Over the weekend School Board Chairman Robert DuPree & I received a form letter from about 20 people regarding the purchase of some land in South Riding for a new High School and Middle School. According to one correspondent, the information came from the organization Campaign for Loudoun's Future. The letter went like this, few writers added any of their own words to it:
Dear Vice Chair Stevens,
Thank you for working to ensure that Loudoun County Public Schools remain among the best in the nation. I am concerned that the current system for new school site selection is flawed, leading to overpriced, poorly sited locations that don't meet the goals of the Comprehensive Plan for neighborhood schools.
It doesn't make sense for Loudoun taxpayers to continue footing an unnecessarily high bill for these new schools, and for our kids to keep suffering boundary changes. With so many new schools needing to be built, I urge you to closely examine the process and find ways to reform the process.
Sincerely,
I treat each of these letters as the heartfelt position of an individual, even if the words are not individualized. Nonetheless my response to the same letter over and over again is the same. With so many people interested I thought I'd save others the time by placing it here. First though, I'd like to share with you Mr. DuPree's response (with his permission).
Thank you for your email voicing some concerns about school site acquisition policies and processes. I also appreciate the kind words regarding our work to make Loudoun County Public Schools among the finest in the nation. Inasmuch as I received virtually identical emails from some other individuals who live in various places, I thought I would respond to all of you and provide you with some factual information you might not have been made aware of.
On the matter of long-term reform for the future, you will be pleased to know that I am to begin meeting soon with Supervisors Burton and Buckley to brainstorm on
whether and what changes might be warranted to the current process. Loudoun County Public Schools does have some definite ideas about improving the process so that the school system can keep up with the growth of enrollment caused by factors that are completely beyond our control (the economy, job growth in the area, previous land use decisions by the Board of Supervisors and the demographics of our population which has caused our birth rate to far exceed the national and state averages). Indeed, a recent outside audit of our school system concluded that the most important thing that could be done to improve school operating efficiency and achieve savings would be for the Board of Supervisors to reform the land acquisition and approval process in order to allow the School Board to move forward with greater speed and certainty on school sites. I look forward to discussing these matters with the Supervisors.Please know that under the current policies and plans established by the Board of Supervisors, that Board determines the school system’s budgets for land acquisition, school construction and overall school operations. The Board of Supervisors also establishes the county’s land use plans and policies. So they already have established the parameters for our decision-making in school site selection and, as such, the School Board is seeking to build a middle school and high school at the Lenah site in Dulles South within the above constraints already set by the Board of Supervisors.
With this in mind, you should know that the land we are purchasing for these schools is 20% BELOW the budgets which were previously approved by the Board of Supervisors and by the voters. So we are clearly in conformance with the budgets already set by the Supervisors and approved by the voters.With regard to location under the county’s plans, according to the official report of the Loudoun County Government professional staff (not the school staff), which is charged with advising the Board of Supervisors and Planning Commission on whether an application meets the requirements of the county’s plans, the county staff has concluded that "the proposed Special Exception and Commission Permit for Middle School and High School use and associated accessory uses are consistent with the existing land use policies of the Revised General Plan for the Subject area (Transition Policy Area)." Indeed, the county staff correctly notes that the Revised General plan
for the Transition Policy Area does call for public schools in the Transition Policy area. Finally, the staff report states that, "as the proposed middle school and high school are centrally located to serve existing and future students residing within the Transition, Rural, and Suburban Policy, staff finds the location of the proposed schools is in conformance with Plan policies."County staff has also concluded that the application is in accordance with the Revised 1993 Zoning Ordinance. Indeed, nearly every single issue or concern that was raised over the past year by the various county referral agencies has been resolved according to the staff report. There are only a few outstanding transportation issues that are still under discussion, and we look forward to addressing them with the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors. Keeping in mind these few remaining issues, the staff report indicates that county staff "finds that the proposed Middle School and High School, as designated facilities with the School Board CIP, are in substantial accord with the Comprehensive Plan, and therefore (staff) supports the approval of (a) Commission Permit for the proposed public facilities."
Thanks for writing, and I hope these facts are helpful to you.
Robert
Robert DuPree
Chairman & Dulles District
Representative
Loudoun County School Board
Tomorrow I'll post my own response to these letters, and on Wednesday I'll post a links to online information from LCPS and the County that you may find useful. On Wednesday evening the Planning Commission holds its first public hearing on matter.

10 Comments:
Have your Staff prepared a quantitative long-term cost comparison of these (and other viable) sites, including transportation over the life of these facilities? Until you do, I think you are NOT meeting your fiduciary responsibilities. I ask, why didn't Planning find the Lambert site? That alone demonstrates your siting process flaws. The only change LCPS wants to implement in the process is to remove legislative checks and balances so you can do as you please. Do the life-cycle cost analysis and then come back to the taxpayers and tell us Lenah makes sense. Tell Dr. Adamo to make realistic projections on his referrals and provide area-specific, up-to-date numbers of children generated from developments and quit pandering to developers. Until then, treat all students in this County the same - as you do western children and let their high school populations expand to 2200 students. I have run out of patience for your politics, spendthrift decisions, lack of scrutiny of Administrators and severe lack of equitable decisions on behalf of all the children in this County.
Just because the price is 20% cheaper than the inflated budget Hatrick proposed and BOS approved, doesn't mean $20M is a value.
Just because it "meets criteria" doesn't mean it is a wise decision.
On both counts your "logic" sounds like something I hear from my teenager!
Don't expect me to approve your bonds when you show such disregard for saving my money.
Have your Staff prepared a quantitative long-term cost comparison of these (and other viable) sites, including transportation over the life of these facilities?
Cost comparisons are done from acquisition through the completion of construction. The variance between projects in this phase goes to the tens of millions. Variances in transportation costs for a regional school aren't on the same scale and would not produce a significant difference.
I ask, why didn't Planning find the Lambert site?
Actually, LCPS Planning did identify the Lambert site, but it was the subject of a rezoning application which automatically takes it off of our list. Its rezoning application was pulled only recently.
John, unless you show your work, the teacher won't give you credit!
Quit saying words and provide numbers to the public AND how they were generated. How in the heck can you say, "Variances in transportation costs for a regional school aren't on the same scale and would not produce a significant difference" without EVER DOING the evaluation? The school will hopefully be there for 50 years!
I hope you learn your lessonS on this debacle before you spend a DIME of my taxes doing site studies on any other new school sites!
Don't you see that something is wrong with the acquisition system if you don't at least make offers on sites in a rezoning process? That alone would seem to disqualify HUNDREDS of viable sites throughout this County. Didn't you take an oath to the residents of this County - or is your allegiance to the Administration? Work to improve, instead of defend.
John, do you have fiduciary responsibilities?
I'm being serious here. It is not in your mission statement.
That's why I want to see the mission statement changed for the School Board and the administration.
Edmund, that is a fair question and I think you should look to §22.1-79 of Virginia's state laws. It it titled "Powers and duties" and begins with "A school board shall:"
Among the items is
"take care that they are conducted according to law and with the utmost efficiency;" To my knowledge this is all the law says about the subject.
Now you & I may interpret this differently. A reasonable person might read this to mean "as cheaply as possible." In my budget posts I make the case for what I believe, that every available metric shows that LCPS provides excellent educational opportunities for less per pupil than most districts provide a merely adequate education. That is how I define efficiency and interpret the law.
Sarah, I do show my work, via this blog. But every document and work product produced on isn't posted here. Much of it is on the LCPS website or the County's website and I try to point people to the correct resources. When it isn't available there the appropriate resource is the Public Information Office (571-252-1040) and most documents are available to the public upon request under our state's fantastic Freedom of Information law.
Please provide a web link to the cost comparison ANALYSIS (with references cited and preferably links to them) that you suggest has been prepared for transparency of government. I just looked and saw no such cost comparison on LCPS' Planning website listing of Lenah SPEX documents - thanks for wasting my time waiting for all those files to open looking for it. Many others are asking for this information too. I would hope this documentation has already been compiled and summarized for the Planning Commission/Supervisors so they may make informed decisions without wasting their time looking for backup information. Don't you see that by not making these documents READILY available to the public (ALL files not some as you indicate exist somewhere) you look like you are hiding something? For you to suggest Mr. Byard's office prepare separate FOIA responses for each inquiry appears extremely wasteful of his valuable time. That's ridiculous for an issue of this stature.
Sarah, I've got the whole package on Lambert, plus some paperwork that I gleened from another friend that the LCSB does not, or want to, offer on the matter.
Sarahnon2stinger--just told Dean on the Living in Loco that I finally understand the answer you seem to be unaware of or choose to ignore: FOIA does not compel a public body to CREATE records.
You are asking for a change in process: that your desired information be collated and presented how you see fit, not how different departments track and record the issues for which they are responsible.
If a member of the body demands something be done to suit them, it can require an action by the body to devote the resources to it.
You really seem to be seeking a change in the process.
Fine, but legally it isn't going to change in the middle of one application.
Nice comment, by the way, and very different from your reply when I asked you that question on another blog:
"treat all students in this County the same - as you do western children and let their high school populations expand to 2200 students."
Wow. So you do want the current stymied mess in Purcellville enacted countywide?
Sounds really fiscally responsible to me.
Barbara Munsey
Post a Comment