aquatics center | ARLnow.com

Letter to the Editor: When Did an Aquatics Center Become a Need?

Published January 25, 2014 at 2:45PM | Updated January 25, 2014 at 3:17PM

The following was sent in response to last week’s letter to the editor, “The Case for Long Bridge Park Phase 2.”

I am an Arlington resident and have been for 15 years. I would like to respond to Eric Cassel, President Friends of Long Bridge Park. First he makes the case that the target audience for this lavish facility is increasing in Arlington County. Target audience? Elementary school age children — I have lived in six states while I was growing up. In not one state was there a swimming facility for us to learn how to swim. How did this become a necessity for elementary school children? At what point did “we” decide that my elementary schooling when I was a child was lacking?

My parents took me to the YMCA to learn how to swim. We have one of those very close to the Pentagon City / Crystal City area. Why is it the tax payers responsibility to teach others children how to swim? Second, young urban professionals. We have gyms with pools in this area already. I belong to sport and health. The pool is rarely crowded. They can well afford to pay a gym membership. Again, why is it taxpayers responsibility to subsidize young urban professionals’ desire to swim? There are also the Arlington County high school pools that they are free to join at a great discount to them! Thirdly, the elderly. See my comments about the young professionals. In addition, not well-off elderly receive subsidizes from the County already. Why suddenly a “new need” for them to swim at taxpayer expense.

We already have Hayes Park for events of all sorts and a soccer field, basket ball courts, and tennis courts. Is this not enough? Why must the taxpayers now foot the bill for an overly expensive facility that supporters are attempting to portray as a requirement and entitlement?

George Sarkees
Addison Heights

To submit a letter to the editor, please email it to [email protected]. Letters to the editor may be lightly edited for content and brevity.

The Right Note: Aquatics Center Sticker Shock

By Mark Kelly

Published January 16, 2014 at 1:15PM | Updated January 16, 2014 at 1:32PM

The Right Note is a weekly opinion column published on Thursdays. The views and opinions expressed in the column are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of ARLnow.com.

In November 2012, voters approved a bond that was titled “Local Parks and Recreation.” The primary part of that bond package was $50 million to complete funding for a new south Arlington swimming center which had a total price tag estimated at $75 million.

As it turns out, that still may not be enough. County Manager Barbara Donnellan had to halt forward progress on the new facility when bids came in well over the already-generous cost estimates. This was on top of the recent announcement that annual taxpayer subsidies for the ongoing operational costs of the project were ballooning dramatically over the original cost estimates. The new estimate is that the aquatics center will operate at a deficit of $4 million per year.

In 2012, the voters did give the “parks and recreation” bond 10 percent less of the vote than the community infrastructure bond, and 17 percent less than the schools and Metro bonds. It seems a larger percentage of voters than usual had concerns about the swimming facility than they usually do over local infrastructure spending. However, it is still tough to defeat a ballot measure that sounds as benign as “Local Parks and Recreation.”

As I was standing in line to vote 15 months ago, I recall hearing a mom explaining the bond votes to her elementary school-aged daughter. “We need good parks,” she said in explaining why she was voting for the bond. Maybe she knew the aquatics center was included and just wanted to simplify it for her daughter, or maybe she did not.

Either way, this is a perfect case in point for the need to have large bond issues stand on their own for votes. If the County Board is proposing a bond for more than $10 million on a single project, why not let us vote it up or down as a standalone measure?

The answer is quite simple. If the bond description had been “$50 million to complete a $75 million community swimming facility,” the County Board may have lost the vote. And, it is the same rationale by which Board members have resisted allowing even a token straight up or down vote on the Columbia Pike trolley.

Mark Kelly is a former Arlington GOP Chairman and two-time Republican candidate for Arlington County Board.

Peter’s Take: Aquatics Center Sinks Even Deeper

By Peter Rousselot

Published January 16, 2014 at 12:30PM

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.

Several weeks ago the news broke that the annual operating subsidy Arlington would have to provide to the Aquatics Center had ballooned from $1.9 million to $3.8 million. Just three years ago, the County’s “high” estimate of the annual operating subsidy was $450,000.

On Dec. 12, I recommended that the County Board direct the County Manager to “halt all further work on the Aquatics Center… and develop a new, cost-effective design for a sensible recreation center at Long Bridge Park (including a swimming pool).” Little did I know when I wrote that December column that the construction bids to build this facility also would come in so much higher than anticipated.

In the face of more and more new information about the vastly higher operating and capital costs of this facility, it is very disappointing that some of our current elected leaders, and some of those who want to succeed them, stubbornly cling to the belief that all of the design elements in this project are sacrosanct.

For example, ARLnow.com quotes County Board Chair Jay Fisette as attempting to justify his continued support for the project because “more than a decade was spent on the Center’s design” and “exaggerations about the exact extent of the cost increases have been ‘celebrated by long-time opponents of the facility.’”

Our elected leaders should be offering us a contrite acknowledgement that despite over a decade of planning, they have allowed the current design to proceed laden with so many extravagant features. Planning should be judged by the wisdom of the final decision—not the length of time it takes to make it. In the new normal of Arlington’s economy, with 20 percent commercial office vacancy rates and our public schools bursting at the seams, sticking with the current design is a luxury we cannot afford.

Similarly out of touch is Alan Howze — one of the candidates for the Democratic nomination for the County Board seat soon to be vacated by Chris Zimmerman. ARLnow.com quotes Howze as saying there “clearly is a need in the community” for the Aquatics Center, and “we should move forward… if we can do it within the budget we’ve allocated for it”. With so many other competing priorities, the community does not “need” this gold-plated Aquatics Center, and we should not move forward with it even if we could do so within the whopping $80 million price tag we thought it would cost as recently as one month ago.

It’s long past time for the Aquatics Center to downsize or die.

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.

DEVELOPING: Long Bridge Aquatics Center on Hold Due to Rising Costs

By ARLnow.com

Published January 3, 2014 at 6:35PM | Updated January 3, 2014 at 6:59PM

Construction of the Long Bridge Park Aquatics, Health and Fitness Facility is on hold due to higher-than-expected construction costs.

Arlington County Manager Barbara Donnellan announced late Friday afternoon that construction bids for the first phase of the Long Bridge Park aquatics center came in “significantly higher” than the $79.3 million projected cost. As a result, Donnellan says she will not be recommending a construction contract for County Board approval in early 2014, as planned.

Donnellan said it was “disappointing” that the bids far exceeded the estimate provided by its architect, which was in turn backed up by a third-party firm.

“The high bids were particularly disappointing because the County had done extensive due diligence to ensure that the estimate was sound and within the available budget,” she said in a statement. “We took an additional step of contracting separately with an engineering firm to review design and construction documents and provide independent third party cost estimates.”

“Once staff concludes its assessment of the bids and our architects’ estimates, I will present options to the County Board for next steps,” she continued. “In the months ahead, the County Board and the community will continue their careful consideration of the costs and benefits of building and operating this facility as we shape the FY 2015 Budget and the Capital Improvement Program.”

Reached by phone Friday evening, Donnellan told ARLnow.com that she expects to receive recommendations from county staff as early as February. She declined to speculate about the recommendation, saying that there’s significant work and analysis left to be done by staff.

Donnellan also declined to specify how many bids were received and how much higher those bids were than the estimate, citing legal constraints.

News of the delay in the project comes just a month after news that the aquatics center’s operating deficit would be 2 to 4 times that of original estimates. Local fiscal watchdog Wayne Kubicki says the county should consider scrapping the project altogether.

“This project has been mishandled by the County Board almost from the beginning,” he said. “With the pressures on other parts of the county and school budgets and the stagnation of commercial real estate values, it might well be time to moth ball the Long Bridge aquatics facility and simply leave the current park as-is.”

At least two candidates for the upcoming County Board special election — John Vihstadt and Evan Bernick — are on record as saying they oppose the aquatics center project.

Construction bids received by the county for the project were technically for “Phase 2” of Long Bridge Park, which encompasses both the initial phase of the aquatics center and minor improvements to the park itself, including “public gathering areas, trails, public art, interpretive signs, and walkways.” Much of the funding for the projected cost of Phase 2 has already been secured, including $42.5 million from a parks bond approved in 2012 and $15 million from Vornado as part of the PenPlace development.

A Phase 3A and 3B, for other park improvements, are also planned, as is a Phase 4, which would complete the Aquatics, Health & Fitness Facility by adding a large “multiple activity center,” additional fitness space, racquetball and squash courts, a climbing wall, an elevated jogging trail, rental meeting rooms and a 547-space underground parking garage.

“Long Bridge Park is an ambitious project for our community, an infrastructure investment that is transforming a one-time industrial wasteland from a brownfield to an iconic gateway on the Potomac,” Donnellan said in her statement. “It will provide multiple recreational opportunities for our growing population and for future generations.”

Garvey: No Democratic Board Candidate ‘Can Do What Needs to Be Done’

By Katie Pyzyk

Published December 17, 2013 at 1:30PM | Updated December 17, 2013 at 2:34PM

(Updated at 2:30 p.m.) Democratic Arlington County Board member Libby Garvey is explaining in more depth why she has decided to endorse an independent candidate to fill the Board seat to be vacated by Democrat Chris Zimmerman at the end of January.

Garvey is endorsing self-identified Republican John Vihstadt, who announced last week that he would run as an independent in the spring 2014 special election.

Garvey stated that none of the three announced Democratic candidates likely will change the way the current Board members set priorities. She decided to endorse Vihstadt instead because she believes he can provide change.

“The issue is that I don’t think there is a Democratic candidate that has or is going to announce for the endorsement that is going to alter the dynamic on the County Board right now… Vihstadt by far is so much closer to my values, my way of working,” Garvey told ARLnow.com. “He’s going to be the one to help me take the county in the direction I think it needs to go and the others will not. I am a Democrat, but in this case there is not a Democratic candidate that can do what needs to be done for Arlington. John can do that. So I’ve got to support him, why would I not? That’s what’s right for Arlington.”

She said Vishstadt “gets it” and he can help change the way current Board members operate.

“My colleagues are all good people, but they’ve been doing things a certain way for a very long time,” Garvey said. “I think we need a new perspective and a fresh way of looking at things, and John will bring that.”

One of the key reasons Garvey will not provide support to a fellow Democrat is her opposition to the Columbia Pike streetcar. Vihstadt also opposes the streetcar, writing in his announcement of candidacy last week, “Now that the County’s application for federal funding has been rejected, Arlington taxpayers may be directly on the hook to finish a five mile line that will displace small businesses and affordable housing, will not connect to the Pentagon, and which fails to materially improve Pike transit.”

Although Arlington currently maintains a triple-A bond rating, Garvey believes the streetcar eventually could prove “financially disastrous” for the county. She noted that the project still can be re-evaluated considering it will be a while before final votes are taken.

“I know they all talk about how it’s a done deal, but it’s not a done deal until we sign a contract with a company and commit hundreds of millions of dollars to pay that company to build this thing. We’re not anywhere near that yet,” she said.

“The streetcar is useless and will actually make things worse on the Pike,” she continued. “A streetcar is nothing more than a bus on tracks with wires, but it costs a whole lot more… There are ways to accomplish what you want to for a whole lot less.”

Garvey believes a significant amount of money in the county’s Transportation Capital Fund that’s set aside for the streetcar could be used for more beneficial projects such as Metro funding and street paving.

“We’d have to raise taxes to do that right now because all of this money is sitting in a fund that is, as I understand it, reserved for the streetcar,” she said. “This is, again, why I’m supporting John, because I believe he will help me to get the Board to sort of re-examine some of these things and work through the community with it.”

(more…)

Peter’s Take: Cancel the Aquatics Center and Start Over

By Peter Rousselot

Published December 12, 2013 at 1:00PM

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.

Enough is enough.

The Aquatics Center hasn’t been built yet, and it shouldn’t be built. The County Board should scrap its Olympian pretensions and its desire to build King’s Dominion North at the expense of Arlington taxpayers. The board should explain its decision as follows: “We have made a mistake, and we are going to fix it. We have new information, and we are going to act on it.”

The board immediately should direct the County Manager to halt all further work on the Aquatics Center. The board should notify the manager that the board no longer wishes to build this facility. The board should direct the manager to develop a new, cost-effective design for a sensible recreation center at Long Bridge Park (including a swimming pool).

The latest chapter in this problem-plagued project began when the Sun Gazette posted a story stating that “what had been an expected annual operating deficit of $1 million to $1.3 million has now ballooned to more than $4 million.” It’s not clear at the moment whether the ballooning deficit is due to lower than projected revenues or higher than projected expenses or a combination of both.

More than 80 percent of respondents to a recent ARLnow.com poll said that the Aquatics Center should not be built if this latest $4 million annual operating deficit projection turns out to be accurate. As I have written previously, this is just the latest in a string of warnings about the countless flaws in this project.

Commenting on the ARLnow.com Aquatics Center story that accompanied the latest poll, James Breiling nailed it:

“Office building occupancy has dived,” he writes. “The county is close to the set limit on bond borrowing. Taxpayers are rightly concerned about tax increases. So, funds are constrained. Accordingly, I suggest that THE question is the relative priority of the aquatics center via other things, in particular, providing facilities and staff needed to educate the surge in ACPS enrollment.”

That is, indeed, THE question.

THE answer: the Aquatics Center has far too low a priority and should be cancelled.

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.

County Offers Explanation for Higher Aquatic Center Costs

By Katie Pyzyk

Published December 10, 2013 at 10:30AM

Arlington County is explaining changes to the cost estimate for the Long Bridge Park Aquatic and Fitness Center, following the news that costs are expected to be higher than anticipated.

The aquatics center, scheduled to open in the summer of 2016, had been projected to have an annual operating deficit of $1 million to $1.3 million. That number has been upped to $4.3 million. But Department of Parks and Recreation Director Jane Rudolph said in a statement that comparing those numbers is not comparing “apples to apples.”

Rudolph explained that the original numbers published in the 2012 Capital Improvement Plan were in “2012 numbers,” whereas the new estimate is adjusted for inflation with “2020 numbers.” The statement reads, in part, “The 2012 tax support number — of $1.1 to $1.4 million if presented at a 2020 level would range from $1.4 million to $1.9 million. The 2020 tax support number presented in the November 2013 revenue and expense forecast ($4.3 million) was at the maximum of the range (as it should have been). The apples to apples increase in estimates is $2.4 million.”

In her statement, Rudolph lists the following factors as reasons for the increase:

“Once we had final design drawings for the facility, we were able to more fully develop the aquatics program and determine the appropriate level of lifeguards to meet safety sightlines for maximum utilization of the four pool areas while maintaining industry standards. As a result, the estimated cost of lifeguards increased.”
“The current projections assume full staffing by maintenance during each hour of pool operation. We are not sure that this will be the final approach. This added considerable cost.”
“The projected revenue in the November estimate is less than that included in the 2012 CIP. We have researched similar facilities, looked at the attendance data, and came to a conservative approach to our revenue projections for membership, daily passes, and rentals. We hope that this strategy enables us to be pleasantly surprised when we open our doors to the community.”

The county plans to continue reviewing the costs and service levels for the facility over the next two years. The tax support estimates cover costs both for the indoor aquatic and fitness center and for the eight acres of new outdoor parkland.

“Remember, these are projections for a given point in time and the numbers will still be refined,” said Rudolph. “I do want to reiterate that the numbers published in November are a forecast. We will continue to refine our programming and scrub our numbers to ensure that we operate the facility at its most cost-efficient level while still providing a high quality experience for our patrons.”

So far, none of the bond funds authorized for the facility by voters in 2012 have been spent. In early 2014, the County Board is expected to be presented with a more refined range of operating budgets and a request to award a contract.

The facility is expected to take four years to “realize its full expenses and revenues” after it opens in 2016.

Morning Notes

By ARLnow.com

Published December 3, 2013 at 10:35AM | Updated December 3, 2013 at 11:17AM

Projected Subsidy Soars for Aquatics Center — The planned Long Bridge Park Aquatics Center could require more than $4 million per year in subsidies from the county government, according to new projections. That’s up from projections as low at $1 million per year. “Certainly there are other priorities that arguably should come before building a luxury pools facility,” said local fiscal watchdog Wayne Kubicki. Construction contracts for the aquatics center are expected to be awarded early next year. [Sun Gazette]

County May Allow Less Office Parking, For a Fee — Arlington County is considering a system that would allow office developers to build less than the currently-required amount of parking, in exchange for a per-parking-space fee. The fee would then be used for public improvements in the area around the building, or for Transportation Demand Management Services for the building’s tenants. [Greater Greater Washington]

Memorial Bridge Could Have Looked Like Tower Bridge — The Arlington Memorial Bridge was originally proposed as a memorial to Gen. Ulysses S. Grant, complete with a series of “medieval”-looking towers and turrets. [Ghosts of DC]

Arlington Carpenter’s Intricately-Carved Birds — Arlington carpenter Jeff Jacobs, 59, carves intricate wooden hummingbirds out of a single block of wood. He sells the birds at Eastern Market and the Clarendon farmers market. [Washington Post]

Flickr photo by Eschweik

Aquatics Center Construction Pushed Back

By ARLnow.com

Published August 14, 2013 at 12:30PM | Updated August 14, 2013 at 1:20PM

(Update at 1:20 p.m.) Construction on the new Long Bridge Park Aquatics, Health and Fitness Facility, originally slated to begin this fall, has been pushed back.

Work on the approximately $80 million facility, located just north of Crystal City near I-395, is now not expected to begin until early 2014, according to Arlington Department of Parks and Recreation spokeswoman Susan Kalish.

“To ensure that we have quality general contractors bidding… we decided to undertake an extensive pre-qualification process,” Kalish explained. “That process is now complete and we have our selected pool of contractors. The bidding process will take place over the next several months. We anticipate that construction will begin in early 2014.”

The authorized bidders on the project are: Manhattan Construction Company, Hess Construction + Engineering Services, The Whiting-Turner Contracting Company, Hensel Phelps Construction Co., Christman/Apex LLC, A Joint Venture Partnership, Balfour Beatty Construction and Gilbane Building Company.

The project’s budget has not changed, Kalish said, but the expected opening date has been pushed back to early 2016. We were earlier told that the opening date had not changed, which is incorrect.

The aquatics center will include a 50 meter by 25 yard fitness and competition pool, a family leisure pool, a hot water therapy pool, a “teaching pool,” and a “free-form water play area that will… have a lazy river, slides, play features and a zero-depth ‘beach’ entry.” The facility will also have amenities like a gym, an exercise center, a climbing wall, an indoor track, racquetball courts and meeting rooms.

Alexandria Sports and Entertainment Complex Proposal Nixed

By ARLnow.com

Published August 7, 2013 at 10:45AM | Updated August 7, 2013 at 11:09AM

It could have competed against Arlington County’s planned Long Bridge Park Aquatics, Health and Fitness Facility, but instead a proposal to build a massive sports and entertainment complex in Alexandria has been withdrawn.

It was announced in June that a company had submitted an unsolicited proposal to transform Alexandria’s Hensley Park into a sports and entertainment facility. The proposed complex included features like an Olympic-sized pool and water play area; basketball, volleyball, baseball and gymnastics centers; ice rinks; indoor tennis and squash courts; a climbing wall; and a driving range.

A pool, water play area, climbing wall and racquetball courts are all also part of Arlington’s plan for the Long Bridge Park facility. (County Board Chair Walter Tejada said in June that he did not expect the Alexandria proposal to impact the county’s plans.)

The St. James Group LLC announced yesterday (Tuesday) that it was withdrawing its unsolicited proposal after discovering that Hensley Park was acquired by Alexandria, in part, via a small federal grant. The grant prohibits development of the park.

The company says it will now seek other D.C. area locations for the complex.

“SJG remains committed to developing the premier sports and entertainment complex in the region,” the company said in a press release. Read the full press release, after the jump.

(more…)

Board: No Competition from Proposed Alexandria Fitness Facility

By Katie Pyzyk

Published June 28, 2013 at 11:30AM | Updated June 28, 2013 at 11:47AM

An unsolicited proposal from a private entity has been submitted to the City of Alexandria to transform Hensley Park into a sports and entertainment facility. Although parts of the proposal appear strikingly similar to Arlington County’s plans for the Long Bridge Park Aquatics, Health and Fitness Facility, so far the County Board is not concerned.

The Alexandria City Council discussed the proposal it received from The St. James Group LLC during its meeting on Tuesday. The plan involves a long term lease of the 15 acre city owned property currently occupied by Hensley Park.

The Alexandria proposal includes amenities such as an Olympic sized pool and water play area, climbing wall and racquetball courts. Those features had already been included in Arlington’s long term plan for Long Bridge Park.

Arlington County Board Chair Walter Tejada said although there may be similarities, he doesn’t anticipate that a private facility in the southwest part of Alexandria would impact Arlington’s plans.

“I wouldn’t necessarily jump to conclusions. I think our approach is much different,” he said. “We have a public facility we are creating, but this is private proposal. The context is so different.”

In fact, Tejada believes it could be considered a compliment that other jurisdictions may be interested in creating facilities similar to Arlington’s.

“The best flattery or compliment is duplication,” he said. “It’s flattering that someone would want to copy or do something we’re already doing.”

Tejada noted that because Arlington’s complex is publicly funded, residents from all walks of life will be welcome to use it. Because that may or may not be the case with the private proposal for Alexandria, Tejada said “we aren’t concerned” about the threat of competition.

“For our project we are looking to be inclusive, so people of all incomes and backgrounds will have access to our facilities,” said Tejada. “Whereas in a private facility it’s for profit and the purpose is whatever the personal group sets forth, so that’s a different matter.”

Kendrick Ashton, Jr., Co-founder and Managing Partner of The St. James Group, agreed that the intent was not to create competition between the two jurisdictions. He said Northern Virginia has a great need for sports facilities that isn’t being addressed.

“There’s certainly a tremendous need in this area for enhanced aquatics facilities,” said Ashton. “I think given the dearth of high quality aquatic facilities at this point, the region needs more of them. It’s not competitive at this point.”

The group looked for potential locations for the complex in Arlington, Fairfax and other localities, but no options appeared as feasible as the Henley Park land. Ashton reiterated that although the Alexandria complex would likely draw visitors from around Northern Virginia, it isn’t expected to create competition for Arlington’s $80 million Long Bridge Park facility.

The City of Alexandria’s website assures the public that it has not gone forward with any plans, it has simply heard the proposal from The St. James Group. The website reads: “All that has happened is that an outside party has made an unsolicited proposal to the City about a potential use of City-owned land. Neither City Council nor City staff have reached any conclusion about the merits of the proposal, nor have made any decisions other than the decision to evaluate it.”

The St. James Group will hold a public meeting to further explain the proposal on July 1, from 6:30-8:30 p.m. at the Holiday Inn on Eisenhower Avenue. The City of Alexandria stresses that the meeting will not be led by or sponsored by the city, so residents should not consider it an official public hearing.

According to the timeline offered in the proposal, the hope is to have a recommendation from Alexandria by October regarding whether or not to move forward. If the City Council determines that a sports and entertainment complex is a feasible option, it will issue a Request for Proposals (RFP) to allow any interested party to make a bid. If the City Council decides such a facility is unnecessary, the process will end without any further action.

“We have to wait and see what becomes of it. They’re evaluating it, like anyone would,” Tejada said. “We’ll see what happens. For us, we’re focusing on our own project.”

Meanwhile, there has been no change announced to the schedule for the next phase of the Long Bridge Park project. In January, Arlington County Department of Parks and Recreation spokeswoman Susan Kalish told ARLnow.com that construction on the project is expected to begin this fall.

Despite some resident concerns over the cost of the facility, Tejada said the county will continue on with it and make all efforts to keep the project on budget.

“I think that we certainly will continue to practice our best fiscal management qualities that have earned us a AAA bond rating from all the bond rating agencies,” said Tejada. “It’s important to remember that we have a sound fiscal management record. I know sometimes that may get lost when one or two projects may be in the news.”

View More Stories