As many know, there is a UVA/VATech building right near the GMHS campus. Especially now, people are asking: Can GMHS take advantage of the building and its amenities?
UVA/VaTech Deal
The UVA/VaTech building deal was the winning offer from Falls Church City and Fairfax County in a regional competition to relocate the grad center from its former Merrifield location to its current site. UVA/VaTech has a 40 year lease for $1 per year that started 1995 and expires in 2035. The universities have an option to purchase the property in 2021 (26th year) for $3,350,000 minus a $500,000 credit that was used to renovate the Technology Learning Center in GMHS. For several years, the TLC was a shared space between GMHS and the universities, with classrooms equipped for distance learning.
The purchase price of the land increases by 3.6% each year after 2021. The property is restricted to educational or government use but the universities can sublet to another Virginia institute of higher education. If UVa/Va Tech purchases the property and then sells to a 3rd party after purchase the City gets 33% of the adjustable value.
The universities agreed to provide graduate ed courses to FCCPS staff, up to $25K annually, and we understand that the courses are still being offered today.
“The Whittier Land” Deal
In addition to the university educational center, Fairfax County granted acreage on both sides of Hillwood Avenue to the city (including site of the former Whittier School and first location of the city’s high school [before GM was constructed] and a portion of the Larry Graves fields). As part of the deal, Fairfax County continues to contribute $50K annually to the universities to help offset their operating expenses.
The city sold 9 of the acres it received for about $5 Million and the city had a share of the profits on the subsequent sale of the Whittier land which is now town homes and single family homes. The 9 acres was also used for development of the Marriott Towne Place Suites. The city paid about $300K to demolish the Whittier School. Property taxes and hotel taxes have accrued to the city since the mid-1990s, and the city has had expenses (including school costs) from the students who reside in the townhomes and single family homes along with students that live in the hotel.
The city did not retain the land for school uses on the expectation that proceeds from the sale were badly needed to keep pace with rising school and city operating costs. Attempts to attract other commercial users to the site (before the sale for hotel and residential use) were not successful.
A former employee at the UVA/VaTech center indicates that there are many classrooms, offices, distance learning computers in the current building and is primarily used in the evening. The IB students have been known to use the classrooms for IB exams and other classes. It would appear that we may be able to negotiate an agreement to use the building to offset crowding issues but we have not heard anything from the City or School Board to know if they have inquired about doing this for short or long terms.
Using the UVA/VaTech center for classrooms wasn’t one of the 13 options. Why or why not?
this is a viable solution especially for the next 4-5 years. And, things like a need for SOL testing, potentially putting the Art rooms or the Hybrid=C room in that building makes a lot of sense. More light and more space . I’m sure there are other ideas as well. It’s about getting creative with current options.
Did they look at using the UVA / VA Tech center or not? I would think we could negotiate a deal with them since they are only paying $1 per year.
Not pretty or new enough for many. They want shiny with unaffordable components and a robust cost that they can talk about and show off. It is Many don’t care about or understand the risk or magnitude of $120 million. The criticism and skepticism and frustration expressed by many is justified.
It’s too bad that the School Board didn’t look at cheaper alternatives. I think more people would be inclined to support a referendum that was had a more reasonable price and less risk.
Do the people that think this is a good idea live with such financial risk in their own budget? That’s what I don’t understand. I know many that are voting YES and the live in modest houses, have modest incomes and they watch their pennies wisely and make financial decisions that are realistic. Why they don’t see $120 Million as risky and too much, is beyond my comprehension. Maybe they have a different value system when it is other people’s money.
Sally- The people that think this is a good idea don’t think that they will actually have to hang around to pay for it. I think they probably view the resulting tax bills as a temporary premium worth paying in order to get their kids into a boutique school system. Once the kids are out of school, they plan to cash out to somewhere less expensive. That’s pretty much the kind of place Falls Church has turned into. Part of it is the transiency of the area in general, but I think this mentality has become common.
A lot of people, including me, agree with you. Move here and then leave when you are through with the school system. Rather transient. Tough to remain here and pay the high taxes. Much more of a school district than a city in many ways.
I think you are right, Sal. What they don’t understand is that people who don’t have kids in the school subsidize the school system. If we drive those taxpayers out because we raise the tax rate too high, there are more takers than givers. More importantly, it changes the demographics so we become a town for schools and nothing else. That is not Falls Church or a community if that happens.
“students living in the hotel”? Since when do students live in hotels?
The school data on where students reside list the Marriott and other hotels. I will try to find the link.