Friday, May 8, 2009

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:
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.
Much more to come.

7 comments:

  1. The MS10/HS10 briefing package obtained by Sarah Stinger under FOIA really doesn't look anything like what Paul Brown promised.

    Link Here"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."
    ReplyDelete
  2. Loudoun InsiderMay 9, 2009 08:28 AM
    John, please do keep beating this already deah horse. Do you really want to have a final showdown with the Board of Supervisors over this stinky deal??? The School Board will be destroyed in this battle, with the final nails driven into your political coffins. Please, keep it up.
    ReplyDelete
  3. I'd like to know if the School Board members had full knowledge of all the details that went on with the Miller family in 2006. Dr. Adamo complained about how the public was bad to Mr. Grubb. That is a lie. That responsibility is all LCPS'. The disception and disrepect of the Miller family was even worse.
    ReplyDelete
  4. The thing I remember most about Grubb was the school employee running out there with an already typed out letter for elderly Mr. Grubb to sign stating he didn't want a high school there. And LCPS wasting close to a million dollars studying that land that would never get Planning Commission approval. your tax dollars at work!
    ReplyDelete
  5. A 30-yr resident who knows many of the players noted to me today that LCPS officals aren't dishonest as has been unfairly suggested recently. Their perspective is simply Staff gravitate toward those types of sellers (exactly like Sal Cangiano) that make their job easy. Negotiating with sentimental landowners in residence can be much more difficult. It is all business with a developer. The developer knows the studies that are needed and how to navigate favorably to site approval. Interesting thought. I see the truth in that perspective because LCPS' task of selecting sites is very difficult and yes, it's virtually impossible to make everyone happy. However, citizens have high expectations for Staff and public officials to do their very best, including taking the more tortuous path and be willing to find compromise to select the VERY BEST sites, because Tom Reed's motto says it all, "children first".
    ReplyDelete
  6. As Dan points out, Paul Brown said the BOS briefing would be on "Every parcel that was evaluated." What horse manure... ....the ACTUAL briefing packet only had the 4 responders to the bogus RFP, but LCPS says they looked at all these other sites too. What a sham.
    ReplyDelete
  7. The whole process of obtaining new schools and new school sites is very flawed. Based on what I've been reading, it seems the process is as follows:

    1) The planning commission identifies we need more schools
    2) Somehow the bond gets put onto the ballot in November and the public votes - keep in mind that nobody is going to vote NO on new schools
    3) Once the bond is approved and Loudoun County residents are on the hook for payment, the planning commission goes about the process of finding sites
    4) Once a site is found, the planning commission and school board go into negotiations to buy the land
    5) The BOS has to approve the site and any special exceptions, along with the planning commission

    Seems that the voters should approve the funding only after the site has been identified. It also reasonable to assume that the school board, planning commission and BOS should be working on this together instead of independently - I guess that's what the new subcommittee is going to fix?
    ReplyDelete