weather icon 68° Light Rain
The Latest:

Peter’s Take: Aquatic Center, Dog Park Costs are Extravagant

by Peter Rousselot | March 12, 2013 at 2:00 pm | 2,144 views | 89 Comments

Peter’s Take is a weekly opinion column published on Tuesdays. 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 explained why Arlington needs to develop a core services approach to deal with its budget. Several commenters offered helpful suggestions as to how Arlington ought to define a core services approach.

For example:

  • “Another way to look at the role of government revolves around the phrase ‘Basic Human Needs.’ Things like the Artisphere, other arts and cultural projects, fancy swimming pools, and dog parks need to take a back seat to education, public safety, assistance to the needy.” -Willy
  • “Focus on the core and spend in other [areas] only as funds permit. But equally as important, spend wisely on everything.” -John Fontain
  • “It’s stuff that you would think is almost too self-evident to need mentioning. But when you see the cuts proposed, you have to wonder. Sure, there is some room for debate about what is core, and the published example from California is just one example.” -Flux

Of course, there are refinements, adjustments and other details that Arlington needs to address in order to adopt a core services approach to its budget.

For example:

  • Core services such as police, fire, and schools should not be immune from cuts. As “John Fontain” says, Arlington should “spend wisely on everything”. But, programs and services in core areas such as these should be given greater protection from cuts than programs in more peripheral areas.
  • Contrary to the views of another commenter last week, I certainly do not believe that Arlington should stop funding parks or libraries. These are critical functions of our local government and justify very substantial continuing investment.

Where Arlington has missed the mark is by spending, or proposing to spend, extravagant amounts of money in areas relating to, for example, public recreation. Don’t get me wrong. I believe it is important for Arlington to provide facilities like swimming pools and dog parks. But, I also believe it is extravagant to construct an $82 million Aquatics Center or a $1.7 million dog park.

In the end, Arlington needs to adopt a core services approach to budgeting because such an approach will provide a publicly articulated and understood set of values by which budget proposals can be measured.

A core services approach to budgeting should only be adopted by the County Board after an appropriate process of community engagement.

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

Section: Opinion | Tags: , ,
Print Friendly and PDF
  • SomeGuy

    Peter, in addition to publishing your column here, might you consider starting this conversation directly with members of the county board? With your credentials as a “former chair of the Arlington County Democratic Committee,” maybe you could talk sense to them on this topic.

    • bemused bystander

      Do you really think his views would be welcomed? By Garvey, yes, but the others?

      • SomeGuy

        I don’t know. But I suspect Mr. Rousselot might have a little more rapport with our board members than you, me, and NovaSteve. So if he’d like to take this apparently sensible online opinion out into the flesh world to the people who make decisions, I think it’d serve us all well.

        • bemused bystander

          First time anyone has matched me up with NovaSteve! Not sure I’m his type, or he’s mine …

  • bdog375

    I still cannot believe a majority of the voters agreed to the aquatic center bond.

    • Beta

      Me neither. I don’t understand how a majority of the voters can approve this stuff. Is it possible they don’t actually understand what they are approving? Do they know what a bond is?

      • novasteve

        They were probably thinking about James Bond.

      • SomeGuy

        Yours is a hot-button question here. I could refer you to old threads about it from around election time, but the comments from those appear to have been lost since ArlNow switched to a 3rd party commenting system.

        Here’s the gist:
        The bond referendum said nothing about an aquatics center, and was bundled under a generically worded “Parks and Recreation” question on the ballot. Informed voters knew that a $70+ million aquatics facility was under the covers of that referendum, whereas voters who didn’t do their homework wouldn’t know that. People like me give a low estimate the number of voters who actually looked under the covers of the bond referendum to find out what they were voting for (vs. just voting a feel-good “I like parks” ticket). Some others estimate that the number of people who dug into the referendum’s underpinnings is very high. I maintain my position on the low number– based on anecdotal evidence, which is all the other side of the argument has too– but the debate goes on incessantly if we start it.

        • bemused bystander

          There’s always the possibility that voters did support the aquatics center.

          • SomeGuy

            Thanks. That adds a lot.

          • ARL

            Nah, the simple idea that they lost a debate and that a majority of people simply think they are wrong just can’t be. They just can’t handle that. So they make all kinds of excuses.

      • GMo

        Yes. The Aquatics Center Bond Referendum was incredibly vague. I spoke with many voters who approved it not realizing that they were approving an 80 some odd million dollar swimming pool.

        • farl

          You don’t know what other voters knew and whether they were ignorant or not. You can’t speak for them.

          Oh wait, you did ask them. Carry on then.

          • ARL

            He spoke with “many” voters. How many? And was it a random sample? How man he spoke to said they did know? How many said they didn’t know, but would have voted yes anyway?

        • speonjosh

          There was no Aquatics Center Bond Referendum.

      • John Fontain

        “Do they know what a bond is?”

        This is a question I’ve been raising for a while now. The bond language says “shall we contract a debt.” Who talks like that in real life? Why not say, “Should we borrow $XX million to pay for part of the $XX cost to build ABC?”

        • acdc hack

          I have often wondered how much support all of these bond measures would receive if they were phrased so that their cost was stated in a clear manner……..i.e. x number of dollars per house hold.

          • ARL

            Or you could state how much cheaper this pool would be than going to a private indoor pool of this kind, such as Great Wolf Lodge. State the benefits as well as the cost. Right?

          • acdc hack

            No, just state what the costs are going to be in a clear manner……

          • ARL

            If you want details on the cost on the ballot, I want details on the benefits too.

          • John Fontain

            ARL, funny you should mention Great Wolf Lodge, because a few months back I ran some numbers and figured out that for the amount we are going to spend on the pool, we could actually build a complete Great Wolf Lodge (with pool, hotel, and restaurants). But no, for the same price, we’re just building a pool.

          • occasionally a fact

            John, John, John … how many times do you have to be corrected about this? We’re not “just building a pool”. This facility will include four bodies of water — the county’s first 50-meter pool with 10-meter diving platform, a separate training and warmup pool, a small therapy pool, and a leisure water play complex for kids of all ages. Plus large spaces for fitness classes and workouts. Plus meeting rooms and related amenities. You can like it or not, but please describe it accurately.

      • Paul

        I think it comes down to what people consider standard operating procedure for Arlington. These bond questions are on every ballot. I believe parks and rec bonds are specifically on all of them. Schools certainly are. Most voters assume this is a necessary expense that they need to reauthorize every election. And nobody wants to vote against something like that and then have the government go all “sequestration scare” on them because they did not authorize the money this time around. The idea that one of the biggest aquatics facilities in the region has its money wrapped into these routine spending authorizations (as the voters see them) never crosses their mind. Anything that big and unique should be a standalone question.

    • JohnRambo

      This is Arlington….I do not believe a Bond measure has failed since the 1950s. I do believe that if they put the Streetcar up to be funded by Bonds that it will break that trend.

    • Pete B

      I can believe it, because neither the word “pool” nor “aquatic center” appeared anywhere in the ballot language, even though money for the pool was more than 80% of the $50 million ask. That was done on purpose, to conceal it from voters who thought they were paying for swing sets.

      • ARL

        I doubt the voters are that stupid or ignorant – sorry you do – but even if they were, it’s still their choice. They could have just not voted if they felt they didn’t know enough about it. Perhaps they voted yes because they trusted the Board. You can’t read their minds.

        • South Awwlington

          So being vague is the same as being transparent?

          I voted for the thing…and I knew what it was for. If you don’t read ARLnow or watch CB meetings on channel 74, tough luck for you?

          That seems like a very shady way of doing business (and I am sure you will disagree just to be disagreeable).

          • speonjosh

            A shady way of doing business? What do you think the government is, some sort of convenience store?
            We are all in this together. You can’t live up to your responsibilities as a citizen? Well, then suffer the consequences. Which is exactly what is happening in this country, but that’s another story.
            The government owes a chance to vote and publicly available information about what is at question. This does not mean that they have to publish a book on the ballot. Yes, life is complicated, and the issues on ballots tend to be complicated. You have a duty to be informed. You owe that not to the government, but to everyone around you.

          • South Awwlington

            lol has someone hijacked your account? Ye, who thinks Arlington is a model of all that is right in the local governments of world? HOW COULD YOU NOT THINK GOVERNMENT SHOULD BE TRANSPARENT? You of all people chug the Arlington Kool-Aid.

            HELL YES, government should be transparent and clear, especially when citizen involvement and participation is championed in such a way that Arlington does.

            No one asked for your patronizing and condescending tone but you my friend, are clearly off your meds.

        • Pete B

          Calm down. Get off the high horse and go swim a few laps. I’ve made no claim that anyone is stupid or ignorant. Those are your words. Nor have I said that people who don’t know and issue shouldn’t vote on it.

          All I’ve said is that the bond language was obfuscatory, which many others have said before and after the election.

          • ARL

            You didn’t say stupid, you said “low-information” which is the current code word for “stupid.”

          • Pete B

            I said “low-information.” “Stupid” is a value judgement I didn’t make. This is the third time you’ve tried to put words in mouth.

          • ARL

            Stop trying to evade, Pete B. We know exactly what you mean. You think every voter who disagrees with you did so because of some flaw, rather than simply believing that you are wrong. It’s a lame excuse for losing.

    • My piece of Arlington

      It’s because there was no mention of the aquatics center when people
      voted. I agree that people should be more aware when voting, but I think
      the county purposely left the fact out that the majority of the bond
      would be used for the center. The only way you knew is if you went to
      the County website or kept up with local issues. Most people are busy.
      Parks sound nice.

      This is what was on the ballot.

      Question;

      Shall Arlington County contract a debt and issue its general obligation
      bonds in the maximum principal amount of $50,553,000 to finance,
      together with other available funds, the cost of various capital
      projects for local parks & recreation, and land acquisition for
      parks and open space?

      • ARL

        No, you cannot assume that nobody knew the pool was part of the bond, nor can you assume that it would have failed if it had been more explicit. No no no. You don’t know any better than anyone else.

        • Pete B

          It’s not vanity to recognize the existence of low-information voters, ARL. It goes without saying that the more detail a political proposal has, the less support it garners. An explicit mention of an $80 million dollar pool might not have sunk the bond, but it sure wouldn’t have helped.

          • ARL

            But someone can just as easily claim that those who voted against you are “low-information voters” too.

            It’s a lame cheap shot. It’s a petty excuse for losing an election.

            And your new claim doesn’t “go without saying” either.

          • Pete B

            Again, that “someone” isn’t me, so hold your fire. Perhaps my claim doesn’t go without saying, but if such detail would’ve helped, I think the County Board would’ve agreed to run the pool as a separate bond issue instead of rebuffing requests from the civic association federation last summer to do so. That’s my opinion.

            I understand that pool supporters are offended by the notion that this project lacks widespread public support and was passed with the help of people who were completely unaware of it. But, it’s a possibility. Since the language was so vague, we’ll never know.

          • drax

            “we’ll never know”

            There you go.

          • Pete B

            Yes, exactly! All we know is that the bond passed, not how it passed. Suggesting that some voters didn’t know what they were voting for is as as reasonable as allowing for the possibility that every voter who said yes is an enlightened, informed pool supporter.

      • Pinktulip32

        You are correct. Unless someone read the entire bond beforehand or they saw some news about it, they would not have known it was in there. It was buried in the bond. The ballot read to most people as “Do you like parks?” The average person would respond “Yes. I like parks.” Check. One of my neighbors said to me after the election, “Hey, Did you hear we are getting an aquarium in Arlington? Isn’t that great?” I had to explain what an aquatic center was.

        • John Fontain

          “The ballot read to most people as “Do you like parks?”

          You nailed it.

          • ARL

            Kind of like the name “Romney” read like “do you like tax cuts?”

            At some point, you’re going to have to admit that the voters are responsible for their votes and are presumed smart enough and informed enough to use them, otherwise, you’re questioning democracy itself.

          • dk (not DK)

            Come on, did you read that question? Even people who thought they had done their due diligence might have
            been confused. I know I was. I had researched the issues on the ballot, so I knew that one of the bond issues was for an aquatics center and after reading about the proposal I decided I was against it. But when I arrived at the polls, I saw nothing about an
            aquatics center on the ballot. Luckily, I looked at the questions while standing in line and was able to discuss it with others around me before entering the booth. By process of elimination, we decided that the parks question must be about the aquatics center, but no one seemed to know for sure. So yes, I guess in this instance I am questioning how democracy worked.

          • dk (not DK)

            I should add: I am not saying that if more people knew that the parks question meant “pool” that it wouldn’t have passed. In fact, it’s quite possible that if people had read “pool,” even more would have voted for it.

            What I am saying is that the question was written so broadly as to be meaningless, so that we actually have no idea whether the community favors an aquatic center or not.

      • Josh S

        I tend to agree with your larger point that there are too many uninformed voters. But to stoop to accusing the County of deliberately obfuscating on the ballot is just absurd and completely without cause. The language was substantially the same as it is for every bond question placed on ballots in Arlington. It said neither more nor less than it always says. The price tag on the aquatics center has nothing to do with what the ballot should say.
        The county actually has to be careful to word ballot questions as neutrally as possible and to avoid providing any public information that could be perceived as either for or against the ballot question. I think this is as it should be. Voting is a tremendous responsibility as well as being a right.

        Perhaps you are right that it is only because of uninformed voters that this particular ballot question passed. However, if that is the case, the blame lies entirely at the feet of the voters. Not the county government.

        • moiraeve1

          I expect ballot questions to be written clearly. If it’s talking about a pool, it should say “pool”.

  • JimPB

    Agreed: “it is extravagant to construct an $82 million Aquatics Center or a $1.7 million dog park.”

    But, isn’t two-thirds or more of the money for the aquatics center coming from a bond issue that ArlCo voters approved in spite of active opposition.
    .
    And might it be that a hunk of the money for the human recreation, green area and, incidentally, dog park area, coming from a bond issue that ArlCo voters also approved?

    • ARL

      The voters approved those before this budget shortfall. They had to vote for all the projects in each bond, or none – not pick and choose. A bond issue authorizes borrowing money for a project, but it does not constitute approving the spending on the project itself as part of a larger set of priorities – the Board must still make that decision.

      We shouldn’t be building dog parks while cutting services to the mentally ill and elderly, or police.

      The problem, of course, is that these are long-term capital projects, and if we just cut them whenever we have a small shortage of cash, nothing would get built. And the dog park is already almost finished – we shouldn’t just stop work. So it’s not just about core vs. recreation, it’s short vs. long-term spending.

    • QTR

      See the comment which quotes the language we voted on. Do you see the word “pool” in there? The county clearly thought if the voters knew what the money would be used for (gazillion dollar pool), they wouldn’t vote for it. So they hid it.

      • ARL

        Or maybe most of them weren’t uninformed idiots, and knew exactly what was in it, and wanted the pool.

        Until you do a poll of voters and ask them, you have no way of knowing. You’re just guessing.

        • Mailady

          Tax & spend – the Arlington Way. :)

          • speonjosh

            Actually, I think that’s how every public jurisdiction works.

          • ARL

            How else should a government work? Just spending? Just taxing? Neither?

        • QTR

          Perhaps true, but instead of both of us just guessing, wouldn’t it be a better solution for the ballot to be less vague? Would it be hard to put language in there describing what the bond is for?

          • ARL

            Sure, but how much detail must go in? A list of every single project? That would be too much. So what do you leave out? And when you do, will people like you claim it was hiding it too?

            Should we also put a candidate’s platform and background on the ballot along with his name, or is a name enough?

            At some point, you have to just let the voters do their jobs.

      • speonjosh

        “Clearly?”
        Why is it clear? Do you have any understanding of how the ballot questions are worded in the first place?

  • novasteve

    How about our new super duper bus stop that took longer than it took the empire state building to get built?

  • Craggie

    Arguably the riskiest bond issues for the taxpayer are where the County is not only building something but also taking land off the County tax rolls. In the past 15 years the County has issued bonds to build up the Virginia Square campus of George Mason, which adds intangible prestige benefits to the County, while making the property permanently into the nonprofit/public category which is exempt from County property taxes.

  • novasteve

    I would be interested in Peter’s views on Arlington’s participation in the “Women of Vision” awards. Given all the talk of equal protection, equality, it seems odd that the county would support such a limited award while excluding half the population. There’s no call for even a Person of Vision, let alone a Man of Vision award that the county has a role in. Does the equal protection clause not apply in Arlington as I certainly don’t see the intermediate scrutiny standard being satisfied here for sex based distinctions under the equal protection clause.

    • ChefJ

      I give you the VAN award. “Visionary Arlingtonian of Note” – the trophy would be a cast concrete depiction of an androgynous person in horn-rimmed glasses staring into the Artisphere.

      • novasteve

        Post of the year!

  • John Fontain

    Besides demonstrating well-reasoned views related to County spending, Mr. Rousselot is doing something else the County Board does not appear to be doing: LISTENING TO CONSTITUENTS.

    • novasteve

      Well, technically the board is too with their ballot initiatives the the voters keep on approving. We keep on electing the same people, the people who will do all sorts of vanity projects, to spend like it’s going out of style..

  • drax

    Here come the same old sore losers. When they lose an election, they blame it on ignorant voters, or conspiracies to hide things on the ballot, or mindless voters who only vote for the “D.”

    I don’t think Arlington voters are all a bunch of nitwits, but even if I did, I wouldn’t go out and say it in public and think it helped my cause.

    Want to win an election? Go out and campaign. Tell people what’s on the ballot and why you think they should vote against. Work on a campaign for a candidate. Don’t whine about losing and insult the voters for not thinking like you do.

    • John Fontain

      “Want to win an election?…Tell people what’s on the ballot…”

      In other words, we’re responsible for doing what the County government should have done by making the referendum clear to voters?

  • LaxDad

    I voted for the bond. I knew what was included. I approve of the County’s plans. We get great services for low taxes here in Arlington.

  • New to ARL

    The majority of voters decided that the bonds to support these initiatives were appropriate. It’s what our Founding Fathers wanted. Democracy. If you do not like it. Move. If you feel people are not educated on the issues, then quit complaining, and educate them.

    • Fuzzy

      It would have been nice if the county was more truthful and stated on the ballot that the $80M bond issue was for a swimming pool instead of the generic parks and recreation improvements. I would like to believe the vote would have been different.

    • John Fontain

      ” If you feel people are not educated on the issues, then quit complaining, and educate them.”

      /sarcasm on/ You’re right, we’re asking too much of the County government to do their job and make sure people understand the referendums. It’s our job to do that!! /sarcasm off/

  • trujack

    As for the dog park, my husband and I (and a lot of our friends who are also childless) pay a good deal of tax money that is used to fund schools and other recreational projects that we get no direct benefit from. And we are happy to do so. In addition, we are required to pay a licensing fee to Arlington County for our dogs. So I don’t think a dog park is too much to ask for us and those like us.

    • Pete B

      Pro dog-parker here, but maybe not the super-lux edition. If you own property, Arlington’s excellent public schools have a large and direct impact on your property’s (high) value.

      • trujack

        Agreed, but only if we plan to sell. which we don’t

        • ARL

          Eventually you will sell, or your heirs will inherit the property. You are wealthier because of your property’s appreciation.

    • ChefJ

      Should use schools for dog parks after hours. I seem to remember stepping in many poos at Taylor, Williamsburg and Yorktown back in the day – builds character with the over-protected North Arlington (Donaldson Run) set!

    • Donna

      “that is used to fund schools and other recreational projects that we get no direct benefit from”

      You seriously think you do not receive any benefit from helping to fund schools and recreational projects? Mindboggling.

    • Matt Rollins

      It took me a while to appreciate paying a premium for public schools while I have no children, but I’ve come around. I’m pro-dog park and pro-aquatics center; although the dog park sounds steep, and I haven’t taken the time to read here about the noted shadiness or obfuscation that may or may not have been part of the bond process.

      My wife and I are lucky to be able afford to pay taxes for services in Arlington that we enjoy and look forward to enjoying more. It sounds like folks (many property owners here) generally play the short game when they consider the effects of their tax dollar in an area as historical and progressive as Arlington. You may not be selling anytime soon, but you likely have an investment that proves lucrative to your children, children’s children, or wherever you choose to leave your legacy.

  • Steve

    The FY14 budget proposal will make large cuts in natural resources areas like the nature centers, even as it increases spending on recreation-oriented areas. Even though Board guidance said that “environmental sustainability” spending was to be protected. There is no implementation of the approved Natural Resources Management Plan. And the County proposes to spend only miniscule amounts of the parks bond on land acquisition in its Capital Plan. We are continuing to lose natural resources that provide important services like cleaning our air and water, moderating our temperature, and pollinating our plants.

  • txoxy

    It is sad to think about all that could be accomplished for Arlington if the county got value for its dollars. Seeing projects like $1,700,000 for a dog park or $960,000 to lay pavers around Clarendon Metro makes one wonder if the county has lost all sense of reality or if the ghost of Boss Tweed is in charge. Do our Board members routinely light their cigars with $1000 bills?

    • John Fontain

      That about sums up our County’s primary fiscal problem. Finding a way to spend in excess on each and every project.

  • Bubba

    Bottom line is that since there is a budget shortfall, all County projects spending any money such as the Aquatics Center need to be suspended until further notice. Makes no sense spending $82 million when we are decreasing services in the County like police, etc….!

  • Mc

    Sadly this discussion gets even sillier. Public recreation is “critical” or “important” (not sure criteria distinguishing these) but spending on these becomes “extravagant.” Peter has his own private idea of core services which others imagine relate to vague basic human needs. Can public school spending levels be extravagant when they are highest in the country? Is spending public money to subsidize hipsters to live here in the name of affordable housing supporting basic human needs? Such capricious standards offer nothing but confusion and a way to hide ones’s pet preferences.

    • moiraeve1

      We have one of the best affordable housing policies in the nation.

  • Guest

    Looks at the done deal along Columbia Pike to take away very valuable lanes of traffic and give them to street cars. If no one’s listening why talk at all?

  • LoyalDem

    Arlington no longer needs the Tea Party. Former Democrat Rousselot makes it superfluous.

  • The Monopoly Guy

    Obamacare will cost employers $3000 more per employee per year. With 10,000 Arlington County employees the 2014 budget will need to increase by $31 million.The sequester doesnt have the punch as rushed legislation. Was the dog parks and such vetted or decided on at a late night ACB meeting?

    • ARL

      The dog park was vetted, using the same process with lots of opportunity for public input as any other.

  • Friend of Long Bridge Park

    Leaving aside the inaccuracy of the claimed cost (79.2 million is the total for Phase 2 that will be covered by the recently passed bond when combined with 16.9MM in leftover funds from the 2004 bond and an additional 20 MM in developer contributions) , Peter fails to take account of all the review this project has received before the voters approved it again last November. After adoption of the 2004 Master Plan for North Tract, the 2005 Public Spaces Master Plan, made completion of the park its top recommendation. In the last 6 months, 6 citizen advisory commissions have looked at the plans, and the Fiscal Affairs Advisory Commission, which is hardly known to approve “extravagant” spending projects, as well as the Civic Federation both endorsed the bond’s passage (over the negative recommendation of its Revenues and Expenditures Committee). The Committee of 100 sponsored a debate, where costs were fully discussed again. The Board has recognized that the prominence and sensitivity of the site for the aquatics, health and fitness center require exceptional architecture and design; and that it be consistent with county policies on sustainable design and energy conservation. In addition to the facility’s aquatic and fitness features (5 bodies of water, diving tower, 700 spectator seats, locker rooms, family cabanas, staff offices, short term child care, party rooms, and meeting rooms, room for cardiovascular and weight equipment, plus two group exercise rooms) this phase’s costs include the start of the development of the north end of the Park —public gathering areas, trails, public art, interpretive signs, and walkways will be constructed; and the Esplanade will be continued to the front door of the Aquatics, Health & Fitness Facility. This will be a remarkable transformation of a brownfield into a premier recreational and park facility. Alone among its neighboring communities, Arlington lacks a comprehensive community aquatics and fitness facility; this will be an important recreational asset of which we and the entire region will be proud when it opens in late 2015.

    .

    Because of the prominence and sensitivity of that site, Board guidance

    emphasized the need for exceptional architecture and design.

    in keeping with

    current County policies on sustainable design and energy conservation, the Facility will be

    designed to a LEED Silver level with additional emphasis on energy efficiency.

    .

    Because of the prominence and sensitivity of that site, Board guidance

    emphasized the need for exceptional architecture and design.

    begin the development of the north end of Long Bridge Park. Public

    gathering areas, trails, public art, interpretive signs, and walkways will be constructed. The

    Esplanade will be continued to the front door of the initial phase of the Aquatics, Health &

    Fitness Facility.

    .

    Because of the prominence and sensitivity of that site, Board guidance

    emphasized the need for exceptional architecture and design.

    in keeping with

    current County policies on sustainable design and energy conservation, the Facility will be

    designed to a LEED Silver level with additional emphasis on energy efficiency.

    .

    Because of the prominence and sensitivity of that site, Board guidance

    emphasized the need for exceptional architecture and design.

    family cabanas, staff offices, short term child care, party rooms,

    and meeting rooms

    ) this phase’s costs include the start of the development of the north end of the Park —public gathering areas, trails, public art, interpretive signs, and walkways will be constructed; and the Esplanade will be continued to the front door of the Aquatics, Health & Fitness Facility.

    .

    Because of the prominence and sensitivity of that site, Board guidance

    emphasized the need for exceptional architecture and design.

    in keeping with

    current County policies on sustainable design and energy conservation, the Facility will be

    designed to a LEED Silver level with additional emphasis on energy efficiency.

    .

    Because of the prominence and sensitivity of that site, Board guidance

    emphasized the need for exceptional architecture and design.

    begin the development of the north end of Long Bridge Park. Public

    gathering areas, trails, public art, interpretive signs, and walkways will be constructed. The

    Esplanade will be continued to the front door of the initial phase of the Aquatics, Health &

    Fitness Facility.

    .

    Because of the prominence and sensitivity of that site, Board guidance

    emphasized the need for exceptional architecture and design.

    in keeping with

    current County policies on sustainable design and energy conservation, the Facility will be

    designed to a LEED Silver level with additional emphasis on energy efficiency.

    .

    Because of the prominence and sensitivity of that site, Board guidance

    emphasized the need for exceptional architecture and design.

    room for cardiovascular and weight equipment, plus two group exercise rooms. Large,

    bright, airy public lobby spaces will provide gathering areas, restrooms and vending of healthy

    snacks for facility and park users.

    ) this phase’s costs include the start of the development of the north end of the Park —public gathering areas, trails, public art, interpretive signs, and walkways will be constructed; and the Esplanade will be continued to the front door of the Aquatics, Health & Fitness Facility.

    .

    Because of the prominence and sensitivity of that site, Board guidance

    emphasized the need for exceptional architecture and design.

    in keeping with

    current County policies on sustainable design and energy conservation, the Facility will be

    designed to a LEED Silver level with additional emphasis on energy efficiency.

    .

    Because of the prominence and sensitivity of that site, Board guidance

    emphasized the need for exceptional architecture and design.

    begin the development of the north end of Long Bridge Park. Public

    gathering areas, trails, public art, interpretive signs, and walkways will be constructed. The

    Esplanade will be continued to the front door of the initial phase of the Aquatics, Health &

    Fitness Facility.

    .

    Because of the prominence and sensitivity of that site, Board guidance

    emphasized the need for exceptional architecture and design.

    in keeping with

    current County policies on sustainable design and energy conservation, the Facility will be

    designed to a LEED Silver level with additional emphasis on energy efficiency.

    .

    Because of the prominence and sensitivity of that site, Board guidance

    emphasized the need for exceptional architecture and design.

    family cabanas, staff offices, short term child care, party rooms,

    and meeting rooms

    ) this phase’s costs include the start of the development of the north end of the Park —public gathering areas, trails, public art, interpretive signs, and walkways will be constructed; and the Esplanade will be continued to the front door of the Aquatics, Health & Fitness Facility.

    .

    Because of the prominence and sensitivity of that site, Board guidance

    emphasized the need for exceptional architecture and design.

    in keeping with

    current County policies on sustainable design and energy conservation, the Facility will be

    designed to a LEED Silver level with additional emphasis on energy efficiency.

    .

    Because of the prominence and sensitivity of that site, Board guidance

    emphasized the need for exceptional architecture and design.

    begin the development of the north end of Long Bridge Park. Public

    gathering areas, trails, public art, interpretive signs, and walkways will be constructed. The

    Esplanade will be continued to the front door of the initial phase of the Aquatics, Health &

    Fitness Facility.

    .

    Because of the prominence and sensitivity of that site, Board guidance

    emphasized the need for exceptional architecture and design.

    in keeping with

    current County policies on sustainable design and energy conservation, the Facility will be

    designed to a LEED Silver level with additional emphasis on energy efficiency.

    .

    Because of the prominence and sensitivity of that site, Board guidance

    emphasized the need for exceptional architecture and design.

    • moiraeve1

      I want to know what they’re going to charge for all this.

×

Subscribe to our mailing list