When I solicited suggestions for my next column feature, I immediately heard from many firm employees recommending that I feature Lynne Strobel due to her well-known and much respected history of community involvement and her track record of good deeds. Lynne is a land use attorney in the firm’s Arlington Office and is fortunate to now live in Arlington. She grew up, however, in Fairfax County and her practice is focused in Fairfax County. Due to her deep connections to both Fairfax and Arlington Counties, she has made it her mission to contribute to and be involved in both communities.

In Arlington County, Lynne is involved with Doorways for Women and Families, having served on its Board of Directors for six years and as Chair of the Facilities Committee. Doorways operates a family home and Arlington County’s only domestic violence shelter, but its mission is much broader than simply providing emergency housing for women and families in crisis. Since 1978, Doorways has worked to break the cycles of poverty and violence by providing individually tailored programs and services to help every adult and child they serve overcome trauma, build life skills, and ultimately unlock their full potential. Doorways provides counseling services and assists clients with finding employment and improving their financial literacy while working with them to ease the transition into safe and permanent housing of their own.

Lynne explains that she believes it is important for a community to be inclusive of people in various circumstances. “I have learned through my involvement with Doorways that life circumstances can change suddenly, affecting all aspects of an individual’s life. It is important that people have organizations they can turn to during such times. When we strengthen those in our community who are the most in need, we strengthen the entire community.” Lynne’s most rewarding experiences have come from instances when she has been able to help Doorways achieve its mission using the advocacy skills she has honed during her 30 years of legal practice. Several years ago, Lynne played an instrumental role in assisting Doorways in reviewing and negotiating the lease for its new office space. She also assisted in coordinating a partnership effort between Doorways and Arlington Partnership for Affordable Housing, Inc.

Doorways recently began its Revive Domestic & Sexual Violence Counseling Program in Arlington which supports survivors—including adults and children—seeking services due to domestic violence, sexual assault, dating violence, and/or stalking. Lynne is proud to have played a small part in Doorways’ growth and development over the years as the organization continues to reach and assist more Arlingtonians each year.

One of the organizations Lynne is involved with in Fairfax is Celebrate Fairfax! Although Celebrate Fairfax! is widely known for its annual festival, Northern Virginia’s largest community-wide celebration, its mission is the celebration of Fairfax County and its communities. Lynne served two non-consecutive six-year terms on the Board of Directors of Celebrate Fairfax!, and now is a member of the leadership team and scholarship committee, which oversees the Celebrate Fairfax Community Spirit Scholarship Program. The Scholarship Program recognizes and provides scholarships to 10 high school seniors graduating from Fairfax County Public Schools. Recipients are recognized for their community involvement, academic accomplishment, extracurricular activities, and demonstrated leadership.

Lynne enjoys working with many community leaders to ensure the success of the festival. “I enjoy taking time to give back to and celebrate the Fairfax County community where I have done so much work throughout the years. It is fun for me to interact with the members of the Fairfax County Board of Supervisors in a different role.” As a sponsor of Celebrate Fairfax!, Walsh Colucci has also contributed to the success and mission of the annual festival by providing tickets to children and families in Fairfax County who would not otherwise be able to attend the festival.

This year the festival will be held June 9–11 at 12000 Government Center Parkway in Fairfax. Festival programs include local wine and craft brew tasting, a silent disco, a long-running karaoke championship, and eight stages of entertainment and music. Lynne says “I love all of the main stage acts. It’s fun when they bring back groups from the ’80s and ’90s.” This year, the festival offers you a chance to take a stroll (or dance) down memory lane with the bands Bush and Everclear.

Source: Nationals Youth Baseball Academy

While Major League Baseball is already two months into its season, the more important event is coming up: The Third Annual Legal Mushball Classic! On Saturday, June 17 at the Washington Nationals Youth Baseball Academy complex, 20 law firms will battle it out for the coveted Mushball Classic Trophy. Surprisingly, ESPN has opted not to cover this event even though the Mushball Trophy is more coveted than the Stanley Cup, the Super Bowl Trophy, and the National Spelling Bee Trophy combined.

After last year’s surprise second-place finish, the ragtag bunch known as The Land Lawyers returns to try to claim the championship. But mostly just to have fun and represent the firm well. This year’s team will once again be led by General Manager Mark Goetzman, who had some tough decisions to make over the offseason as players like Matt “The Masher” Westover, Mike “The Crusher” Romeo, and myself, Ed “The Suffering D.C. Sports Fan” Encarnacion all requested raises. Mark was able to work out contract deals with the three players and each got a raise of five times their previous Mushball Salary (which was $0). Also returning to the team are Bill Fogarty, Antonia Miller, Amy Friedlander, and Erin Thiebert. (Hopefully, they won’t be upset when they hear about those raises.) And what’s a team without rookies? Bob Brant, Patrick Roche, and Taylor Berry will make their Mushball debut this summer. To my knowledge, no rookie hazing is planned unless you count the requirement to do a rendition of “Take Me Out to the Ballgame” before the first game. The team will also have a couple practices before the event, which is a far cry from the two weeks we had to prepare last year.

In addition to the games, Mushball 2017 will include many other activities like a dunk tank,  arcade games, food trucks, cornhole, a photo booth, life-size Jenga, and more. The event supports the Academy’s mission “to use the sports of baseball and softball as vehicles to foster positive character development, academic achievement and improved health among youth from undeserved communities in Washington, D.C.”

Win or lose, the Land Lawyers look forward to participating in this year’s event and thank you in advance for your support!

Source: WCLW

We are pleased to announce that three attorneys have been named to the 2017 Super Lawyers list and four to the 2017 Rising Stars list. Super Lawyers is a rating service of outstanding lawyers from more than 70 practice areas who have attained a high degree of peer recognition and professional achievement. This selection process includes independent research, peer nominations, and peer evaluations.

For the 11th consecutive year, Art Walsh (Land Use/Zoning and Real Estate Business), Tom Colucci (Real Estate), and John Foote (Land Use/Zoning, Environmental, and General Litigation) appear on the Super Lawyers lists for Virginia and Washington, D.C. Rising Stars include Andrew Painter (Land Use/Zoning), Michael Coughlin (Eminent Domain, Land Use/Zoning, and Real Estate), Chuck McWilliams (Estate Planning), and Nick Cumings (Land Use/Zoning).

Please join us in congratulating our 2017 Super Lawyers and Rising Stars.

Source: The JBG Companies and Streetsense

After a year-long public engagement process, Alexandria’s North Potomac Yard Small Area Plan Update is near completion. The Plan, when originally approved in 2010, envisioned redevelopment of the 70-acre Potomac Yard Shopping Center into a 7.5-million-square-foot mixed-use project with the proposed new Potomac Yard Metrorail Station as its centerpiece. This density was premised upon the provision of a Metrorail Station but, at the time, the necessary local and federal approvals had not been obtained, the funding mechanism had not been determined, and the feasibility study for the final location of the Metrorail Station had not been performed. The Coordinated Development District zoning associated with the 2010 Plan reflected its conceptual nature and established development scenarios based on the presence of the Metrorail Station.

Fast-forward to 2017 and the City of Alexandria has overcome a majority of the hurdles associated with realization of the Metrorail project: it has obtained the required local and federal approvals, developed the necessary funding mechanisms, and determined the location of the station and its entrances. At the same time, Walsh Colucci’s Cathy Puskar, representing The JBG Companies, has worked with City Staff and the Alexandria community to update the 2010 Plan to accommodate the new northern Metrorail Station entrance as well as JBG’s proposal for the first phase of redevelopment of North Potomac Yard. This coordinated effort was motivated by advantageous timing for both JBG and the City as the expiration of the Regal Potomac Yard Theater lease coincides with the commencement of construction of the Metrorail Station. JBG intends to capitalize on this opportunity by creating a 1.3-million-square-foot, mixed-use urban community including a concentration of retail, as well as residential, office, and hotel uses, to establish a 24/7 transit-oriented development on the theater site at the new Metrorail Station’s front door.

While the fundamental principles of the 2010 Plan remain unchanged in the 2017 Plan, the updates include several improvements to both urban design and community benefits. The 2017 Plan proposes increased open space, including a new neighborhood-serving open space/park, a new plaza that integrates the northern entrance to the Metrorail Station and the mixed-use development, and expansion of the regional Potomac Yard Park. Additionally, the 2017 Plan emphasizes the prioritization of pedestrians, bicycles, and transit over single-occupancy vehicles through urban design, including retention of the existing configuration of Potomac Avenue, allowing the City future flexibility to design an alternative ultimate cross section with future phases. The 2017 Plan has also been revised to reflect the City’s commitment to creation of housing for all income levels by allowing the possibility of bonus density for the provision of affordable housing.

The Planning Commission and City Council will consider the proposed 2017 Plan at their June public hearings. Following the 2017 Plan approval, Cathy Puskar and JBG will work with staff to update the Coordinated Development District zoning and process the Development Special Use Permit applications for the Phase I development. Approval of the 2017 Plan will represent a major step toward realization of the City’s vision for a transportation-oriented, sustainable mixed-use urban development in Potomac Yard.

Source: Public Domain

The Virginia General Assembly concluded its 46-day 2017 session on February 25, 2017, passing more than 1,800 bills and making adjustments to the $107 billion biennium budget to address a $1.2 billion revenue shortfall. Of particular priority, the legislature agreed to retain a three percent salary increase for state employees and a two percent raise for school instructional and support positions. The legislature also provided $34 million to localities for per-pupil spending, restored $20 million in funding for higher education, and maintained the cost-of-competing adjustment for school support positions.

Due in large measure to the fact that all 100 House of Delegates seats and three statewide offices are up for election in November 2017, this year’s session was somewhat less eventful in terms of social issues as compared to prior sessions. Both chambers focused on bipartisan “kitchen table” issues and approved legislation requiring, among other things, health insurance companies to cover 12-month supplies of prescription birth control, and providing local governments increased authority to regulate shared economy home rental platforms.

As was the case in 2016, economic development proved a major issue throughout the session. The General Assembly restored $7.5 million in funding to a private sector growth and job creation effort known as “Go Virginia.” Once operational, the initiative will provide competitively awarded grants for economic development, research, and workforce training projects across the Commonwealth.

Along with its Washington, D.C., and Maryland counterparts, the General Assembly voted to establish an independent “Washington Metrorail Safety Commission,” which will be charged with overseeing safety issues for the Metrorail system. This came after the Federal Transit Administration threatened to withhold money from a range of transportation projects in all three jurisdictions. The General Assembly also passed legislation to force the governor to review the existing Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority Compact regarding governance, financing, and operational revisions.

From a land use perspective, the legislature passed several bills significant to the development industry. Among the most important is HB 1697, which extends to July 1, 2020, the sunset date for commercial or residential subdivision plats, recorded plats, site plans, special exceptions, special use permits, and conditional use permits that were valid and outstanding as of January 1, 2017.

HB 1797 eliminates the burdensome notice requirements for amendments to proffered rezonings under Va. Code Ann. § 15.2-2302 (h), which previously required those seeking a proffer condition amendment to provide written notice of the application to all owners of parcels subject to the same existing proffers. Henceforth, notice for amendments to proffered rezonings will follow the same notice procedures required for rezonings under Va. Code Ann. § 15.2-2302 (b).

The General Assembly also passed land use legislation related to green development zones (HB 1565), payment of delinquent taxes or charges prior to filing land use cases (HB 2469), vested rights related to structures that do not require permits (SB 1173), contractor licensing (SB 1193), waterfront development (SB 1203), and notice of zoning violations (SB 1559). HB 2303 provides clarification to the Virginia Residential Landlord and Tenant act under Va. Code Ann. § 55-248.2, and SB 1034 provides a $5 million limit on the amount of historic rehabilitation tax credits that may be claimed by individual taxpayers.

The legislature also defeated all attempts to modify last session’s Proffer Reform Legislation, which represents the most sweeping change to Virginia’s unique proffer system since it was first created in 1974.

Source: Public Domain

In its 2017 session, the Virginia General Assembly made some modest improvements to the existing eminent domain statutes. The improvements include requiring additional notice of the filing of a certificate of take, shortening the time for filing a petition in condemnation by localities, clarifying that attorney’s and expert fees are clearly recoverable in inverse condemnation cases involving damages to a property, and applying the judgment rate of interest to certain condemnation awards. As for a case law update, one Circuit Court has provided clarity on how a condemnor’s “pre-settlement” appraisal may be admitted into evidence, and determined that testimony regarding the reasonable probability of a property’s rezoning is admissible.

The most helpful bill for landowners is likely HB 2024, which requires a condemning authority to provide written notice of its intent to file a certificate of take “between 30 and 45 days prior to the date on which any certificate will be filed or recorded.” Also, “within four business days of the filing or recording of a certificate, the authorized condemnor shall give notice of such filing or recording to the owner or tenant, if known, of the freehold by providing a copy of such certificate by certified or registered mail.” The provisions amend Virginia Code Section 33.2-1020, which applies to VDOT, and Section 25.1-306, which applies to all other condemning authorities with “quick-take” powers. Previously, there was no set time period for notifying landowners of a condemning authority’s intent to file a certificate of take, and no requirement at all to notify a landowner that one had been filed or to provide a copy.

In SB 927, the General Assembly decided to shorten the time period for the filing of condemnation proceedings by non-VDOT condemning authorities with “quick-take” powers (e.g., localities) to 180 days from the filing of a certificate of take, and to allow landowners to initiate their own proceedings to determine just compensation if the locality failed to do so. For some time, VDOT had to follow this 180-day filing requirement, but condemning authorities like localities had up to one year from the filing of a certificate to initiate condemnation proceedings.

After being vetoed by Governor McAuliffe last year, an amendment to Virginia Code Section 25.1-420 was signed into law. SB 1153 requires the recovery of “reasonable costs, disbursements and expenses, including reasonable attorney, appraisal and engineering fees” for inverse condemnation cases where no property is determined to be taken but a property is damaged by a public project. Previously, the statute suggested these costs were recoverable only when there was a “taking of property.”

Finally, SB 1421 amends the eminent domain statutes to apply the judgement rate of interest to the amount of a condemnation award that exceeds the amount of money paid into court with the filing of a certificate of take or certificate of deposit, or upon entry into the property for the start of the project. Presently, the judgment rate of interest is 6%.

Although there have been no reported Virginia Supreme Court cases since the decision in Va. Elec. & Power Co. v. Hylton, 292 Va. 92 (2016), the Culpeper Circuit Court recently wrestled with several issues regarding what evidence may be considered by a jury or commissioners in determining the just compensation owed to a landowner. In the case of Commission of Highways v. Michael and Gina Helmick, Case No. CL14001271, a case handled by this firm on behalf of the landowners, the taking involved the acquisition of land for the new Route 29 and Route 666 interchange east of the Town of Culpeper.

For some time, the property had been designated “commercial” on the Culpeper County Comprehensive Plan, and was identified as being within the Urban Services Area. Before the taking, VDOT approved an appraisal that concluded the just compensation owed was $296,269 and provided it to the landowner. The first VDOT appraiser concluded it was likely the property would be rezoned prior to the taking and appraised the property accordingly. Then, after the landowner elected not to accept VDOT’s offer and a certificate of take was filed, VDOT hired another appraiser who was going to testify at trial that the just compensation owed was only $22,057.

The primary issues in the case involved the admissibility of (1) testimony regarding the reasonable probability of a rezoning, (2) VDOT’s appraisal provided to landowners before a taking, when VDOT designates a new appraiser to testify at a lower value, (3) testimony involving the types of dedications that may be required as part of a rezoning, and (4) testimony regarding the dedication of land needed for a project (which violates the “scope of the project” rule).

On the Saturday before trial, the Court entered an order that can be downloaded by clicking here. The Court found that testimony regarding the reasonable probability of a rezoning is admissible thereby allowing the landowners’ expert land planner to testify, and allowing the landowners’ expert appraiser to testify about how the reasonable probability of a rezoning influences the value of the property.

The Court also found, relying on the holding in Ramsey v. Comm’r of Hwys, 289 Va. 490 (2015), that the evidence regarding the appraisal for $296,269 that VDOT had prepared as required by Virginia Code Section 25.1-417 (i.e., the “pre-settlement” appraisal), was admissible at trial. In Ramsey, the Court held that the value of the entire property found in the “pre-settlement” appraisal was admissible, but left unanswered the question of admissibility of the appraised amount of the just compensation found in the “pre-settlement” appraisal. The Culpeper Circuit Court’s holding in this case appears to be the first Circuit Court opinion implementing the Ramsey decision. The opinion also extended the rationale in Ramsey to allow the entire appraisal to come into evidence, including the appraised value of the just compensation.

Additionally, the Court held that testimony involving unconstitutional exactions—requested dedications of land or contributions of money for road improvements not needed to mitigate impacts from development on the property—could not be considered by the commissioners. The Court also held that testimony violating the scope of the project rule is inadmissible. The landowners argued that VDOT’s appraiser suppressed the value of the property taken by claiming the landowner would need to contribute funds toward the construction of components of the project, and that this violated the scope of the project rule. The case settled the day before trial, and so it is not known how the Court would have applied the holdings regarding unconstitutional exactions and the scope of the project rule to VDOT’s proffered evidence.

If you require assistance in an eminent domain matter, please do not hesitate to contact Michael J. Coughlin at mcoughlin@thelandlawyers.com or (703) 680-4664.

On January 17, John Foote and Marian Harders, with the able direction of D.R. Horton Project Manager Ines Vega, successfully shepherded a unique rezoning and subdivision variance application through the Board of Supervisors in Warren County. The case presented a complex range of land use and engineering issues that, after much time and effort, achieved unanimous approval by the Board.

Blue Ridge Shadows was originally zoned in 2002 for 225 homes, a golf course, and a commercial component. The entire development obtains access to U.S. Route 340/522 across a single bridge that was built at the outset of the development. Although the County’s subdivision ordinance requires three points of access to a subdivision the size of the approved project, one of those connections had been waived many years ago because of the physical conditions of the property. A second crossing of the run parallel to the highway was not only prohibitively expensive, but there was no available right-of-way. Therefore, a waiver was necessary for this second access point.

There was also a proffered limitation on construction of more than 150 homes until a new road connection was made to Route 340/522. When the Recession struck in 2005–06, however, the once unified project was broken up such that the golf course and commercial component were no longer under Horton’s control. It had become legally (and practically) impossible for Horton to make the road connection required, and so it faced a shutdown of the development even though the roads, sewer, and water lines had been installed for all 225 homes.

The resolution of these and other issues began fully three years ago, but consistently ran into hurdles including opposition from some of the existing residents of the development. Over time, Horton narrowed its focus and sought to rezone only a portion of Blue Ridge Shadows, identified as “Community 2” and comprising the area yet undeveloped. By so doing, the 150-unit cap remains applicable to “Community 1,” which includes almost all of the existing homes in the development, but that cap was lifted for the remaining lots in Community 2. Horton also agreed to designate 42 lots of Community 2 as age-restricted. Because of the impossibility of additional points of access to the development, the Board also waived the last required connection to the highway via a subdivision variance.

Source: Public Domain

It is common practice for individuals and businesses involved in any form of transaction to memorialize the status of their negotiations to ensure there is no misunderstanding between them as to their expectations moving forward. These documents are often referred to as “Letters of Intent” or “Memorandums of Understanding” and are sometimes considered by the parties that sign them as something less than an agreement, but more than a completely non-binding document. As set forth below, however, in Virginia there is no gray area between a written agreement and an unenforceable communication.

Every contract has three core characteristics: (1) an offer for the performance of services or delivery of goods by an offeror; (2) the acceptance of that offer by the offeree; and (3) consideration (i.e., something in return) for the services or goods provided by the offeror. For a contract to be enforceable, there must be mutual assent of the contracting parties to terms reasonably certain under the circumstances.[1] If a written document contains terms that provide for these elements and indicates that the parties to that document intend to be bound by those terms, a court could very well rule that the document is an enforceable contract regardless of what the document is called. In other words, one must never assume a document is not an enforceable contract just because it is called a Memorandum of Understanding or Letter of Intent, or a Term Sheet. There very well could be an enforceable agreement lurking in there.

Likewise, not every document that contains terms for the provision of goods and services is necessarily an enforceable contract. A writing that might otherwise be considered a binding contract is not enforceable if it also states another formal document that is intended to be the only authoritative evidence of the contract will be prepared, approved, and executed.[2] The distinction is not always obvious and could lead to significant damages or lost opportunity.

Last summer, after a five-day trial on a federal government contractor’s breach of contract claim against another contractor, the Fairfax County Circuit Court negated a multimillion-dollar jury verdict award on the basis that no contract existed at all.[3] In that case, the Plaintiff alleged it had entered into a “Teaming Agreement” with the Defendant whereby the Plaintiff would assist in the Defendant’s bid proposal. In turn, certain subcontract work of the bid would be reserved for the Plaintiff by the Defendant. The Teaming Agreement called for the parties to thereafter mutually agree upon the actual scope of work and financial terms. Ultimately, however, the Plaintiff was precluded from work on the bid by the Defendant, which was awarded the contract. In its written decision to overturn a jury’s award for the failure of the Plaintiff to award the Defendant subcontract work on the project, the Circuit Court Judge cited longstanding Virginia law that “for a contract to be enforceable; there must be mutual assent of the contracting parties to terms reasonably certain under the circumstances. Mere agreements to agree in the future are too vague and too indefinite to be enforced.” In the case before the Fairfax County Circuit Court, the judge found that the Teaming Agreement’s open-ended terms regarding the actual work to be performed by the Plaintiff indicated that the parties could not have intended to be bound to any post-award obligations. As a result, no enforceable agreement for work performance in the furtherance of an awarded contract bid existed between the parties to the Teaming Agreement. The Plaintiff contractor had assisted in all aspects of the creation of a successful federal contract proposal but could not claim any benefit from those labors under contract.

Conversely, earlier this month, the Supreme Court of Virginia agreed that a signed document negotiated by parties in litigation entitled a ‘Term Sheet’, was actually an enforceable agreement between the parties.[4] Though the parties clearly contemplated entering a ‘more formal’ written agreement to include additional terms for the full and final settlement of their civil action, the document they signed stated that the parties “executed this Term Sheet” which otherwise contained the core elements of a contract “intending to be full bound by its terms.” The party arguing that the Term Sheet they signed was a mere place holder, learned a tough lesson from the Court.

That lesson, as always, is to never make assumptions about written documents relating to agreement terms and to think twice before signing them. Memorandums of Understanding and Letters of Intent are important documents that assist negotiating parties record the status of those discussions. Parties to those documents should consider having an attorney review them, though, to ensure they are nothing more. Parties should also use counsel to ensure their written agreements contain all of the terms necessary to fulfill all of their expectations regarding the deal between them when it is finally time to complete the deal.

[1] Allen v. Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co., 222 Va. 361 (1981).
[2] Boisseau v. Fuller, 96 Va. 45 (1898).
[3] The case is CGI Federal, Inc. v. FCi Federal, Inc., Case No. Cl 2015-4021 (2016 Va. Cir. Lexis 162).
[4] LongView International Technology Solutions, Inc., et al. v. Terry Lin, et al. Record No. 160228, From the Circuit Court of Fairfax, CL 2014-14312.

Source: Public Domain

Since early 2016, volunteers from Walsh Colucci’s Arlington Office have been participating in the Everybody Wins! DC Power Lunch Program at Key Elementary School. Currently, 14 Arlington employees make the short trip over to Key Elementary School on a weekly or bi-weekly basis to read with a reading buddy. During the month of April, Walsh Colucci will hold a book drive for Everybody Wins with the goal of expanding the program’s book selection at Key Elementary School. Several firm volunteers have shared their experiences and thoughts about Everybody Wins as well as some of their favorite books to read with their reading buddies.

Bob Brant
Land Use Attorney and Everybody Wins Volunteer since January 2016
Grade of Reading Buddy: 2nd
Favorite Book to Read with Reading Buddy: The Freddie Ramos Series by Jacqueline Jules

“I love reading Freddie Ramos with my reading buddy because it’s filled with Spanish phrases that my reading buddy can help me with. It gives my reading buddy an opportunity to switch roles and teach me. I enjoy the reading aspect of the program, but I also like learning about my reading buddy, what his life is like and what he does on the weekends. I like connecting with him on a friendship level.”

Alex Butynes
Legal Secretary and Everybody Wins Volunteer since January 2017
Grade of Reading Buddy: 2nd
Favorite Book to Read with Reading Buddy: The Fly Guy! Series by Tedd Arnold

“My reading buddy is really energetic and outgoing. We talk about the books we read, but we also talk about things going on her life. I think having someone at school to talk to who is not a teacher is a good outlet for her. Reading with my reading buddy really takes me back to when I was a kid!”

Tom Colucci
Transactional Attorney and Everybody Wins Volunteer since January 2016
Grade of Reading Buddy: 2nd
Favorite Book to Read with Reading Buddy: Any book about Spiderman

“My reading buddy is a very engaging young man with a lot of energy. Reading with him is very rewarding. I am very impressed by Everybody Wins and all the kids who participate in the program because it is clear they all really want to be there and are excited to improve their reading skills.”

Ed Encarnacion
Senior Accountant and Everybody Wins Volunteer since February 2017
Grade of Reading Buddy: 3rd
Favorite Book to Read with Reading Buddy: The Captain Underpants Series by Dav Pilkey

“My reading buddy is from Honduras, and in many ways he reminds me of myself. Although I was born in the United States, I lived in the Philippines from ages 2 to 4 where I spoke Tagalog. When I started elementary school, I didn’t know English and had to take ESL classes. It is inspiring to see how much my reading buddy works to improve his reading. It really gives context to my struggles. I remember on the first day with my reading buddy he chose a book about dinosaurs. I couldn’t pronounce half the words in that book. He must have wondered why he was paired up with someone who didn’t know how to read.”

Kim Follin
Legal Assistant and Everybody Wins Volunteer since January 2016
Grade of Reading Buddy: 4th
Favorite Book to Read with Reading Buddy: Matilda by Roald Dahl

“I have a Masters in education, but ultimately chose a different career path. Reading with my reading buddy is the highlight of my day. I think she gets a lot out of it. We both do. She has really improved her reading and grown to love reading. At home she now goes with her family to get books from the library so she is reading three to four library books per week in addition to her school work.”

Amy Friedlander
Land Use Planner and Everybody Wins Volunteer since October 2016
Grade of Reading Buddy: 3rd
Favorite Book to Read with Reading Buddy: Alexander and the Terrible, Horrible, No Good, Very Bad Day by Judith Viorst (Spanish version)

“I have enjoyed seeing the shift in my reading buddy over the year. He has really warmed up to me, and we are now both really excited to be there during each session. He also gets so excited and motivated by the positive reinforcement and prizes that the program provides. I love his enthusiasm. I also enjoy reading books with him in Spanish because he can teach me the vocabulary.”

Angela Halsted
Legal Secretary and Everybody Wins Volunteer since January 2017
Grade of Reading Buddy: 2nd
Favorite Book to Read with Reading Buddy: Anything by Mo Willems

“I love watching my reading buddy learn to read. Sometimes she’ll struggle with big words, so we learn them together and then I feel like she has learned something. With so much going on at the office I don’t always feel like going to reading, but afterwards I’m always so glad I went.”

Nan Walsh
Land Use Attorney and Everybody Wins Volunteer since January 2016
Grade of Reading Buddy: 3rd
Favorite Book to Read with Reading Buddy: The Guinness Book of World Records

“My reading buddy loves reading the Guinness Book of World Records together. We make it into a guessing game, and he is amazed by all the different facts, statistics, and record holders. I think it’s a very well-organized and worthwhile program. Since we began reading together, my reading buddy has really improved his reading.”