Fact-checking Prince William County, VA’s 2019 “mobility” (roads) and “parks” (mostly 3 indoor sportsplexes) bond proposals that could hike each family's taxes hundreds for principal, interest and upkeep

Middle-Class, 2 active Kid PWC rez: Stop $200M Bond Prop Parks Admits has “No Docs” on Main Jobs' Choice, Demand, or cost!

gallery/parks bond speech to pwc bocs, june 18, 2019

Subject:Re: FOIA request for any Parks Dept. follow-up to the June 18 BOCS meeting regarding bond projects, for in advance of June 25 please

Date:Mon, 24 Jun 2019 17:11:28 -0400


To:Jaenicke, Shannon L. <>

Dear Ms. Jaenicke:

Thank you very much! The link did open.

I sincerely appreciate you and your colleagues' work - even under these odd circumstances for a FOIA request - to ensure informed participation and debate on BOCS decisions.

Best, [Me]

On June 24, 2019 4:24:36 PM EDT, "Jaenicke, Shannon L." <> wrote:

hello M[* Citizen],

Here are the responsive documents to your request, between June 18 and close of business today.  Please be sure to see the link.


Shannon Jaenicke 



From: [Me]
Sent: Thursday, June 20, 2019 1:12 AM
To: Jaenicke, Shannon L. <>
Subject: FOIA request for any Parks Dept. follow-up to the June 18 BOCS meeting regarding bond projects, for in advance of June 25 please

Dear Ms. Jaenicke:

    I just now got to watch the recording of the Board's 6/18/19 "Discussion of Bond Referendum Question," which I gather was posted only today. 

    As I remember from the recording, multiple Supervisors expressed interest in more information about the Parks projects, especially on costs, and Mr. Hendler-Voss said he had some basis from which to advise them.  I also remember mention of a vote on finalizing referendum(s) Tuesday 6/25 - although the board agenda for that date is not yet on the Internet.

    So, I hereby request under the Virginia Freedom of Information Act all materials that the Parks Department provides, newly makes available, or points out to any Supervisor(s) after that June 18 meeting (and before their June 25 meeting) that relate to a proposed parks bond.  Except for information that you already sent me.

    I understand FOIA normally allows five business days for a response.  But considering that the issue is of substantial public impact and interest, that the civic-participation timeline is short for reasons beyond either of our control, and that the quantity of information to search would seem to be very limited, I respectfully ask that you send me any release-able materials as soon as possible after they go to a Supervisor - in particular, by Monday June 24 evening.  If something is not disclosable, or if you can't be sure by then, please provide a simple general description of it.

    Please check with me if this would cost more than two hundred dollars, though again I ask that fees be waived due to public interest and absence of a commercial reason for my request.

    (Thank you for the June 6 and June 10 FOIA responses to me - I'm all set on those.)

Best regards, and thanks in advance for considering my request to expedite.


-------- Forwarded Message --------

Subject: Parks' additional FOIA response this afternoon which is relevant to my concerns about their bond

Date: Mon, 10 Jun 2019 14:19:27 -0400

From: [Me]


CC:, Schaal, Mary Beth <>, Jaenicke, Shannon L. <>

Dear Supervisors Lawson, Stewart, Principi and Candland (and staff):

    I just now received the attached additional information from Parks (thanks Ms. Jaenicke) that is relevant to the scanty-planning concerns I wrote you about earlier today.

    I need to digest these later; for now, forwarding FYI.


-------- Forwarded Message --------

Subject: FOIA RESPONSE -[Me]

Date: Mon, 10 Jun 2019 17:51:50 +0000


6/24 Parks FOIA - uPkEep & Pool Quote

Thank you Parks Department for this expedited FOIA response!
Substantively I am concerned that the Boat House (big rowing shell shed) has been added as a $10 million line-item when it is also acknowledged that there is no basis for an estimate.  While the proposal to just take this out of the existing Indoor Sportsplex, Pool and Field House sum, along with one vendor's preliminary proposal for the Pool that came in 25% below the original ballpark figure, underscore that the projects' hazy selection and very rough planning is not ready for a taxpayer commitment.
Meanwhile, the pool may well NOT cover most of its operating costs, and the others may well NOT cover 50%.  The Colgan pool covers less than half and most of even those revenues come from the School Board; the Field House "public private partnership" outline mentions a limited-liability entity to cap the operator's downside, while Indiana's "Grand Park" its powerpoint picture apparently came from resulted in a big bailout by the same taxpayers who presumably first faced high prices to use what they paid to build.