Printer-Friendly
Email this Story
Post a Comment (5)
How we got to Wheatland
At the November 13, 2008 meeting of the Joint Committee of the Board of Supervisors and School Board, members of both boards discussed, along with staff, a new process for acquiring land for schools. This process was to give the Supervisors up-front approval of land sites before LCPS entered into negotiations with property owners. This process was followed over the past six months and resulted in a contract on the Wheatland property. The meeting transcript is available online. I thought I'd go back and revisit some of what was said. The emphases in the text are mine. I have provided strike-throughs where I have changed individual words from the original transcript to reflect what I believe was actually said.
(Assistant County Administrator) Paul Brown
What we are requesting permission to do is to try this for the next six months, so that you have plenty of time to tell us what’s working and what’s not working, what need to change, and a that period we would come back and say here’s a final recommendation on the process, so that you could forward to both boards for action to carry on from there.
The materials that we brought to you [the Board of Supervisors] in the briefing would be a complete overview of the current assessed value, the sellers’ asking price, the actual budget that was established to purchase the property. So within the frame work of that, you would be having a discussion of are you comfortable with that range. And it was understood by everybody on that subcommittee that if the seller picked a price above the budget range, or above a threshold that you all had a consensus about in closed session, the school board would have to come back to you and discuss that before they could execute the contract at the price level.
They are not bringing you one piece of property. When they come to brief you, you are going to get an array of anywhere of between three to then, or twelve, fifteen parcels. Every parcel that was evaluated.
Supervisor Jim Burton
I believe that if we go about this briefing process correctly, our staff and there their staff fully understand what is going on, and we as a board get briefed on the sites that they have looked at, the sellers asking price, the budget for the purchase, and the accessed assessed value, that during that discussion we expect to set parameters for negotiations. And if they go beyond those parameters of feel that they have to, they would have to come back to us.
...
I think that where the majority of the change is in the beginning. That we get together and have a meeting of the minds on whether to march down this road towards this site or that site by looking at all of them before hand
...
But once we’ve settled jointly between us boards on a site, and allowed them to go forward and negotiate a price, once that price is agreed to and if it meets the parameters we gave them, then there will be more than apple opportunity for the public to comment.
Robert DuPree
As Mr. Burton said, if something deviates significantly, then yes, it has to come back and be vetted and make sure we are all on the same page. But I do want to us to try figure out what is that threshold and we may not be able to define it, but [it] can’t just be because somebody changes their mind on either board. We’ve got to have a degree of certainty that once two boards have joined hands together and are moving forward on this process, we can move forward on this process.
John Stevens
Under this process, would the BOS be able approve a specific site from for initiation negotiation, and then have the School Board put the site under contract, and then have BOS subsequently deny a Special Exception for that site?
Jim Burton
All things are possible. I would not envision that happening. But you never know what’s down the road after you do go through your due building diligence processes. You may discover all kinds of bodies on the site. Who knows? It’s possible, but it would be highly unusual.
John Stevens:Much more to come.
Under this process, can the BOS insist on a particular site for a school without of the consent of the School Board?
Paul Brown:
No. I think what they will be giving you feedback on is the sites that they don’t want you to go to, which will put you in the position of having to come back to them with another site that they are more comfortable with.
The MS10/HS10 briefing package obtained by Sarah Stinger under FOIA really doesn't look anything like what Paul Brown promised.
Read it here: http://tinyurl.com/oktl7r
This briefing packet is an astonishingly shallow set of data for our supervisors to make an $11.4 million decision.
Paul Brown: "The materials that we brought to you [the Board of Supervisors] in the briefing would be a complete overview of the current assessed value, the sellers’ asking price, the actual budget that was established to purchase the property. So within the frame work of that, you would be having a discussion of are you comfortable with that range. ...
They are not bringing you one piece of property. When they come to brief you, you are going to get an array of anywhere of between three to then, or twelve, fifteen parcels. Every parcel that was evaluated."
Posted by dan_s
Report Offensive Content
There is nowhere "ample time to comment" if the land is purchased before any substantial studies have even begun. To spend $11 million and THEN find out if a special exeption is possible seems like high stakes gambling. Not appropriate with public dollars.
Posted by EMP
Report Offensive Content
Problem is that they've put the cart before the horse... buy the land and then see if it is suitable for a school... if not, oh well... we'll figure out something else to do with the land... That type of thinking costs the taxpayers a lot of unnecessary money and is not fiscally responsible... NOT GOOD... AND I AM NOT PLEASED...
Posted by trankovich
Report Offensive Content
There are willing sellers of sites in Hillsboro (for an elementary school expansion) and in Lovettsville (for middle and high schools). However, LCPS prefers to take the easy road and negotiate for one mega site with Sal Cangiano and spend countless millions$$ building the infrastructure and mitigating the, as yet undefined, impacts. Siting schools is a planning decision and has implications on the region's traffic and economic viability. For the School Board to be making land use decisions like this, particularly when they are so horrendous, is unacceptable. If they insist on acquiring school sites, they need to 1) Read the Comprehensive Plan and 2) Educate themselves on the principles of Smart Growth http://www.epa.gov/smartgrowth/school... . That is, unless they are aligned with the development community to advance sprawl into rural areas which are an important aspect of Loudoun's unique character. If they are unwilling or able to proceed responsibly, the authority to acquire school sites must be taken away from them and handed to the Planning Commission.
Posted by ss
Report Offensive Content
Readers of this blog may be interested in this article.
http://www.publicintegrity.org/articl...
Posted by Sentinel
Report Offensive Content
You must be logged in to post a comment.