Public Facilities Planning

As I mentioned last week, Supervisors and School Board members of the joint committee were assigned homework this month, plowing through even more reading material than usual. My friends and family who rib me for not reading books should be careful, I probably rjead more words than any two of them combined in any given week.

In this case, we're reading through chapters of the Revised General Plan (feel free to follow along yourself by reading chapters 3, 6-9 and 11). I'm also staring over at the coffee table at the Capital Needs Assessment, which is smiling back at me with its bright yellow glossy cover. I thought I'd jot down some notes as I read through it so that the key information isn't buried in these books.

• The location and design of public buildings, and schools in particular, are of primary importance, play a special role in neighborhoods and communities, and are focal points and social and civic anchors. It is important that their location and design set the highest possible standards. Direct investments into currently developed communities and areas where development is planned.
• [Within the Suburban Planning Area] Locate compatible civic/public uses (e.g. governmental, educational, religious, recreational, and other uses) within High Density Residential areas to help form a neighborhood center around which the residential uses are located and for the efficient use of facilities and services.
• [Within the Transitional Planning Area] Recreational uses, along with civic uses such as churches, community centers, elementary schools, human service offices, library branches, senior cafes and other like uses constitutes the predominant component of non-residential uses within Villages and are necessary to promote a self-sustaining community.
• Schools: Coordinate with the County to identify suitable sites based on the Revised General Plan and its land use and growth policies in concert with the School Board's standards and levels of service as adopted by the Board of Supervisors.
• Schools: Locate at the focus at the attendance area to provide safe and convenient access for students
• Schools: Plan, design and coordinate school-related open space, athletic, and other facilities with the County's parks and recreation programs and facilities along with community services to function effectively as multi-purpose facilities.
• [Within Towns, Villages and Joint Land Management Areas] All planning for schools must focus first on community.
• Families endure the trauma of shifting school boundaries as new students are assimilated into the school system.
• The supply of sites has not kept up with demand or with the school system's construction timetable.
• The County will acquire school sites in advance of the School Board's recognized short and long-term future needs when these sites are not obtained by dedication from developers to minimize school transportation costs and to structure future planned growth.
• Public school sites should be located at the focus of the attendance area and will provide safe and convenient access for students. All public schools will be linked to adjacent neighborhoods by sidewalks or trails on both sides of roadways and crosswalks, and where possible, linked to greenways or tails.
• Whenever possible, new public schools in teh Rural Policy area will be located in or immediately adjacent to the Existing Villages, towns and Joint Land Management Areas (JLMAs).
• The central premise in this [Suburban Community] design approach is that the focuse should be on designing communities rather than individual structures.
• [Village] community cores should include public facilities and amenities such as schools, churches, parks and not big-box commercial uses.

That's plenty for today. If you're following the current school location conflicts between the School Board and the Board of Supervisors, or between the County and Purcellville, you will find plenty of ammunition in here for every side. Before trying to use that ammunition against the other side it would be honorable to first list all of the points that support the opponent's position. Acknowledging that every side has merit, and every side has weakness, might lead to the cooperation everyone has been yearning for.

Capital Planning

Last week's joint meeting between the Board of Supervisors and the School Board was pivotal, I think. For the first time several members of the public showed up to speak, and more were in the audience. A majority of the elected officials and significant representation from the senior staff of both boards were present. It wasn't a huge leap in raw numbers, but it was definitely a different kind of feeling in the room.

At the meeting each elected member was handed a sizable stack of information regarding capital facilities planning, which is drawing keen interest in at the moment given the conflict between the two boards on the acquisition of school sites.

In that packet is a single page that I am finding to be of particular interest. It is the 2008 Capital Facility Standards, which shows that the County has formulas for deciding how many of any given type of public facility are needed based on the county's population.

For instance, the Standards show that for every 25,000 residents there should be a Fire & Rescue Station. With our current population, that translates into 10 Fire & Rescue Stations. We have 11, so previous Boards of Supervisors have met that need. Interestingly there is a separate category for "Fire & Rescue Station West," one for every 10,000 residents. According to the Standards we need four of them, but we have eight. The standards also call for a "Community Park" for every 10,000 residents. That would mean 28 countywide. There are five.

Now I don't want to turn this into a battle between constituencies about who's getting their fair share or who's representative is bringing home the bacon. Everything doesn't grow at equal rates, the system of planned developments and proffers has skewed the distribution somewhat over time and other fiscal and political realities are at play. Instead, reflect that our community's true priorities are reflected not in campaign literature or rhetoric from the dais but in the choices we have made as we have grown so quickly. Until recently Loudoun adequately planned for school capacity, education is a very high priority of our residents. Look over the following non-educational Standards and how they have been met (or not) and see whether you can piece together the priorities:

Where we have what we need, more or less:

Capital Facility	Need	Actual
Animal Shelter	1	1
Health Clinic	1	1
Senior Center	3	3
Respite Center	2	2
Sheriff Substation	4	3
Fire & Rescue Station (East)	10	11

What we have too little of:

Capital Facility	Need	Actual
Libraries (by square feet)	6	4
Mental Retardation Residential Facilities	13	7
Mental Health Residential Facilities	19	12
Regional Park & Ride Lot	12	1
Community Park & Ride Lot	57	16
Recreation Center	4	1
District Park	11	1
Community Park	28	5
Juvenile Detention Center	2	1
Youth Shelter	1	1
Transitional Homeless Shelter	3	1
Emergency Homeless Shelter	3	2

Where we have more than the Standard calls for:

Capital Facility	Need	Actual
Government Office Space (sf)	281,638	706,232
Western Fire & Rescue Stations	4	8

What we just don't have:

• Juvenile Probation Residence (1)
• Teen Center (1)
• MHSA Adolescent Treatment Center (3)
• MHSA Adolescent 16-17 Group Home (3)
• MHSA Adolescent 12-15 Group Home (1)
• Juvenile Assessment Center (1)
• Transitional IL Residence (1)

Something to think about.

Assessment and Appraisal

In my Property Matters post last week, I made a statement that prompted Supervisor Stevens Miller to write to me in defense of Loudoun County Assessor Todd Kaufman. Pretty soon thereafter I received a strikingly similar letter from Supervisor Kelly Burk's aide at Ms. Burk's behest. The statement I made that got the most attention is below:

The assessor is not trained in appraisal methodology and is subject to no accountability for his figures.

Here is Mr. Miller's response, quoted with his permission:

In fact, Mr. Kaufman has informed me that he is, himself, a licensed and certified Virginia appraiser. Further, he holds the Certified Assessment Evaluator designation, which is the highest designation available from the International Association of Assessing Officers. His professional and academic credentials include considerable experience and education in the art of appraisal. Owing to his work, Loudoun county has one of the highest scores in the state for the accuracy of its assessments when they are compared with actual sales.

I had no intention of bringing Mr. Kaufman into this personally. I used his title instead of his name throughout my original blog post. Now though, in having two members of the Board of Supervisors bring him up by name in fervent defense, he becomes the object of attention.

I checked it out with the Virginia Department of Professional and Occupational Regulation, and Mr. Miller is correct that Mr. Kaufman is a Certified Residential Appraiser. This is one of four appraiser license categories under 18VAC130-20-10. Under this license, Mr. Kaufman "may appraise properties of 1-4 residential units regardless of transaction value and non-residential properties with transaction values up to $250,000." In other words, by law Loudoun County and LCPS would be unable to hire him to do an appraisal on the Rouse property, which requires a Certified General Appraiser's license.

So I stand corrected regarding Mr. Kaufman's certification, but not in terms of his ability to provide a professional appraisal of the Rouse property. He is unqualified. Yet the Board of Supervisors changed the future of Loudoun County school children on the basis of Mr. Kaufman's evaluation.

Regarding my statement that Mr. Kaufman is "subject to no accountability for his figures," I was referring to the figures valuing the Rouse property, not to assessments generally. I was unclear last time, so let me be more specific now. The LCPS appraiser must be prepared to defend his appraisal of the Rouse property in a court of law it were to come to condemnation proceedings. Mr. Kaufman only needed to defend his Rouse property numbers to nine part-time politicians who were predisposed to believe him because he was giving them the answer they wanted to hear.

As you read this and as I write it, it can be difficult to keep the terms "appraisal" and "assessment" separate. Mr. Miller himself alternates them in his letter, and I believe that Mr. Kaufman may be using them interchangeably as well in defending himself to the Supervisors, further confusing the situation. Yet assessment and appraisal are entirely different practices. Further, while Mr. Kaufman is certified in appraisal (albeit not in the type of appraisal required for the Rouse property, as noted above), he did not use proper appraisal techniques when providing his spreadsheet to the Board of Supervisors.

I have no question that Mr. Kaufman is qualified to *assess* properties, and that his work is held to very high standards and has achieved noteworthy success. Nonetheless, Mr. Kaufman's numbers on a $11.5M/$9.5M/$5.7M/$2.6M (take your pick) property influenced a public decision when by state regulation Mr. Kaufman’s qualification to *appraise* properties does not extend to non-residential properties of a value over $250,000.

Property Matters

The past two weeks have seen a flurry of activity around buying land for new schools. This is a complex subject and very sensitive. It's sensitive because although I am a big believer in open government, property negotiations cannot be done in the public sphere.

Without writing a post longer than any reasonable person has time for, I cannot explain everything here. What I will do instead is point you to press accounts of the situations and then give you my own rundown of the numbers in question. There are two properties at issue. One is referred to as the Rouse property, the other as the Lenah property. Between them, there is enough space for two High Schools, two Middle Schools and an Elementary School. That's room for nearly 7,000 students.

The best story regarding the Rouse property is by Leesburg Today. It is the most complete, covers the most important facts and gives voice to the most perspectives. The Loudoun Times Mirror published a short piece on the Rouse property that doesn't give you much insight but is a fair summary. Unfortunately it is the Washington Post's abysmal reporting that will get the widest circulation. The Post made a few changes to the online version of its story yesterday, but not before the original text went to print in this morning's Loudoun Extra. I have been assured that corrections will be printed in Sunday's edition but it's a sure thing that few will read them, so I have written also today about how the Washington Post got it wrong.

Finally, the Post ran a short piece on the School Board's contract for the Lenah Property yesterday but you'll get more information in the Times Mirror's earlier stories about parents in favor of and parents opposed to the Lenah site.

So now let's clear some things up. The biggest question is obviously about money. Here's how it breaks down:

#1: The assessed value of the Rouse Property is $2.6 million. That's the basis for the taxes the owner pays.

#2: The county's assessor, the guy whose job it is to set the assessed value, told the Supervisors recently that the property is worth $5.7 million. That's according to the assessor's own spreadsheet and a June 27 memo by Supervisor Jim Burton. Each of these is a public document.

Now the first thing you need to ask yourself is... why is the property is assessed at $2.6 million when the County's Assessor puts the value at $5.7 million?

#3: LCPS's attorneys hired an appraiser. The appraiser puts the value at $9.5 million, writing in a June 25 analysis that "the value of the Rouse property may be understated in our appraisal."

Why is the assesor's valuation radically smaller than the appraiser's valuation? Stated simply, the assessor evaluates thousands of parcels of land quickly. The appraiser evaluates a single parcel of land extensively.

Why take the advice of one over another? In a government acquisition, the appraiser is required to conform to Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice in order to make his appraisal defensible in a court of law should condemnation proceeding ensue. The assessor is not trained in appraisal methodology and is subject to no accountability for his figures. (Retracted, see Assessment and Appraisal post for details).

#4: Based on the appraisal (which came nearly a year before the assessor's evaluation) LCPS reached an agreement to pay $11.5M, more than the appraisal value but less than the cost of any other course of action including condemnation or an alternative property site. The extra $2M is called a premium. From the appraiser:

"Acquisition premiums are frequently paid by condemning authorities to avoid construction delays and condemnation proceedings. The time lost waiting for the results of a trial and the need to find alternative education facilities during the interim are vastly more expensive. As a result... premiums of 15% to 20% may be justified as an additional cost.."

The appraiser also provided an opinion letter to LCPS in response to the Assessor's analysis. This is the document that you need to read, and it is publicly available.

"Finding a tract like the large Rouse parcel with services at or near the property at a value of about $54,000 per acre is nearly impossible. Finding an available site in any one of the major mixed-use planned developments in the same general area... could cost triple or even quadruple acquisition costs[sic]. The benefits of acquiring the Rouse tract at $11.5 million for a single closing for all three schools compared to the potential alternatives noted above make the Rouse acquisition both prudent and financially responsible." (emphases mine)

These documents are in the possession of every School Board member and Supervisor. You can get copies for yourself with a request to the public information offices of either board. I stand by the School Board's decision. Based on the advice of the people who we pay to provide professional, independent, objective advice, I believe that the actions of the Board of Supervisors on the Rouse property will ultimately cost the taxpayers of Loudoun County millions of dollars.

Penny for a Pay Raise: 4 Days Left

Download these budget facts and distribute.

The situation:

• The Loudoun County Board of Supervisors has voted to cut the School Board’s
• funding request by $49.8 Million.
• The adopted tax rate ($1.14) does not provide enough funds for LCPS to give even modest raises to its teachers, staff, custodians and other school employees.
• The supervisors did vote to give County employees a 3% raise.
• Three Supervisors (Buckley, McGimsey, Burk) have voted for a tax rate of $1.15, which will enable the schools to give a 3% step increase to all employees. It is a Penny for a Pay Raise.
• The final vote on the tax rate will be Tuesday morning, April 1st. Supervisors Buckley, McGimsey & Burk need your support to get the last Penny for a Pay Raise.
  

What you can do:

1. Write to the Board of Supervisors and ask them to support a Penny for a Pay Raise: BOS@Loudoun.gov
2. Join the rally at the County Government building in Leesburg on Monday March 31st at 5:30pm. Teachers, custodians, school staff of all kinds and the parents who support them must come and demand that the Board of Supervisors provide a Penny for a Pay Raise, ensuring that teachers and school employees will get a modest raise this year just like other County employees.
3. Thank Supervisors Buckley, McGimsey & Burk for their support of the Penny for a Pay Raise.
4. Let your child’s teachers know that you support the Penny for a Pay Raise.
5. Pass this along to the people you know who want to support our teachers and school employees.

Penny for a Pay Raise: 5 Days left

Last night the Board of Supervisors had a chance to give our teachers a pay raise. They failed. By a 5-4 vote, they approved a tax rate of $1.14, which provides the same number of dollars per student as the previous year's budget but falls $10 Million short of a pay raise for school employees. Adding insult to injury, the Supervisors at the same time voted a pay raise for County employees.

Please take a moment to thank Sugarland's Susan Buckley for standing strong for schools and teachers last night. She stood alone. I am particularly disappointed that Leesburg's Kelly Burk switched her vote after initially voting for the pay raise. I am further disappointed by Andrea McGimsey, who just last week joined Kelly Burk in voting for a tax rate a penny higher that would have funded teacher pay raises.

The fight is not over yet. The final budget vote is in five days.

Please write to Supervisors Andrea McGimsey and Kelly Burk and ask them to add a Penny for a Pay Raise next Tuesday when the final vote comes.

Supervisors Consider Operating Budget tonight

Last night's slog through the CIP, proffers and cross-dais put-downs got us through the CIP and passed a 10% reduction in the budget allocated for building schools in the future.

Tonight they will discuss the schools operating budget, and we know that the School Board request will be cut, but by how much is anybody's guess right now. Today may be your last chance to contact the Board of Supervisors and advocate. I'll be in the Board room again tonight to advocate to keep small class sizes, teacher pay raises, parity across the county and the needs of all of our students. I'll be liveblogging via Twitter again because... well, because I just can't keep my fingers still for that long.

Liveblogging the Supervisors

The School Board cut short its meeting tonight and is present at the Board of Supervisors budget discussion. Primarily they are discussing capital projects, which includes the cost of building schools in coming years. It is possible that they will begin motions on the LCPS operating budget tonight as well. I'll be liveblogging thoughts via Twitter.

Questions for Supervisors

Last week we met with the Board of Supervisors to answer more questions. Overall the tone was much, much better than two weeks prior. I especially thank Mr. Miller, Ms. Buckley and Ms. Kurtz for their helpful questions and remarks. Through it all I thought of some questions that I would ask the Board of Supervisors if they were sitting before our dais:

• When you are looking at School Budgets nationwide, are you aware that you are looking at the budgets of School Boards which set their own tax rates?
• Do you believe that class sizes affect student achievement?
• Do you believe that updated science textbooks affect student achievement?
• Do you believe that employee compensation is related to employee performance?
• Do you believe that lower per pupil cost relates to higher achievement?
• Do you believe that having good schools reduces the impact of an economic downturn?
• Do you believe that good schools enhance the resale values of the homes they serve?
• Do you believe that employee retention is considered to be a good thing?
• Do you believe that coming in under budget is a good thing?

Joint Committee Meeting #1

The first meeting of the joint committee of the School Board and Board of Supervisors was this evening, and was an interesting affair. Each board appointed three members to represent it at the beginning of this month, fulfilling a campaign pledge made by all of the Democratic candidates in the 2007 election.

I took a lot of notes on what was said by everyone, and I’m a little reluctant to transcribe them for some reason, but I shouldn’t be. It was a public meeting, audio recorded and with citizens and a reporter present. I’m not offering any comment here, just the notes I took. Discuss.

By the way, you won't see many comments from me below, because I didn't take notes while I was speaking.

• Tom Reed raised the issue of himself and Sally Kurtz being co-chairs instead of Sally as Chair and Tom as Vice Chair.
• I commented that I thought the best hope for this committee was an improved familiarity between members of the boards that would foster communication and trust. I mentioned that some School Board members are also reaching out to their counterparts on the Planning Commission.
• Priscilla Godfrey focused on land and towns, and the interdependence that we have with the county for programs and use of facilities.
• Susan Buckley spoke of the two boards being habitually in roles where the Supervisors are playing offense with the schools playing defense. She recounted watching previous work sessions that "started with conclusions" that weren't changed by discussion, and were a waste of everyone's time. She talked of feeling like we're "in the same book but on different pages."
• Kelly Burke expressed hopes for a less rancorous budget process
• A skeptical Jim Burton asked "Are things goint to be different?" and said "I'll give it a try." He talked about our fundamental differences in responsibilities, and opined that the relationship between the two boards has improved steadily over the past eight years. "I don't buy that we've been at loggerheads recently." He talked favorably about the western Loudoun Schools joing planning exercise presentation, and said that BOS concerns about school building costs had fallen on deaf years in the past.
• Tom Reed talked about a Ven Diagram of overlapping areas of concern and said that the intersection of our responsibilities basically boils down to money. He said we need to concentrate on the kids.
• Sally Kurtz said "we need to be at the table." She agreed with Tom Reed's money assessment, saying it often felt like that was the only reason that the School Board ever talks to the Supervisors. She asked how our similar departments can work together in areas such as finance and planning. She said a priority for her was "fiscal clarity... I can't read your budget." Sally remarked on the perception of the Board of Supervisors as "scrooges" and talked about this joint committee being "a new animal." She mentioned the membership of a business person and mentioned having a business perspective at the table. She isn't worried about perceptions of being equal, and wants to focus on concrete decisions that can be brought back to our respective boards.
• Jim Burton (I'm paraphrasing) "I should not have been a skeptic about this, after looking at the task force over the course of the year. There is genuine communication occuring that had never happened before. The mayors have asked to continue to meet."

Discussion of Fiscal Clarity

• Kirby Bowers spoke of the long term liability for retirement obligations, about getting more funds and a change in the retiree health plan.
• Dr. Hatrick suggested that a good starting point would be to educate ourselves about all of the joint endeavors between the two organizations. He listed several: trash collection, recycling, use of facilities, accounting system, health care plan, turning old schools into community centers.
• Susan Buckley asked for recommendations of opportunities for collaboration.

Discussion of 21st Century Global Education

• Sally said this was of great interest to the EDC
• Tom Reed suggested moving the topic to the front "Start with the end in mind"
• Dr. Hatrick spoke of educating kids for their future, not our past. "We have the first class of truly world citizens." He talked about our welding students having their highest paid opportunities in China and Dubai, and needing to prepare them for jobs and lives in other parts of the world. He recounted the comment earlier in the day of a Maryland public school official, who noted that today's kids are entirely plugged in to technology... coming into school with iPods in their ears and cell phones texting messages back and forth... and as soon as they hit the school door we make them turn it all and put it all away, it's like sending them back in time.

Discussion of Staff Liaison Role (mostly addressed by Asst. County Administrator Paul Brown)

• Provide data, analysis, research
• Bring daily/practical issues to the committee
• Capital facilities are the County's biggest concern. We need to have a serious heart to heart about land acquisitions. We share a common ground in our difficulty in acquiring land for fire stations, community centers.
• There are serious concerns about debt andthe ability to deliver critical public facilities at the right time. "It's the elephant in the room."

A public hearing format was established. Speakers will be heard at the beginning of each meeting for a maximum of three minutes, with a 15-minute time limit.

Future meetings will be held on second Thursdays of the month from 4pm-6pm.