Peter’s Take

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.

In last week’s column, I outlined some of Arlington’s self-imposed limitations in utilizing “community benefits” as conditions for approving developer site plan requests for additional density. See also my Sept. 22 column recommending preparation of integrated, project-specific fiscal impact statements.

Critical Reforms

The most critically-necessary community benefits’ reforms include:

Consider fiscal impact statements at each special exception/site plan hearing

Arlington should take advantage of this planning tool routinely utilized for years by other Northern Virginia jurisdictions like Fairfax and Loudoun. Both use project-specific fiscal impact statements as part of their review processes. Even though those jurisdictions use a proffer system rather than Arlington’s special exception/site-plan system, the advantages to policy-makers and the public of utilizing this tool are common to all of our jurisdictions.

Falls Church has utilized fiscal impact statements since 2003.

Arlington should expedite the adoption of its own fiscal impact model to be considered at each special exception/site plan hearing. Any impacts and equitably allocated offsetting community benefits need to be measured from the applicable base by-right zoning.

Assess the impact on schools of incremental enrollment

The fiscal impact model Arlington ultimately adopts should explicitly consider incremental school enrollment impacts.

In Falls Church, voluntary school capital contributions have been a staple of past agreements with developers of mixed-use projects.

The Fairfax fiscal impact model has explicitly considered school impacts since 2003.

Fairfax determines a per-student generation factor by housing type, and estimates how many students are anticipated from the particular mix of housing units in each proposed development. Fairfax then computes a per-student cost for each project, which when multiplied times the number of students anticipated from the project, yields the total incremental enrollment cost that forms the basis for negotiations with the developer.

Important updates to the Fairfax model (effective July 1, 2016) are discussed below.

Assess the impact on parks of incremental usage

Under the updated Fairfax impact model, benefits for incremental school or park usage negotiated with a developer do NOT have to be limited to creation of, or refurbishments to, a school or park within the boundaries of the site of the proposed project — so long as those benefits are “reasonable” in amount and address impacts that are “specifically attributable” to the “residential use component” of the project.

Parks include “playgrounds and other recreational facilities.” Such off-site benefits must provide a “direct and material benefit” to residents of the proposed project. Both on-site and off-site benefits for schools or parks can include cash.

Allow citizens to speak publicly at SPRC site plan meetings

By the time a Site Plan Review Committee (SPRC) site plan meeting is scheduled with respect to any particular developer proposal to obtain additional density, the principal features of such a proposal, including any corresponding community benefits, have already been negotiated in private between the developer and the county. To provide a fair balance at site plan meetings, the SPRC process should be revised to specifically permit individual citizens and citizen groups to speak publicly at the meetings.

Conclusion

Although the pace of site plan proposals declined after the Great Recession, that pace is now increasing rapidly. The County Board should initiate an appropriate public process to consider the reforms discussed here and others, with a direction to report back in six months.

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.

This is the first of two columns.

Today, I’ll discuss some of Arlington County’s self-imposed limitations on site plan conditions for “community benefits.” These are benefits that Arlington receives in exchange for granting developers additional density and other zoning changes.

Next week, I’ll recommend appropriate planning and policy reforms.

Discussion

Arlington lists the County’s standard site plan conditions, noting that they are designed to:

Ameliorate a project’s impacts on surrounding property, as well as any additional height and/or density or other bonuses that may be approved or modifications to Zoning Ordinance standards proposed by a developer… Increased density, height or other modifications can have an impact on the surrounding community and site plan conditions help to mitigate these impacts.

Arlington’s administrative regulation also enumerates (pp. 63-64) “standard site plan conditions” that are “typically necessary,” while acknowledging that other conditions (not enumerated) might be appropriate for individual projects.

The County’s community benefits’ conditions have failed to adequately address the impact of development

Increased student enrollments and crowded parks are two important impacts of many development projects. There is no state law or County ordinance that prohibits the County from requesting a reasonable cash or in-kind contribution from a developer as a condition to address these particular kinds of impacts on schools or parks. Yet, the County has:

• failed entirely to request cash or in-kind schools’ contribution conditions, and
• asked only occasionally for contribution conditions relating to parkland and open space.

Efforts to discuss development’s impact have been hamstrung by lack of awareness of other jurisdictions that routinely assess those impacts (including on schools and parks), and perform related cost/benefit analyses. George Rovder, a Bluemont Civic Association past President, provided me with this first-person account of what transpired during the course of the Site Plan Review Committee’s (SPRC) recent consideration of site plan conditions for 491 new housing units to be constructed on the former Mazda Ballston site:

The applicant (developer) stated how much more tax revenue the proposed project would bring in vs. the amount currently being collected (from the Mazda dealership and the small strip of retail stores), stressing that this increased tax revenue was a key reason the community should support the project. I asked that the applicant or staff also provide figures for the costs associated with schools and other community services and infrastructure. I was advised by the SPRC Chair that there “are no costs” associated with these projects, as we already have water and sewer and the like in place. The Chair further observed that neither staff nor the applicant could possibly calculate the infrastructure and community services costs associated with the project.

The County has further failed to adequately track, monitor and enforce community benefits’ conditions

Citizens, the Arlington County Civic Federation, and at least one County commission have complained about County staff’s failure to track, monitor and enforce community benefits’ conditions.

Their strong complaints led Arlington’s independent auditor to place this issue at the top of the independent audit priority list. However, the Board’s new independent auditor has since resigned, leaving this audit in limbo.

Conclusion

Properly reformed and enforced, community benefits’ conditions included in site plans can materially improve the fiscal and functional sustainability of new development. Next week, I’ll propose planning and policy reforms needed to better fulfill those goals.

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.

The Community Facilities Study Group’s (CFSG) Final Report contained this recommendation:

Add an economic and fiscal impact section to private development (special exception/site plan and Form Based Code) project staff reports to provide information on the costs (e.g. the projected service demands and other costs to the community) and benefits (e.g. the taxes and other economic benefits) likely to be generated by a proposed project.

Discussion

As I wrote in June, Arlington must continuously plan and explain to the public how it expects to pay for the new public infrastructure and services required to serve the 75,400 people Arlington currently projects to add by 2040. But, the county government has yet to do so.

Why are project-specific impact assessments important?

Quantifying incremental county services and infrastructure that a proposed special exception/site plan project necessitates will inject vital, objective input into the county’s short- and long-term planning and budgeting processes (e.g., budgeting for and implementing additional required school capacity, open space, public safety resources). Collecting this data for each project will, in turn, enable the county to more accurately determine geographically specific, cumulative impacts and time-specific scheduling based on project completion.

Project-specific impact analyses–as recommended by the CFSG — should be prepared for each development project in a timely manner because they provide critical facts needed to determine in advance whether we can afford to approve a project, must add conditions, or should deny the request.

What kinds of project-specific impact analyses should Arlington perform?

The county should perform an integrated fiscal impact analysis for each special exception/site plan development project. Each analysis should compare by-right development for the site with the developer’s site-plan proposal that includes any changes to the General Land Use Plan (GLUP), up zoning and/or bonus density. The goal is to determine the degree to which a developer’s cash contributions and other specific community benefits will offset the county’s cost to provide additional services and infrastructure over the life of the development.

More accurate and reliable forecasting is particularly vital now that large commercial tracts of land without any students on them are being replaced with dense, multifamily housing. Independent, third-party studies have concluded that residential projects almost always generate more net costs than benefits.

Other Virginia jurisdictions routinely utilize impact analyses.

Neighboring Northern Virginia jurisdictions like Fairfax and Loudoun counties use some form of project-specific impact assessments as part of their review processes. Even though these jurisdictions use a proffer system rather than a special exception/site-plan system, the benefits to policy-makers and the public of having project-specific impact assessments are common to all.

Falls Church City has utilized fiscal impact analyses for years. See a detailed description of its model here.

Caveats: Other jurisdictions’ models often don’t include capital costs or assess environmental impacts or quantify a value for natural space. A new branch of economics — environmental economics — provides new models that help to establish a monetary value for open space and the natural infrastructure.

Conclusion

Arlington County should adopt and implement CFSG recommendation 12. Arlington should expedite a public examination and discussion of alternative fiscal impact models to select one that will result in greater objectivity, better informed decision-making and enhanced planning to meet the infrastructure and service needs of our rapidly-growing population.

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.

As my fellow columnist Mark Kelly and I both have previously advocated, it’s time to overhaul the seriously-flawed process Arlington County government has been using to allocate any surplus funds left over at the close of the County’s fiscal year.

Discussion

Both Arlington County and Arlington Public Schools (APS) have fiscal years that end on June 30. Both the County and APS are required by law to adopt a balanced budget. In many years, Arlington County has closed its fiscal year with substantial surpluses. Since APS receives the lion’s share of its revenues from the County under a revenue-sharing arrangement, APS automatically receives its defined pro-rata share of any locally-generated Arlington County revenue surpluses.

However, in past years, each Board has utilized sharply-contrasting processes for deciding what to do with any such surpluses.

School Board’s Current Close-out Process

The School Board first receives, posts on its website, and discusses in a public meeting its staff’s recommendations regarding how to allocate any surplus funds. But, the School Board does not vote on its staff’s proposal until the following month. This process allows the School Board to:

• discuss the initial APS staff recommendations at a public meeting, and
• receive a public report from the APS Budget Advisory Committee, and
• wait a month to get further input from the general public, before finally
• adopting the final allocation of any APS surplus funds.

County Board’s Current Close-out Process

The County Board’s current close-out process is seriously flawed because it fails to provide the extra month for input from the general public that the School Board’s process provides. For example, last November, the County Board approved $21.8 million in new spending from surplus funds without providing that extra 30-day public review and comment period.

In 2015, the general public was denied a reasonable opportunity to discuss and comment about the Acting County Manager’s recommendation that this was the very best way to allocate last year’s $21.8 million revenue surplus:

• $1 million for economic development, including incentives to attract new businesses to Arlington
• $7.8 million for land purchases and other capital investment, including schools
• $0.8 million for a “larger than anticipated” class of fire recruits
• $11.2 million to maintain investments in the Affordable Housing Investment Fund and housing grants
• $1 million for any unexpected needs or issues that may arise next year

Many activists allege that County staff deliberately overestimate expenses and underestimate revenues in the operating budget the County adopts each spring. These activists claim that staff does this so that during the following fall’s fiscal year close-out, the County government can take advantage of a public review and comment period that bears little resemblance to the far more lengthy spring review and comment period that the full operating budget annually receives.

County staff have indignantly countered that any such suggestions are false because the County’s spring budgeting approach simply demonstrates prudent financial planning for which the staff should be praised not criticized.

It isn’t necessary to resolve this continued annual debate over motive, because there is a far better process available to guard against the possibility that the staff’s motives might be suspect.

Conclusion

Starting this fall, the County Board should adopt a new fiscal year close-out process similar to the process long utilized by the School Board.

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.

In July, Arlington received an award as the top digital county in the nation for its population size (150,000-249,999).

Among the reasons:

The County’s Open Government Program … was lauded for creating more accessible and transparent interactions with departments and services. Key elements of the program include the Open Data Portal, expanding civic engagement through webcasting of commission meetings, and launch of the My Arlington app for mobile users.

But, where should Arlington go from here?

Arlington already has held a panel discussion on next steps. The panel included private sector and Arlington County government participants.

In two videos, the panel discussed how digitization is likely to change Arlington substantially between now and 2050. While the issues are complex and overlapping, one useful way to look at them is to consider how digitization is likely to:

• Change how private individuals and firms function, and why those private sector changes will require major changes in Arlington government policies and operations.
• Enable the Arlington government to interact more transparently and productively with its citizens.

Private sector change

In general, the pace of transformative change driven by private sector digitization means that the county should avoid adopting overly-prescriptive master plans that could inadvertently stifle future private sector innovation.

Retail

While consumers currently make about 7 percent of their purchases online, panel participants predicted that by 2050, this percentage will rise to 40-60 percent. The obvious result: retailers’ needs for brick and mortar stores will decline substantially. For future planning purposes, the county should avoid policies that will incentivize excessive retail brick and mortar store growth.

Office

The commercial office market will continue to be transformed by increasing demand for flexible working and living arrangements like WeWork and WeLive. The county should be appropriately flexible in adjusting its zoning and land use policies to enable this increased demand — especially when such adjustments will facilitate rental of existing vacant office space.

Transportation

Ride sharing will continue to transform transportation, and self-driving vehicles are likely to do so soon as well. The county should adjust its transportation, transit, parking and all other relevant policies to take advantage of these changes.

Citizen-government interactions

In general, new digitization tools enable new ways in which county government and its citizens can interact. The most important advice from panel participants: use these tools to find out what citizens prefer rather than just telling citizens what the government has decided. This often should be done by accurately defining all options, together with the costs and benefits of each, and asking residents for their preferences using statistically-valid survey techniques.

For some, citizen-government interactions can be entirely in cyberspace. How about virtual “Open Door Mondays“? For others, a physical space (like community centers and libraries) will continue to be important.
Big Data is transforming the way a local government like Arlington can improve the quality of life for its citizens.

Conclusion

One way you can participate in discussing these issues is to attend a meeting on Tuesday, October 11, from 7 to 8:30 pm in the Shirlington Library auditorium. The meeting will feature a presentation by Shawn DuBravac. Shawn was one of the panel participants, and is the author of “Digital Destiny: How the New Age of Data Will Transform the Way We Work, Live, and Communicate.”

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, Mark Kelly, my fellow columnist at ARLnow.com, and David Alpert over at Greater Greater Washington each posted a column about fixing Metro. Both arrived at essentially this conclusion:   

Metro can’t be fixed unless its Board and senior management have sufficient freedom to hire and fire.

Discussion

I agree with both David and Mark.

David framed the issue as Metro’s badly needing a culture change:

“Metro’s culture, clearly, is lacking. Many employees, whether front-line or managers, don’t take responsibilities seriously. If employees falsify reports, and their managers encourage them to, and other departments hang up on them without solving a problem, something is very wrong not just with a few people or a department, but a culture.”

Mark focused on the need for Metro to have sufficient flexibility under its union contract:

“The union contract has long appeared to be a substantial impediment to Metro’s ability to move forward. Not only has the union locked in pay scales and overtime provisions, but also makes it extremely difficult to make necessary workforce adjustments as Metro faces ongoing financial strain. Or in this case, seemingly is making it next to impossible to fire employees for cause.”

Metro’s culture can’t be changed without sufficient freedom to hire and fire

Metro’s senior management has no hope of changing Metro’s culture without sufficient freedom to hire and fire its unionized workforce. The most important union in this case is Local 689 of the Amalgamated Transit Union (ATU). “ATU Local 689 covers 8,576 workers, or about 82 percent of the unionized workforce, including train operators, maintenance crews, and other employees.”

Metro’s contract with ATU Local 689 is currently being re-negotiated. If the ultimate outcome of these negotiations is a voluntary agreement between management and ATU Local 689 that gives Metro’s senior management sufficient freedom to hire and fire, then there will be a reasonable prospect that Metro’s culture can be changed. These negotiations must not drag out too long.

Metro shouldn’t get a new dedicated revenue stream without first demonstrating that it has changed its culture

Metro critically needs to get a new dedicated revenue stream sufficiently large to enable it to:

• replace its existing capital assets at the end of their useful lives, and
• gradually expand the Metro system over the coming decades.

A dedicated revenue stream is usually defined as money that flows from a source–like an earmarked sales or gas tax–that isn’t subject to an annual appropriations process.

Metro is the only major transit system in the United States without such a dedicated revenue stream. While the need for such a revenue stream is critical, this new revenue cannot be provided without:

• unanimous agreement by Virginia, Maryland and DC on what that new funding source is–and the specific terms and conditions under which funding will be provided, plus
• federal government approval of that tri-jurisdictional compact.

It is both imprudent and politically impossible for such agreements and approvals to occur without a prior demonstration by Metro that it has changed its culture sufficiently to justify this substantial new investment.

Conclusion

Metro can be fixed if it is able to change its culture enough and in time. If it can’t, the three jurisdictions and the federal government will have to agree upon and enable a new organization to operate this vital transit system.

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 recent article (“Arlington Studying A Plan That Would Pay for your Uber to Metro”) in The Washington Post triggered feverish comments on its website, ARLnow.com and social media, like:

So my South Arlington taxes will be used to chauffeur the 1% from North Arlington?

Let them snarlingtonians ride in old crowded buses. We want our mini limos!

The county government subsequently issued a media advisory clarifying the nature of the county’s ride-sharing study. The clarification included a denial that a decision had been made to subsidize ride sharing.

According to the media advisory:

The new service is being analyzed for the following neighborhoods, where bus ridership does not meet our productivity standards (at least 15 passengers per hour):

• Rock Spring, Williamsburg Middle School, and Dominion Hills
• Chain Bridge Forest, Rivercrest, Bellevue Forest, Gulf Branch, and Stafford-Albermarle-Glebe
• Douglas Park, Nauck, and Arlington Village

The proposed service could connect these areas to a transit center, such as the Ballston or East Falls Church Metrorail stations, or to a transit corridor, such as Columbia Pike

Discussion

Very low ridership on Arlington’s ART Bus 53 led to suggestions to cancel that route. Some commenters supported outright cancellation (“save the money; refund it to the taxpayers”). For now, this route has been saved, and a study of ride sharing as a substitute has begun.

I agree that ride sharing is worth studying.

One knowledgeable commenter observed that, when he last checked, “ART Bus 53 carried only 11 people per revenue hour and recovered only 12% of its cost.” Regardless of the actual numbers, the principle is certainly valid: if ridership on any ART bus route anywhere in the county drops too low, some action — whether outright cancellation, consolidation with another ART bus route, or ride sharing — are all potentially valid responses.

Standards for a ride-sharing subsidy

Arlington County should study a variety of standards for a ride-sharing subsidy, including:

• Limiting the trip only to certain origins/destinations, like home to a Metro or bus stop or return home from one.
• Having a maximum personal individual income ceiling for any participant.
• Having an over-all dollar cap on program utilization in any particular defined area. (Use a lottery if the program is over-subscribed.)
• Ending the ride-sharing program, and resuming/substituting ART bus service, if demand rises to a point above a pre-determined level of ART bus service viability (like the current 15 passengers per hour or some higher number).

Types of ride-sharing options

In addition to Uber and Lyft, the county should explore the costs and benefits of partnering with a transit provider like Bridj . Bridj currently offers limited pop-up bus service in D.C. Bridj is considered by some as the best hope to bring urban transportation into the 21st century.

Paratransit policy

County residents with disabilities should be offered the widest possible range of ADA-compliant transit options at the lowest possible cost. The county should study these ride-sharing recommendations from a metropolitan Boston report.

Conclusion

Fortunately, Arlington isn’t grappling with these transit policy questions in a vacuum. Other communities across America are doing so as well. The American Public Transportation Association sees ride-sharing services like Uber and Lyft as complementary to traditional transportation options.

Let’s find the best options for Arlington.

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.

The Virginia Association of Counties recently granted an achievement award to Arlington County’s Startup Arlington program.

Discussion

Startup Arlington is an innovative program. It has generated valuable information about factors that might motivate tech startups to move to Arlington or launch here.

Arlington must continue to bring down its 20.2 percent office vacancy rate. Each one percent in that vacancy rate translates into $3.4 million in lost tax revenue. A continued vacancy rate in the 20 percent range threatens to shift about $800 a year in property taxes onto the average Arlington homeowner.

Startup Arlington Concept

When it began in 2015, Startup Arlington was a competition organized by Arlington Economic Development (AED) to “encourage startups or potential startups on the cusp of finding their first office space to consider Arlington for that first office.” A local extended stay hotel agreed to provide the competition winner with complimentary hotel space for three months, and a local co-working space agreed to provide office accommodations. A local law practice agreed to offer ten hours of legal counseling for the winner, and transportation partners provided access to public transit.

The only costs for the County were those on taxes paid on the hotel lodging and nominal advertising fees, approximately $3,500. The entire value of the program was estimated at $15,450.

Publicity

The existence of the program was publicized via a variety of media, including social media channels estimated to reach more than 180,000 users. A total of 78 companies from 14 states and 13 different technology industries submitted completed applications. Applicants were judged based on criteria ranging from how the company would benefit from locating in Arlington to growth potential and business plans.

To be eligible, applicants had to be (1) from outside the greater DC metropolitan area (thereby avoiding poaching regional companies) and (2) a founder and/or CEO of a technology-based company.

Winning Applicant

The program produced one winning applicant. That winner was Montana-based Oppleo. This company offers a cloud-based software called Sikernes that helps defend against cyber-attacks. Oppleo’s founders relocated to Arlington in November 2015. The company still remains in the area.

Lessons Learned

Various real estate companies and residential complexes have contacted AED seeking more details regarding how AED marketed the program to potential applicants. They expressed an interest in marketing their properties/area to the same entrepreneurial audience Startup Arlington reached.

AED’s business development group cultivated several leads regarding companies that are being tracked to understand when they grow to the point of needing commercial space. AED sees Startup Arlington as an ongoing program providing ways to reach out to company founders who previously may have been unaware of Arlington’s resources and opportunities.  The program also can serve as a catalyst to form new collaborations with Arlington’s existing business and hospitality communities.

Conclusion

An important report by the 2030 Group identified seven private sector clusters (including cybersecurity) that are the most likely to generate the most significant future regional economic growth, and therefore be most likely to generate new demand for office space.

AED can help Arlington showcase its strengths in this highly competitive regional economy by continuing to analyze, publicize and exchange information obtained from worthwhile experiments like Startup Arlington. Repeating the Startup Arlington competition should remain an option.

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, Virginia Governor Terry McAuliffe announced that the state of Virginia is in “very serious negotiations” with the Washington Redskins to help the team build a new stadium in Virginia.

Governor McAuliffe explained how he plans to negotiate:

“What I always say is it’s got to make sense for the taxpayers of Virginia. We’ve got to negotiate a deal — my job as governor is to get economic activity — but you’ve also got to protect the taxpayer dollars. And we’ve got to be creative with this thing, so we’re protecting the taxpayers, it’s in the taxpayers’ best interests, and it’s a win-win for the Redskins.”

Discussion

The evidence is overwhelming that subsidizing the construction of a proposed new Redskins stadium will never be in the best interests of Virginia taxpayers.

Sports stadiums do not spur significant economic growth

Independent experts (like Roger Noll, a Stanford professor emeritus of economics and specialist on sports economics) repeatedly have concluded that sports stadiums do not spur significant economic growth:

“By comparison, other billion dollar facilities–like a major shopping center or large manufacturing plant–will employ many more people and generate substantially more revenue and taxes.”

These conclusions by independent experts contradict the rosy publicity bankrolled by self-interested owners or any government partners they can recruit.

The direct costs far outweigh the benefits

A very extensive study by the Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City found that a typical stadium costs taxpayers more than four times more than any long-term benefits from jobs and tax revenues. Or, as this study diplomatically put it:

“Proponents of using public funds to finance stadium construction argue that the benefits from increased economic activity and increased tax revenue collection exceed the public outlays. But independent economic studies universally find such benefits to be much smaller than claimed.”

The opportunity costs further tilt the balance against taxpayer funding

The costs of a new Virginia stadium for the Redskins are even higher when you factor in the opportunity costs. Money spent on such a stadium is money that could have been spent:

• on a new dedicated funding stream for Metro’s capital replacement program, or
• to redress some of the critical deficiencies in Virginia’s mental health facilities, or
• for additional job retraining in areas of persistently high Virginia unemployment.

And, these are only three of hundreds of far more deserving uses of our Virginia taxpayer funds.

Dan Snyder doesn’t need the money

Redskins’ owner Dan Snyder is a billionaire who doesn’t need a public hand out. Public subsidies for a new Redskins stadium in Virginia will go directly into Dan Snyder’s pockets and into the pockets of already highly-compensated Redskins football players. A 2003 study by a member of the University of Texas economics department documented that a new stadium increases:

• team profits by an average of $13 million annually,
• payroll salaries by $14 million annually, and
• team book value by $90 million.

All these numbers are likely to be much higher in 2016 and into the future.

Conclusion

I admire Governor McAuliffe tremendously for all of the excellent work he has done to promote Virginia as a place to do business. In this particular case, he should hand the ball back to Dan Snyder.

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, the Arlington County Board unanimously voted to approve the wording of four bond referenda totaling $315.7 million.

These four referenda will be on the November 8, 2016 general election ballot:

Taking into account factors such as the large sums of money involved, the number and complexity of the projects in each category, the opportunities for public comment on all of the projects, and the opportunities for comment on this year’s entire 10-year capital improvement plan (CIP) , the County Board arrived at a fair and reasonable determination regarding the degree of specificity of the ballot wording of each of these four categories.

Discussion

Under Virginia state law, any time a local government proposes to use general obligation bond financing to pay for capital projects, such proposals must be submitted to the voters for approval. The law grants the County Board the right to determine the wording and dollar amounts of such bond proposals.

This year’s wording represents a substantial improvement over recent prior practice. For example:

While in 2014 a typical ballot question sought $105.8 million in bonds to “fund the design and construction of various school facility projects including new elementary schools, building additions for additional classroom space and maintenance capital projects,” a question on the ballot this fall for $138.8 million in school construction will spell out five specific schools or projects, with costs attached to each.

This year’s push to provide more ballot detail also is a welcome response by current County Board members to a 2012 County Board decision regarding a Parks bond proposal. In that earlier case, the ballot wording of a $50.5 million Parks bond failed to disclose that 80% of the funds were earmarked for the construction of the original grandiose design of the proposed Aquatics Center at Long Bridge Park. Voters in 2012 easily could have thought they were voting simply to acquire critically necessary new parkland.

Criticism of the vagueness of the wording of the 2012 Parks bond was a major issue properly raised by independent John Vihstadt in his successful 2014 campaign for County Board. The wording of that bond also led to passage of a 2015 resolution by the Arlington County Republican Committee urging that any individual capital project involving general obligation bond spending of more than $25 million be listed separately on the general election ballot–rather than aggregated into a broader generic category.

The Arlington GOP’s resolution raises reasonable issues for continuing community discussion. The resolution poses legitimate questions regarding:

Singling out a large project for a separate vote (how expensive should it be to deserve separate treatment?), and

Bundling proposed capital expenditures into larger generic categories (how many generic categories should be chosen?).

Conclusion

During the period of public comment on the merits of future capital projects involving general obligation bond financing, it could become clear that the dollar amount of any particular project is so large, or the community is so divided on the project’s merits, that the project deserves a separate line item on the ballot. None of this year’s individual projects deserved such separate treatment.

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.

The dust-up at last week’s County Board meeting at which the Board voted (4 to 1) to purchase an art truck highlighted the importance of answering more basic questions:

• Why is Arlington County taking so long to develop a new strategic plan for the arts?
• What are some of the critical issues such a plan ought to address?

Opinions expressed by opponents and supporters of the art truck were based on diametrically opposed assumptions about Arlington County’s proper role in supporting the arts. Just among supporters, there were fundamental differences about the proper scope of that role. The absence of an up-to-date strategic plan for the arts was painfully evident.

A sampling of comments on the initial ARLnow.com art truck story illustrates the point:

• “How many musical instruments for our schools could this $70k to $100k get us?”
• “When will all the speed bumps, gateway speed reducers, and painted-faux-brick crosswalks receive basic maintenance so that these traffic calming objects are functional again?”
• “The County is spending a small amount of arts money that it already has, albeit in a new and innovative way.”
• “How about they spend the money on one of the already established arts organizations the county bankrolls, perhaps you can name a few? I know I can.”
• “This is actually a common, and inexpensive, thing that many local governments have.”
• “It’s not necessarily a bad idea, but if they let the people who ran Artisphere be in charge of it (and most of them now work for Cultural Affairs), I don’t give it much of a chance of being either good or successful.”

Against this background of conflicting opinions, County Board member John Vihstadt asked County staff to answer the following questions prior to the Board vote on the art truck:

Summarize the “ongoing Cultural Affairs Strategic Planning Process” that informed this proposal and provide a window into the overall status and timing of such process more broadly across Cultural Affairs. Will this process result in a formal report to the County Board and, if so, when? Are there any tentative outcomes that staff is comfortable sharing at this time?

Regrettably, Deputy County Manager Carol Mitten was unable to answer Vihstadt’s questions. Mitten explained that she couldn’t provide any predictions on timing because of “difficulties in getting everyone together,” and warned the Board that “we are going to need guidance from you.”

Arlington’s current arts policy was approved in 1990. Among other reasons, it was the lack of a clear arts policy that doomed the Artisphere.

To avoid more fiascos like the Artisphere and the Signature Theatre bailout, we need a new strategy for public support for the arts.

Conclusion

The County Board, Manager and staff all need to develop a greater sense of urgency regarding adoption of a 21st century arts strategy. There are models and other external resources available to help them. For example, Boulder, San Francisco and Boston have plans that our government should examine. Those plans provide strategies and ideas regarding many of the challenges that an Arlington strategic plan for the arts should address.

It’s time to speed up development of a strategic plan for public support for the arts in Arlington.