from reader Brian Shiflett

{ movie:'http://media.loudounextra.com/loudoun/swf/headerBug.swf', id:'headerBug', width:'212px', height:'78px', vars:{ emailClick:'http://loudounextra.washingtonpost.com/mobile-email/', phoneClick:'http://loudounextra.washingtonpost.com/mobile-email/', weatherClick:'http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/weather?zipcode=Leesburg%2C+VA&local=true&Submit.x=0&Submit.y=0&Submit=Submit' }, params:{ base:'http://media.loudounextra.com/loudoun/swf/', wmode:'transparent' } }

Supervisors Kill Deal for Schools Site

Article Tools

Share This +

By Sandhya Somashekhar (Contact)

Originally published at 11:47 a.m., July 2, 2008
Updated at 2:49 p.m., July 2, 2008

All Advertisers

The Loudoun County Board of Supervisors voted Tuesday to reject a request by the school district to buy 174 acres in Ashburn to build three schools, saying that the deal struck by school officials was too costly and that the process for buying land for schools was flawed.

School district officials had agreed to pay $11.5 million for the property. But the county had assessed the land at dramatically less, $2.6 million. Supervisors also said they were troubled that the district's offer included an additional $2 million. They asked the school district to return to the owner and renegotiate the price.

But school district officials said the assessor has underestimated the market value of the property. They said the land was a good value, partly because it would provide the economy of scale of building three schools on a single site. They added that by paying $2 million more than their appraiser's estimate, the county would avoid having to condemn the property against the owner's will, an expensive legal maneuver.

"I'm disappointed," said Sam C. Adamo, director of planning and legislative services for Loudoun schools. Because Tuesday's vote requires the school district to pull out of a contract, "I think it's going to have a really significant impact on our ability to purchase land in the future," he said.

The dispute is the most recent in a string of disagreements between the school district and the county board, which holds the purse strings. County officials also criticized the School Board this year for requesting a $117million funding increase in the face of one of the tightest county budgets in decades.

INTERNET ENHANCED

Related Coverage

County officials also have been frustrated with the cost of the schools being built by the district, which expects to add as many as 18 schools over the next six years to keep up with enrollment growth. The 50,000-student district expands by about 3,000 students each year, enough to virtually fill an elementary school, middle school and high school.

The acrimony comes despite a concerted effort by the supervisors to ease tensions between the two bodies, which have sometimes been at odds over financial issues.

"I have worked very hard to establish a rather positive working environment with the School Board and the school staff, and I hope this action today doesn't poison the well," said Supervisor Jim Burton (I-Mercer).

School Board Chairman Robert F. DuPree Jr. (Dulles) said he also hoped that Tuesday's vote was not a bellwether for future relations.

"The School Board and Board of Supervisors in the past have historically worked together well," he said. "I hope this is just a one-time deviation from that pattern and does not signal something is terminally broken in the relationship."

Also Tuesday, the board voted to take an inventory of the available properties across the county that might be suitable for schools. The hope, they said, was to provide more information to Loudoun residents and to the board, which they said is often informed about land purchases at the last minute.

Supervisor Andrea McGimsey (D-Potomac) said she was troubled by what she said was a pattern of difficulties in acquiring land for schools. In a memo to her fellow supervisors Tuesday, she noted several controversies, including a dispute in Purcellville over a proposed high school. The Virginia Supreme Court is deciding whether the school district can build Woodgrove High School near the town against its wishes.

"I am not questioning whether we should or should not have bought the parcels involved above," she wrote. "These controversies have, however, made me think hard about my role and accountability to the taxpayers and students of Loudoun County."

Tagged: development, growth, school board, schools

Comments:

Note: LoudounExtra.com does not necessarily agree with comments posted below — responsibility lies with the relevant reader alone. Peruse our reader agreement and privacy policy

"School district officials had agreed to pay $11.5 million for the property. But the county's assessor had estimated that the land was worth dramatically less, $2.6 million."

Remind me again why the school district screams for more and more money every year. Is it to purchase land at more than four times what it's worth?

Posted by foobar2 (anonymous) on July 2, 2008 at 12:31 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Foobar2 - I had to read it a few times myself but I believe the intended message is that the land was assessed at a value that is $2.6 million less than the $11.5 million offer from the schools. So the assessor's value of the land was $8.9 million and it's not that the land was assessed at a value of $2.6 million.

Posted by Ashburn20147 (anonymous) on July 2, 2008 at 1:16 p.m. (Suggest removal)

No, Foobar2 got it right. The land was assessed for 2.6 Million, total.

Posted by elizmiller (anonymous) on July 2, 2008 at 1:57 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Instead of trying to get responsible people in the district, we need to just cut their budget by about 30% and not allow them to spend a penny more.

Posted by Hoqenishy (anonymous) on July 3, 2008 at 6:52 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Lots more to this story--there is a difference between assessment and appraisal, first of all.

One of the other articles I read on this had more information about the difference--one has to do with current use, and if this property is currently in land use then that should tell someone something about our skewed tax structure!

The same game was run on the school site Ridgewater Park offered--a handful of ten acre lots with no utilities shows a very different picture of value than a site with more complex development and modern amenities. (Which is why the idea of moving all new schools into the suburban policy area, through condemnation if necessary, is a real howler from people spouting righteously about fiscal responsibility)

In addition, the article included information from this year's budgeting process, and the fact that several supervisors voted last month to NOT release funds for school things they voted to FUND a few months before that. Did some of the newbies vote without reading the staff report?

I am more concerned that a handful of people off the Campaign for Loudoun's Future e-mail list (including transition zone activist/contributors who were rewarded with county positions, and did not bother to disclose them when speaking against school sites; the Dulles rep to parks and rec even spoke against a rec application) showed up to recite the talking points on behalf of the transition zone, and Mr. Miller called it "substantial public input" when calling the question on his maneuver to freeze all schools in Dulles.

A lot of partial info and outright disinfo is being stirred around.

But with CLF, so what's new?

Here is the Leesburg Today article that covered the start of this current storm:

http://leesburg2day.com/articles/2008/07...

I think it bears reading for some background info.

Posted by BarbaraMunsey (anonymous) on July 3, 2008 at 7:57 a.m. (Suggest removal)

In addition, the L2Day article points out that staff recommends approval because doing three schools on this site REDUCES future site acquisition from the current six year plan by $28M.

Funny, it looks like spending $8M will save $28M.

Hmmm.

Posted by BarbaraMunsey (anonymous) on July 3, 2008 at 8:01 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Sweetheart deals to greedy land speculators takes money away from providing a quality education. The School Board has a lot more sites to buy and this sends the message that they will pay any price and taxpayers be damned. The Northern Virginia Public Corruption Task Force needs to look at who is writing these appraisals and the conflicts of interest they have with big landowners. When Greenvest appeals its taxes on one hand and wants to gouge our schools for the same property, something is wrong.

Posted by councilmemberholmes (anonymous) on July 3, 2008 at 10:17 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Attention: Board of Supervisors: Please increase my TAXES again so the School can buy property they will not build schools on. Thank you can I have another!

Posted by Funnyguyva (anonymous) on July 3, 2008 at 10:32 a.m. (Suggest removal)

(former?)councilmemberholmes, it sounds like you get the emails too.

The Rouse property belongs to the Rouses, not to Greenvest.

A woman doing the talking points at public input Monday night said she was appalled that public money was being used to extend utilities for Greenvest--again, the Rouse property is different than Greenvest.

The Lenah property is Greenvest land, but the utilities are already there, and not paid for with tax dollars. Water and sewer are legal in the transition area, and the lines have been extended for by-right development (read more impact with no mitigation whatsoever) which will occur whether a school is built there or not.

No wonder everyone is so confused, with even Ms. McGimsey saying from the dais that these properties remind her of the CPAMs. (Are the talking points still coming from there? It will be interesting to see her former employers' 990s for 2007 when they become available; any bets that significant payments were made to the "consulting firm" Sidewalks and Cyberspace? Stay tuned.)

This is the same land, but now that even a discussion of planning growth in that area was unacceptable, this is what happens next: we buy what is available to mitigate the impact of existing growth, exacerbated by the flood of by right.

Posted by BarbaraMunsey (anonymous) on July 3, 2008 at 2:10 p.m. (Suggest removal)

We all need to leave the conspiracy theories behind. Clearly, the BOS on a fluke decided to take a further look at this purchase. The system is broken at both the BOS and LCPS levels of government. Neither body is doing their job.

Posted by LoudounModerate (anonymous) on July 4, 2008 at 5:40 p.m. (Suggest removal)

moderate, if by conspiracy theories you mean that the county is paying for utilities and roads to Greenvest, that this means the CPAMs are coming back, and so on, I'm with you.

It is not a conspiracy theory that Ms. McGimsey lied about her employment as a lobbyist. She referred to herself as a "concerned citizen" and wept on the record at being accused of being paid, throughout 2004 and into 2005.

She only began to identify herself as an employee in mid-2005, after the 990s were filed for 2004, which showed she had received a total of $65K compensation for her "concern".

It has been noted by others than myself that it is odd for an internet consulting firm to have no web presence. The only listing for Sidewalks and Cyberspace I have ever seen was her former employer's reference to that term in relation to her work for the Campaign for Loudoun's Future--the work she denied being paid for until tax forms made it undeniable.

I plan to read the 990s for 07 when they become available--any lobbying group with an annual budget in excess of $5M bears watching, even if the sole reason for their existense is "the greater good".

Posted by BarbaraMunsey (anonymous) on July 4, 2008 at 6:04 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Barbara,

The conspiracy theories I am talking about is the stuff that people spew that somehow this is a secret developer deal etc. Ultimately, these all are public transactions so that kind of talk goes out the window. The bigger concern for all regardless of where folks are with respect to development, roads etc. is the apparent disconnect between the BOS and the LCPS with the community. It is amazing to me that a $11 million plus deal was on an Administrative Items report among other items. The County/School Committee has been a bust so far and it appears that the BOS has no clue whatsoever as to how to address the overarching fiscal/land use planning issues.

Sincerely,

Posted by LoudounModerate (anonymous) on July 5, 2008 at 12:21 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Thanks for the clarification, LM.

Scott York was absolutely correct in remarks on Item 17 last Tuesday, in stating that partial information does not serve the public well--will in fact lead some to believe that some alternatives are real when that may not be the case.

I think Mr. Miller did Ms. Chaloux no service in referencing her by name and her request for a Dulles land survey in his agenda item language, because as the staff report has not yet been issued on the Lenah site SPEX, she is jumping the gun by opposing the site.

She is charged to review land use dispassionately, with an open mind, and opposing the site in advance of a staff report--which will give the county position on compliance with the plan and other issues--would indicate she may need to recuse from the SPEX, as it is apparently too personal an issue for her.

In addition, freezing sites in Dulles for the personal agenda of some contributor/appointees, until some future pie-in-the-sky policy on condemning land in PUDs is finalized, is little different than the 99 BoS applying RSCOD to public use sites in advance of their adoption of that policy (which was later invalidated by the VA Supreme Court).

The middle school at Lenah has already been approved by the voters, the site acquisition budget has already been approved, and the sites must move forward and be evaluated under existing policy and process.

Posted by BarbaraMunsey (anonymous) on July 5, 2008 at 1:20 p.m. (Suggest removal)

To follow up on the proposed Lenah school site
"The Lenah property is Greenvest land, but the utilities are already there, and not paid for with tax dollars. Water and sewer are legal in the transition area, and the lines have been extended for by-right development (read more impact with no mitigation whatsoever) which will occur whether a school is built there or not."

Im certain there are no utlities on the Lenah Site. The community north of the site, is on a Community well system, and septic. And Lenah Road, is gravel where the proposed entrance is. Currently, just cornfields and cows...

Posted by scooterama (anonymous) on July 7, 2008 at 11 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Greenvest is laying the utilities in the area, on their land. They may not be on the proposed school site yet, but they are going in.

It was apparent at the Mercer community meeting that the motivation of small percentage of people was to get the schools to pick up the tab for utilities hookup--the Lenah Run community forum has had bulletins posted reminding people in the front of the community not to water their lawns too much, or the people in the back have no water pressure.

Greenvest is growing corn and keeping cows? Are they in land use? If they're actually farming, they should be in land use--lord knows plenty of people who have nothing but a big yard get a land use write-off for "open space"...

Posted by BarbaraMunsey (anonymous) on July 7, 2008 at 6:38 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Quote was as follows...
"The Lenah property is Greenvest land, but the utilities are already there"
If you have an opportunity, please take a drive past the proposed site and try to find the utilities. Kind of a "wheres Waldo" scenario... I cant confirm the cows though.

Posted by scooterama (anonymous) on July 7, 2008 at 10:28 p.m. (Suggest removal)

scooterama, the pipes have been moving out Braddock and into raw land for months. If the deal is consummated for the site, Greenvest will put them on site. I'll go look, because though they may not yet be laid on what will become the pad site for the schools, they are definitely out there and being paid for by Greenvest--not the county.

Sorry, I took your "cornfields and cows" comment too seriously.

Kind of like when 26 people came to speak against the Grubb property in western Loudoun, and every single one of them said that a school would destroy everything if placed there, because there was absolutely nothing near the Grubb property but working farms which would be ruined if such a massive disruption as a school were placed in that pristine area....and every one of the 26 knew this for a fact because every single one of them lived right across the street from the site.

Posted by BarbaraMunsey (anonymous) on July 8, 2008 at 12:36 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Dont have an account? Sign up!