pool could save potentially $5.7 million. In addition, the 10,000 square feet proposed for fitness activities in the latest Aquatics Center base proposal should be reduced to no more than 5,000 square feet, a space much more consistent with the average of 3,000 square feet of fitness areas in most other County community centers. Such a reduction potentially could save an additional $2.9 million.

These two proposed changes could result in a total saving of $8.6 million, reducing the estimated total “low-end” project cost of the Aquatics Center base proposal from $42 million to $33.4 million.

The $8.6 million saved by downsizing the base proposal should be re-allocated as core financing for another community pool and enhanced fitness resources in another, more central South Arlington location

A new community pool and enhanced fitness resources could potentially be located at Gunston or Drew, each recently considered as a site for a new/revised elementary school center. Other South Arlington locations should be investigated.

Conclusion

Arlington should engage in several more months of community discussion, followed by a fall decision, about equitable distribution of fitness and aquatic needs. By reallocating scarce parks capital to a second community pool in south Arlington, we can achieve a “win-win”.  Proceeding this way will further more equitable access to our limited parks resources, encourage a more transparent and appropriate cost recovery model, and promote realistic community-focused access.

Peter Rousselot is a former member of the Central Committee of the Democratic Party of Virginia and former chair of the Arlington County Democratic Committee.

Peter’s Take is a weekly opinion column. The views and opinions expressed in this column are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of ARLnow.com.

On Friday, April 22, Virginia Governor Terry McAuliffe issued an executive order restoring the voting rights of approximately 200,000 Virginia ex-felons. Governor McAuliffe made the right decision.

Background

“Virginia is part of a national trend toward restoring voter rights to felons … Over the last two decades about 20 states have acted to ease their restrictions, according to the Brennan Center for Justice at New York University,” reports the New York Times.

According to Myrna Pérez, director of the Voting Rights and Election Project at the Brennan Center, “what this will do is move Virginia, which was among the worst of the worst in terms of disenfranchising people, to a much more middle-of-the-road policy.”

Discussion: Why enfranchising ex-felons is the right thing to do

Conservative columnist David Brooks has been among the most eloquent voices supporting the restoration of voting rights for ex-felons. In a 2010 column, Brooks summarized the case in favor of their enfranchisement:

There is no good reason to deny former prisoners the vote. Once they are back in the community — paying taxes, working, raising families — they have the same concerns as other voters, and they should have the same say in who represents them. Disenfranchisement laws also work against efforts to help released prisoners turn their lives around. Denying the vote to ex-offenders, who have paid their debt, continues to brand them as criminals, setting them apart from the society they should be rejoining.

Last Friday, Brooks re-affirmed his position when asked specifically about Governor McAuliffe’s action in Virginia: “One of the weird things in our whole criminal justice system is, we have got people who are 50, and 60, well past what they call criminal menopause, and they’re perfectly upstanding citizens, and they’re not the person they were at 19, and yet we continue to punish them.”

The historical context in which Virginia disenfranchised ex-felons

Virginia’s record as one of the “worst of the worst” in disenfranchising ex-felons is inextricably tied to its Confederate past. Virginia ex-felons are disproportionately black. As a 2015 article from the Weldon Cooper Center at the University of Virginia documents, Virginia’s record is long, sordid, and explicitly racist. In advising Governor McAuliffe about his April 22 executive order, researchers turned up a 1906 report:

that quoted Carter Glass, a Virginia state senator, as saying [disenfranchisement] would “eliminate the darkey as a political factor in this State in less than five years, so that in no single county of the Commonwealth will there be the least concern felt for the complete supremacy of the white race in the affairs of government.”

Legal Issues

A.E. Dick Howard, the legal scholar who is credited as the principal author of Virginia’s current constitution, advised Governor McAuliffe that he had the legal authority to act unilaterally via executive order. Action by the Virginia legislature was unnecessary. Other lawyers disagree, claiming that Governor McAuliffe’s executive order violates the Virginia constitution. Lawsuits and efforts at legislative repeal or amending Virginia’s constitution might happen.

Conclusion

For the last 150 years, first Democrats and now Republicans in the Virginia legislature have compiled a dismal record blocking the restoration of ex-felons’ voting rights. Based on Howard’s legal advice, Governor McAuliffe acted appropriately in by-passing the legislature.

Peter’s Take is a weekly opinion column. The views and opinions expressed in this column are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of ARLnow.com.

It’s time for Arlington County to conduct a comprehensive re-examination of whether to continue to install new artificial turf fields and if so, when, where, why and what kind.

Background

At its April 16 meeting, the County Board unanimously approved a County staff recommendation to award a $674,000 contract to renovate the synthetic turf field at Greenbrier Park. The field is the home field for Yorktown H.S. It is used for a wide variety of sports and school events.

The current artificial turf field at Greenbrier Park uses a surface containing re-cycled crumb rubber. The new artificial turf field at Greenbrier Park will use an alternative infill, EPDM (Ethylene Propylene Diene Monomer). EPDM is a vulcanized rubber material that County staff believes resembles and plays like crumb rubber, but is not made from recycled materials.

Discussion

All Arlington’s re-cycled crumb rubber fields should be replaced

Arlington should be commended for deciding to replace the crumb-rubber-based artificial turf field at Greenbrier Park.

Arlington County currently has one indoor and 14 outdoor fields with synthetic turf. Thirteen of these 15 synthetic turf fields use styrene butadiene rubber (SBR). This is crumb rubber made from recycled tires. These fields are: Barcroft Park (two fields), Greenbrier Park, Gunston Park (two fields), Long Bridge Park (three fields), Rocky Run Park, Thomas Jefferson Community Center, Virginia Highlands Park, Wakefield High School and Washington-Lee High School.

The newest, most credible evidence suggests that all these Arlington fields containing re-cycled crumb rubber pose too great a health risk. They should be replaced. As recently documented in a Change.org petition:

Montgomery County, MD passed a unanimous Council vote to ban crumb rubber and implement the use of plant-based alternatives such as coconut fiber, cork and rice husk blend. Hartford, CT, Los Angeles Unified School District and the New York City Parks Departments already have banned the use of crumb rubber.

The federal Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has not yet definitively banned synthetic turf fields that use re-cycled crumb rubber. But, Arlington need not wait for EPA’s final conclusions. Instead, Arlington should follow the lead of Montgomery County and other jurisdictions by committing to replace all of its artificial turf fields that currently use re-cycled crumb rubber when the useful lives of those fields end.

Arlington should comprehensively re-examine future installation of artificial turf

Arlington County staff currently believes that one of the key arguments in favor of artificial turf is that, although the upfront cost of installing artificial turf is far higher than installing natural turf, it is so much cheaper to maintain artificial turf that artificial turf is overwhelmingly more cost-effective. A Forbes magazine article casts serious doubt on this argument–certainly enough doubt to warrant re-examining it. As part of this re-examination, Arlington should consider a ban on future use of EPDM as has Hartford, CT.

Conclusion

The artificial turf industry lobby in this country is large, well-financed, and eager to maintain or increase the industry’s market share. The artificial turf industry lobby knows how to market its product to local municipalities. Given the potential health risks and dollars at stake, Arlington should appoint a special citizen-led task force to re-examine where Arlington should go from here on the artificial turf issue.

Peter’s Take is a weekly opinion column. The views and opinions expressed in this column are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of ARLnow.com.

Jessica Tucker, the new Independent Auditor, is off to a promising start. She was hired in December 2015 and reports directly to the County Board.

An Audit Committee provides oversight and advice regarding Ms. Tucker’s work. The committee held its first public meeting with Ms. Tucker on March 29.

Discussion

Ms. Tucker helpfully identified six metrics as informing what should be audited: cost savings; improved service delivery; revenue enhancement; increased efficiency; transparency and accountability; and risk mitigation. At the meeting, the committee applied these metrics to 33 suggestions for possible audits, pp. 7-11.

The 33 audit suggestions reviewed by the Audit Committee included the following:

• Effective and efficient use of park funds
• Site plan conditions: amendment and enforcement; whether developers are providing the community benefits promised to the County
• Jail Medical Services (follow-up review of a previous study conducted by the Criminal Justice Institute in 2006)
• Procurement Process

On March 29, the Audit Committee agreed initially that Ms. Tucker should begin two audits in fiscal 2016. The committee plans to decide upon its final 2017 fiscal year audit plan at its next meeting (tentatively scheduled for July 11). This will allow time for the committee to consider other items on the list of 33 together with suggestions from members of the general public submitted via use of the online “Audit Suggestion Form.”

The first two audits selected on March 29 are those relating to site plan conditions and jail healthcare.

Site Plan Conditions

As noted in a March 4 memorandum submitted by the Planning Commission, site plan conditions reflect the community’s expectations for a particular project. At times, developers subsequently request changes, and not all such requests go back to the Planning Commission or the County Board for review. Some of the changes have greatly altered a project from what was approved originally. The purpose of this audit is to analyze these changes over the years–how many have there been, what types, who actually approved them, and did the changes alter the physical project or the community benefits negotiated compared to the plan the County Board approved?

Jail Healthcare

Despite a series of jail healthcare reforms recommended in the 2006 report, there have been a series of healthcare issues at the jail. For example, a man collapsed and died there in October 2015 . And, a deaf man alleged that the six weeks he spent there amounted to torture because of inadequate procedures to deal with deafness.

Other Matters

The Audit Committee considered asking the Independent Auditor to review the County’s procurement practices given cost overruns and delays with the new homeless services center and several parks projects. Because there has been major procurement staff turnover in the last twelve months, the committee decided that since reforms are already underway, such an audit should be deferred.

The Audit Committee also conducted a lively debate regarding the Independent Auditor’s requested addendum to the County Board’s audit charge regarding free and open access to books and records, facilities and personnel, p. 4. The committee ultimately approved this request in order to send an important signal for the future.

Conclusion

The work of the new Independent Auditor should improve Arlington’s fiscal health.

Peter’s Take is a weekly opinion column. The views and opinions expressed in this column are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of ARLnow.com.

A new report by The 2030 Group recommends strategies that localities in our region should pursue to re-accelerate private-sector economic growth.

The report was prepared under the leadership of Dr. Steven Fuller, a distinguished, long-time — regional economist at the Center for Regional Analysis at George Mason University (GMU). Bob Buchanan, President of The 2030 Group, was a co-leader.

The report was sponsored by a wide range of academic, business, and governmental institutions, including GMU, American University, University of Maryland, Northern Virginia Chamber of Commerce, Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments, and the Urban Land Institute.

Background

The report documents that cutbacks in federal spending drastically have reduced regional economic growth since 2010. “This pattern of under-performance is likely to continue into the future as long as the region’s economy remains overly dependent for its growth on increases in federal spending.”

The report identifies seven advanced industrial clusters that “represent high value-added and high-growth potential businesses for which the Washington region is a competitive location.” To continue to diversify our economy, the report recommends that we should focus on these clusters: Advocacy; Information and Communications Technology; Science and Security Technology; Biological and Health Technology; Business and Financial; Media and Information; and Business and Leisure Travel.

Discussion

The report identifies four critical business requirements for growth in these clusters: Talent Development, Attraction and Retention; Quality of Life; Transportation Flexibility and Adaptability; and Access to Capital. It also identifies four constraints on business growth: Lack of Regional Branding; Lack of an Entrepreneurial Culture; Competition among Local Jurisdictions; and Public Costs and Disincentives.

Based on interviews with 33 of the region’s top business leaders and CEO’s, the report recommends six action items. The highlights of each action item are:

Talent Requirements: In order to advance the region’s competitive position, it’s essential to invest in the region’s public education capacity to ensure that its graduates have the necessary capabilities to pursue careers requiring advanced education and skills training.

Quality of Life: The region needs to develop regional solutions to its high housing costs and the resulting challenges of affordability. Housing affordability has multiple facets including publicly imposed costs that contribute no real value to the finished product.

Transportation: The ultimate solution is the authorization of a Tri-State (DC, MD, and VA) Transportation Authority (including highway, mass transit and water services) that has the authority to plan, finance, construct and operate the region’s transportation system.

Business Branding: The development of a business brand for the Washington area needs to be initiated by the private sector because the public sector is too fragmented and competitive to come to a consensus on a singular regional brand.

Regional Collaboration among Local Jurisdictions: Establishing a culture of collaboration among local jurisdictions, even within the same state, will be challenging but needs to start somewhere, as the cost of non-collaboration is high and the region’s economic future cannot afford non-collaboration.

Inefficiencies among Multiple Governments: Cost differentials exist within the region and result in business investment seeking locations in lower-cost jurisdictions. Unless these higher costs can be rationalized by the affected businesses, the higher-cost jurisdictions will be viewed negatively and avoided.

CONCLUSION

Arlington’s economic future is tied to the region’s economic future. We should pursue sensible strategies that recognize and reinforce our increasing interdependence.

Peter’s Take is a weekly opinion column. The views and opinions expressed in this column are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of ARLnow.com.

Last week, the Virginia General Assembly filled a vacancy on the Virginia Supreme Court. The name of the candidate finally selected to fill this vacancy — Stephen McCullough — was first revealed to the public only one day before the legislature voted to confirm his appointment. That’s a bad process.

Background

Under Virginia law, the legislature — not the Governor — has the power directly to appoint judges when the legislature is in session. Last year, during a time when the legislature was not in session, Governor McAuliffe exercised his power to appoint a qualified judge, Jane Roush, to fill this vacancy. To be effective permanently, Governor McAuliffe’s interim appointment of Judge Roush required confirmation by the legislature once it returned to session. In the past, such interim appointments by Virginia governors routinely have been made and subsequently confirmed by the legislature.

However, in this case, the Republican leadership of the General Assembly claimed that they had not been adequately consulted and refused to confirm Judge Roush’s appointment. Last year, the Republican leadership quickly brought forward and recommended another qualified judge, Rossie Alston, as their preferred alternative appointment.

As this year’s legislative session began, Governor McAuliffe and the Republican legislative leadership continued to argue bitterly over whether Judge Roush or Judge Alston should be appointed. Since Republicans control both houses of the legislature, they bear full responsibility for managing the legislative calendar.

Discussion

Let’s just assume only for purposes of this discussion that the Republican leadership of both houses of the General Assembly are correct that Governor McAuliffe did not consult them adequately about Judge Roush’s initial interim appointment. Let’s assume further that the Republican legislative leadership entered the legislative session in January legitimately believing that Judge Alston was a better choice.

Early in this year’s legislative session, the Republican legislative leadership should have arranged up or down votes for both Judge Roush and Judge Alston. Had the Republican leadership done so, they would have discovered that neither of these candidates had the votes to be confirmed. Then, there would have been time to bring forward and adequately vet alternative candidates. Instead, the Republican legislative leadership allowed this issue to drag on and on and on.

On Tuesday of last week, with only days left before the legislature was due to adjourn, the Republicans suddenly announced that they wanted to nominate former Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli to fill this vacancy. Democrats erupted with a storm of protest, and just hours later, Cuccinelli withdrew his name from consideration. A few hours after that, Republicans suggested for the first time that they wanted Stephen McCullough appointed. McCullough was confirmed the next day.

Conclusion

As long as the Virginia legislature retains the power to appoint judges, there will be a substantial amount of partisanship in judicial selection. However, because judges are supposed impartially to decide the cases before them, both legislators themselves and the people of Virginia should have a fair and adequate opportunity to evaluate and comment upon any proposed judicial candidates. The Republican legislative leadership could have provided that opportunity in this case, but they let the people of Virginia down by failing to do so.