Wheatland Alliance

"… Seller shall have the option to elect to remove all of the listed structures and improvements or demolish same by providing written notice thereof to Purchaser. In removing said structures and improvements, Seller shall remove all rubble, debris, trash and materials as a result of Seller's activities in connection therewith.

Seller shall have a period thereafter of 60 days from the date of closing within which to remove said structures and improvements. There shall be no burying of any of the foregoing."

From LCPS Purchase Contract, Part 6, Removal of Improvements

LEESBURG, May 15, 2009 - The Wheatland Alliance wishes to respond publicly to an email message received from School Board Member Jennifer Bergel, which is reproduced here in its entirety:

The Wheatland Alliance simply believes the county (including LCPS) should follow its own policy as defined in the Revised General Plan.  Condemnation is a complicated issue and we are neither for nor against it outright.  We support the School Board's policy of avoiding condemnation whenever possible, but we do not accept it as an excuse to circumvent the Revised General Plan.

For more information about the Wheatland Alliance, contact Ellen Polishuk at 703-727-2996, email info@wheatlandalliance.org, or visit www.WheatlandAlliance.org.

LEESBURG, May 12, 2009 - Loudoun County Public School officials have partially responded to objections raised by the growing number of citizens opposed to the proposed Wheatland Farm school site. In only 30 days, over 1,200 Loudoun citizens have signed a petition expressing their opposition to the proposed Wheatland site. The LCPS response does not adequately address many of the concerns raised by the Wheatland Alliance and the many petitioners who decry LCPS's selection of the site.

LCPS must serve its community by listening to those affected by its actions and by explaining why certain decisions have been made. For this reason, we submit the following facts and questions in hopes that they will be answered directly by LCPS.

Our most basic question is how can the School Board consider a project that is diametrically opposed to the Comprehensive Plan, proposing an upzoning of this AR-1 property by a factor of 5?

We first repeat what LCPS had to say, and then we provide our response.

LCPS first claimed that the Cangiano parcel was subdivided. LCPS now acknowledges that the site has only preliminary subdivision approval.

The difference is critical because completing the subdivision would cost millions of dollars and require 2 to 3 years to complete the following: engineering and construction of turn lanes and improvements to John Wolford Road and Route 287, construction of internal roads, performance bonds, drilling the remaining 19 wells, storm water management design and construction, etc.

Here is the actual appraised value vs. assessed value for the Cangiano property:

February 2009 Price Offered = $9.925 million
August 2008 Appraisal = $9.925 million
2008 Assessment = $4.47 million
2009 Assessment = $2.83 million

Why is there such a discrepancy between appraisal and assessment? LCPS does not fully explain. Perhaps it has to do with the Cangiano property having only subdivision approval, not having been recorded to plat.

LCPS says the properties "are vested and do have value," but why isn't that value reflected in the assessment? Perhaps it is because the appraisal is based on "highest and best use," and assumes that the lots would go to plat and become ready for market, which they have not.

How can the same county government have two so completely different views of the value of this property? The tax assessor says just over $2.8 million, but the school system says more than three times that amount — more than $9.9 million.

LCPS justifies its offer based on a per lot price, assuming this is a completed subdivision, which it is not. They use comparables from in-place subdivisions, with the design and construction of all major improvements completed or under performance bond. In any event, the current market does not justify the prices claimed in the appraisal. The contract price is based on lots that are not comparable and that are not selling at any price in the current market.

Far more valid comparables are currently on the market today:

MLS # LO7027260 - 193.8 acres, preliminary subdivision for 38 lots - $3.4 million = $17,500 / acre
(This is the GGH Holdings Property, identified as site 4 in the LCPS list of other sites considered.)

MLS # LO7026145 - 146 acres, not subdivided - $1.2 million = $8,200 / acre
(This is the Danner property, identified as site 3 in the LCPS list of other sites considered.)

Compare these to the Cangiano/Burgess properties - 170 acres, preliminary subdivision for 35 lots - $11.4 million = $67,000 / acre

Contact any real estate agent in the county, or any person trying to sell land, and you will hear that land values have not held steady. Land values are still dropping, especially for larger tracts.

LCPS has posted an archeological survey that states that the Samuel Nixon farmstead that will be destroyed is eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places under two of the four required criteria: A) association with a significant event; and C) embodiment of architecture characteristic of a type, period, method of construction, work of a master architect, or high artistic value. See http://tinyurl.com/qvbgwc.

Also, this section of the "fact sheet" as originally published by LCPS is no longer included in the version now posted on the LCPS website. Why is that?

Which party to the Cangiano contract inserted the language requiring the demolition/removal of these structures? Did the seller volunteer to increase his expense to carry out this clause, or did LCPS insert this clause?

Will LCPS release the details of its negotiations concerning the Wheatland properties, the offers, counteroffers, and various iterations of the draft contracts leading up to the final versions signed by all parties?

While these terms may be "not unusual," they seem unwise given LCPS's track record attempting to acquire poor sites. Three recent attempts to purchase school sites which included the contingency for special exceptions and commission permits did not end well for LCPS.

Now LCPS is circumventing the normal processes by purchasing the property without any legislative contingency. LCPS is also actively attempting to remove the Special Exception requirement for school sites.

Grubb Property: In June 2006, LCPS abandoned plans to purchase the Grubb property after heavy criticism from the Planning Commission. Grubb is less than 1500 feet from the Wheatland Farm site now under contract.

Lenah Property: Special Exception permit denied.

Rouse Property: Funding denied by the Board of Supervisors.

Can LCPS identify any other purchases of this magnitude it has undertaken that have not had commission permits or special exceptions as contingencies of purchase?

LCPS's own engineering consultants project average water usage at 72,039 gallons per day (excluding fire protection and irrigation needs), with projected peak usage at 150% of this number, more than 108,000 gallons per day. See http://tinyurl.com/of4d7y (chart on page 3).

The average LCPS high school is far smaller than the one proposed for the Wheatland complex. LCPS needs to provide gallons per ES / MS / HS student.

Furthermore, an annual average does not take into account seasonal demand patterns. LCPS needs to identify realistic daily averages broken down by month to accurately assess usage in the drought-prone months when groundwater supplies are most critical to other nearby water users.

Finally, how many LCPS schools operate their own water/wastewater systems? What is the cost per student to operate stand-alone versus central utilities?

Since the language in the current contract specifies that the land must be purchased by June 1st (or by July 8, 2009, if an extension is granted), how is it possible to utilize the results of even this singular water test, given that it won't be available in writing or be submitted to the Virginia Department of Heath for review until August?

How can LCPS legitimately say they have performed due diligence regarding water issues if the report will not be available until after the land is purchased?

How does performance of a hydrogeologic study during the wet spring season adequately project the water resources, including adjacent property owners' wells, springs, and surface water?

The RFP was a sham, giving respondents only 14 days to amass the following information: "property location map, plat or recent survey, site size, flood plain map, existing easements, setback and buffer areas, topographic plats, utility availability, known environmental conditions, copy of the deed, site purchase price and a photograph of the site."

An RFP like this can only be seen as for invitees only, not a real effort to find any new properties.

Will LCPS release the land evaluation criteria and the response analysis matrix covering all sites evaluated?

Over half of the "major sites considered" listed were problematic due wholly or in part to potential road, transportation, traffic, and related safety issues. Were assessments of these other major sites conducted with county-funded traffic studies? How were these problematic traffic factors determined and how were they weighed in deciding site-appropriateness?

Are there traffic, road, and transportation assessments currently being conducted for the Wheatland Farm site? If so, when will the results be posted? If not, why not?

According to the Revised General Plan, "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 trails." (Chapter 3, Section 9a4) What percentage of students will be able to walk or bike to these proposed schools? What would the average student commuting time be? How can a site at least four miles from the major population of prospective students "lessen the time necessary to transport students?" Lessen it compared to what?

Did LCPS conduct a cost analysis of smaller less expensive parcels and life-cycle costs to operate smaller facilities in range of central utilities and pedestrian access to justify the cost-effectiveness of co-location on large parcels where there is no pedestrian access?

Who decided, and on what basis was the decision made, that co-location of LCPS facilities is the county's Number 1 priority, of higher value than compliance with the Comprehensive Plan, community focus, pedestrian access, use of central utilities, etc?

Based on the records available, the only Lovettsville sites evaluated in-depth were the Miller property for HS-3 in 2006, and the Miller/Park options for HS/MS-10 in 2008. The latter evaluation indicates significant expense was incurred to evaluate the Miller property for schools even after LCPS stated Mr. Miller was not a willing seller. If the School Board has a policy against condemnation, why was the Miller site evaluated in 2007/2008 and made the focus of a two LCPS public meetings on July 24, 2007, and May 28, 2008?

LCPS's portrayal of Bill Chapman's relationship with Sal Cangiano changes at every turn. The original "fact sheet" distributed in February 2009 stated that he represented Mr. Cangiano in his "previous life as a private attorney." See http://tinyurl.com/rxfy8t.

At the Community Information Meeting on April 29, 2009, Dr. Sam Adamo stated that Chapman had not represented Cangiano in "fifteen or twenty years." Now LCPS lists cases initiated in 2003.

Loudoun County Circuit Court Judge Thomas D. Horne considered Chapman to be Cangiano's representative in late January 2005. See http://tinyurl.com/oovplj.

How can the public be assured that there is no conflict of interest?

For more information about the Wheatland Alliance, contact Ellen Polishuk at 703-727-2996, email info@wheatlandalliance.org, or visit www.WheatlandAlliance.org.

LEESBURG, May 8, 2009 — The Wheatland Alliance, a group of county residents, farmers, and other citizens concerned about the Loudoun County Public Schools (LCPS) proposal for a 170-acre multi-school campus in the heart of Loudoun's "Agricultural Jewel" notes support among members of the Loudoun County Board of Supervisors for the county's Revised Comprehensive Plan.

The Comprehensive Plan is the set of policy documents adopted by the Loudoun County Board of Supervisors intended to serve as a guide for development over the next twenty years and is the foundation for amendments to the Zoning and Subdivision ordinances to ensure the county's goals are implemented through the regulatory process. Its goals include promoting reasonable residential growth, alleviating future traffic congestion, promoting a diverse economy, protecting the rural economy, and preserving environmental and historical features.

Board Vice-Chairman Susan Klimek Buckley (Sugarland Run) and Supervisor Sally Kurtz (Catoctin) are commended in particular for their forceful defense of the Plan, citing the importance of large projects being consistent with the Plan and in character with their proposed locations. Video clips of these two supervisors' landmark statements, which they made in regard to the Broadlands Regional Medical Center hospital campus proposal by Hospital Corporation of America (HCA), are available at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JakgLqMsjC8 (Supervisor Buckley) and http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0dkjjaBCfp8 (Supervisor Kurtz). Their statements are available in full context at http://loudoun.granicus.com/ViewPublisher.php?view_id=35 on the Loudoun County website ("Board of Supervisors' Meeting, Feb 3, 2009").

The Wheatland Alliance encourages all members of the Board of Supervisors to also keep the Plan in mind when considering the proposed LCPS schools complex in the rural Wheatland area of the county, approximately one half of one mile north of the intersection of Routes 9 and 287 and about five miles south of the Town of Lovettsville.

This location is the home of some of the most productive farmland in the county, including a number of thriving, innovative agricultural enterprises of the sort envisioned and encouraged by the Plan. This area is not in or adjacent to any existing Village, Town, or Joint Land Management Area; cannot be served by public utilities; is not at the focus of the attendance area for the proposed schools; and fails on other counts to conform to the Plan and to common sense.

LCPS has entered into a contract to purchase land for three schools to be located on both sides of Route 287 in Wheatland, with minimal hydrogeological studies currently underway. Further studies and all legislative actions that determine the suitability of the site are slated to be undertaken after the land is purchased. The legislative actions required include recommendation for or against the project by the county's Planning Commission, and final approval by the Board of Supervisors. The Wheatland Alliance feels that the purchase of the land should be contingent on these studies and legislative actions.

The Wheatland Alliance urges the Board to become re-acquainted with the Revised Comprehensive Plan, recall the hundreds and hundreds of hours of public and private time and effort that went into its development, and support its proper application in connection with the LCPS proposal for the schools campus in the Wheatland area, as it did in connection with the HCA proposal for the hospital campus in Broadlands.

For more information about the Loudoun County Revised Comprehensive Plan, visit http://www.loudoun.gov/Default.aspx?tabid=564.

For more information about the Wheatland Alliance, contact Ellen Polishuk at 703-727-2996, email info@wheatlandalliance.org, or visit www.WheatlandAlliance.org.