The following letter was sent to the Arlington County Board

**********************************

From: Linda Sloan and John F. Sloan
Date: September 20, 2016 at 11:52:10 PM EDT
To: Arlington County Board
Subject: Fire Station 10 (Sept 24 Board Meeting, Agenda item #55.D)

September 20, 2016

Dear Arlington County Board,

We are long-time Arlingtonians and taxpayers. We also are strong fire safety supporters.

As we understand, the matter of a temporary location for Fire Station 10 arose because of a change by the developer. In our view, therefore, the Board should address the issue with the developer, rather than with three competing neighborhoods, and do so at the source: the original plan.

The original plan is for a two-phase construction in which Fire Station 10 will stay in place during construction of the new fire station. Once the new station opens, the current one will be dismantled.

Thus, under the original plan, there is no need for a temporary fire station. Under the original plan, there is no need to risk any diminution of fire safety services, no extra impact on residents, homeowners, students, parents and visitors, and no extra costs to the County, nor the taxpayers.

For these reasons, in our view, prior to making a decision on this matter, the Board should:

(1) Explain the status of the original two-phase plan per the extensive West Area Rosslyn Plan (WRAPS) process and the manner in which an alternative one-phase plan involving a temporary relocation of Fire Station 10 came to be, and ensure that legal requirements regarding notice and public participation have been met.

The County Manager's Report (dated September 19, 2016, distributed to the public September 20) states that:
"On July 16, 2016, the County Board approved a Ground Lease (Attachment A) between the County and Penzance, which permits Penzance to redevelop their property at 1555 Wilson Boulevard (RPC#16-033-008, -009, 010, -011, and -018) along with the adjacent property owned by the County (RPC# 16-033-012, -013, -014, -016, -017, -021, and -022) in a manner consistent with the West Rosslyn Area Plan (WRAP). "

Beside the public notice question, there is the question of whether the lease is "in a manner consistent with the West Rosslyn Area Plan (WRAP)" given that the original two-phased plan was discussed during the WRAPS process, including a meeting on February 19, 2015. And at the August 25, 2016 meeting at Key School regarding a temporary fire station, County Planning Staff acknowledged that the original plan is a two-phase plan that does not require any temporary fire station.

(2) Do a cost-benefit analysis to determine whether, as a matter of public policy and costs, it is better to proceed as a two-phase approach or a different approach, such as the one-phase approach. The process should consider fairness, transparency, and impacts on neighborhoods and County constituents, including loss of green space and mature vegetation and loss of athletic space for schoolchildren.

(3) Conduct a financial analysis for inclusion in (2) of costs to the developer, the County, and homeowners of a one-phase versus two-phase approach.
Regrading the developer's costs, at the August 25, 2016 fire station meeting, when questioned further about the status of the original two-phase plan, a County staff representative said the two-phased approach was no longer economically feasible for the developer. No supporting data was given. The staff was asked to quantify this for those present. The answer was that it would be quantified for the Board for your September 24 meeting. We do not see this data in the County Manager's September 19 report. We ask the Board to request the County Manager to provide this information. (See items 1.-3. in the suggested financial analysis below.)

(4) If the analyses in (2) and (3) demonstrate that it would be unreasonably costly for the developer to complete the new fire station before dismantling existing Fire Station 10, then the County has many tools and creative options available to offset those costs either directly itself, or in the form of provisions for the developer for this project, or another one, thereby enabling completion of the new fire station without need for a temporary location of the old one.

To us, until the analyses described here are complete and provided to the community for comment, then to the Board, it is premature for the Board to make a decision about a location for a temporary fire station.

Further, we know there are many equities and considerations involved in land use matters, and the decisions are difficult. But there is more at stake in this case besides than the specifics of a fire station: legal process and fairness. And this case sets precedent for other cases.

We understand and appreciate the value of the overall project at this site for all involved. Our suggestions are not intended to detract from the benefits, nor to delay the project.

Thank you for your service to the County and for your consideration of these comments.

Respectfully submitted,
Linda Haller Sloan and John F. Sloan
Arlington County

***********

Suggestions for Financial Analysis of Fire Station matter:

1. What is the cost to the developer to do the project in two phases?

2. What is the cost to the developer to do the project in one phase, including the developer's cost for each of the temporary sites for constructing the temporary fire station and restoring the site after cessation of use of the temporary fire station:
a. new HB Woodlawn School/old Wilson School/18th Street neighborhood?
b. Rhodeside Park neighborhood?
c. Holiday Inn/N. Nash St neighborhood?

3. What is the difference in the developer's costs between 1. and 2.a., 2.b. and 2.c.? These figures are key because they quantify the actual cost to the developer of one phase versus two phases.

4. What is the cost to Arlington County to do the project under the original two-phase plan?

5. What is the cost to Arlington County to do the project in one phase, including costs for loss of tax revenue from diminished property values and for costs of preparing the temporary sites for:
a. new HB Woodlawn School/old Wilson School/18th Street neighborhood?
b. Rhodeside Park neighborhood?
c. Holiday Inn/N. Nash St neighborhood?

6. What is the difference in the County's costs between 4. and 5.a., 5.b. and 5.c.? These figures are key because they quantify the actual cost to the County of one phase versus two phases.

7. What is the cost to the new HB Woodlawn School/old Wilson School/18th Street neighborhood and County constituents of one-phase approach?

8. What is the cost to the Rhodeside Park neighborhood and County constituents of one-phase approach?

9. What is the cost to the Holiday Inn/N. Nash St neighborhood and County constituents of one-phase approach?

10. What is the cost comparison between:
-- 2.a. and 7.?
-- 2.b. and 8.?
-- 2.c. and 9.?

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Paul Derby,

Linda and John,
Good questions. Happy to co-sign if you wish.
Something is broken in the County Government when hidden negotiations destroy parkland in a neighborhood which already has too little parkland.
Best
Mark Antell