Of course we need schools. I have 2 young children, one just beginning grade 1 and the other beginning middle school. 3 schools in 3 years.
We just need to build them where they make sense. Both location and cost. I'm looking forward to seeing the land inventory Supervisor Miller and the BoS have asked for. Im certain Dr. Adamo will welcome any assistance finding any "low hanging fruit"

Posted by scooterama (anonymous) on July 8, 2008 at 10:13 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Nothing new here. When are you guys going to start giving Mr. Hines and Ms. TeKrony their titles?

Mr. Hines, the Dulles District representative to the Parks and Rec Advisory Board, has not only opposed these schools, but opposed the Play to Win application, and demanded that the Countywide Transportation Plan be amended to remove the planned roads that these schools will be placed on.

None of this is his job. He is supposed to work with schools to promote recreation and community services in Dulles.

Ms. TeKrony, the At Large rep to the Parks and Rec Advisory Board, has done one other thing since taking her county position besides oppose these schools: she filed an application on a derelict county-owned property to have it declared an endangered historic resource. This requires action by the staff and Board of Supervisors BEFORE it is done. The woman isn't even a registered 501c3 yet. Her purpose in that action is to divert county funding from the regional recreation center in order to have a preschool and daycare that isn't in a suburban building.

None of that is her job either; she is supposed to be promoting recreation and community service countywide, not just abusing her position to pursue personal goals. (In addition, the action on county property should be acted upon by the county attorney's office.)

For Mr. Hines or Ms. TeKrony to tout "community schools" is laughable: Mr. Hines has no children in school, and Ms. TeKrony is east of Route 15 in the attendance zone of the second most expensive little school in the county, in a rural village west of 15. Does sharing a large zipcode make for "community"?

The Mercer and Freedom community is made up of more than South Riding, and for any of the political appointees quoted here to say "fiscal responsibility" and "suburban land" in the same breath evidences a profound disconnect from reality. Ms. TeKrony told the Board to "condemn something" in South Riding at public input; I wonder if she can say "Three quarters of a million an acre minimum, plus court costs"? I guess we'll see.

The new, expanded commentary by Ms. Chaloux, who also has no children in school, would indicate that she is not objective about this application. Under the Comprehensive Plan, the School Board is charged with selecting sites. If she is allowing herself to be quoted in the paper saying that this is not a good site, then she is usurping staff's job.

Staff reviews applications against the Comprehensive Plan, and issues a comprehensive report.

Since she has already not only made up her mind in advance of the staff report, but urged her supervisor to take action initiating a site search (which under the sacred-unless-we-don't-like-part-of-it Comp Plan is the school system's job) she should recuse herself from voting on the application.

It is becoming painfully obvious that Mr. Miller's political appointments were made and are viewed as vehicles for personal agenda.

Posted by BarbaraMunsey (anonymous) on July 8, 2008 at 11:38 p.m. (Suggest removal)

The one thing you can count on from Ms. Munsey is a great deal of rhetoric and emotion and very little attention to facts. She's great at pointing fingers.

Whether or not I have children in school is an insult to all taxpayers. When my county tax bill arrives, I'm not given the option of not paying taxes because I don't have children in school. There isn't a 'No Child' check-off, which allows me not to pay taxes.

So, .72 cents of every one of my tax dollars ends up in the budget of LCPS. Fiscal responsibility is every taxpayers responsibility.

Building schools where every child must either be bussed or drive is fiscally irresponsible. Building schools which require excessive reliance on fossil fuels is environmentally and fiscally irresponsible. Building schools where there are no utilities is fiscally irresponsible. Building schools where all the roads need either upgrading or construction is irresponsible.

Being concerned about the fiscal and environmental future of Loudoun is not political. It is our responsibility.

It is an example of responsible citizens seeking to be heard over the din of those that would build schools with a total disregard for the impact on the environment and taxpayers.

Conducting the BOS recommended land inventory is the fiscally mature course of action.

Yes, I am a citizen volunteer but, my title is 'resident,' 'voter,' and 'taxpayer.' Steve Hines...

Posted by shines3243 (anonymous) on July 9, 2008 at 11:05 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Conducting it in advance of the staff report, in an attempt to circumvent the process and override the school system's duties as delineated in the Comprehensive Plan, is akin to what got Bruce McGranahan fired.

Resident voting taxpayer, who opposed a private recreation application that would have provided facilities for the children you are supposed to represent, AND paid taxes, because it is "in the wrong location"...just like the school.

You have been given an appointment that comes with duties. So far, you are not executing them.

If you think the only thing you are required to do is advance the agenda of other recipients of political payback in the transition area, you should step down.

Especially when those other appointees and protesters' children are bused to a private school on the other side of Route 15, at double the cost per seat of kids at Mercer, who are packed like sardines.

Fact, not transition zone emotion.

Posted by BarbaraMunsey (anonymous) on July 9, 2008 at 11:26 a.m. (Suggest removal)

With regard to the application from Play to Win...Ms. Munsey again has it wrong. Her form of comment is intended to distribute false or inaccurate information. If left alone for long enough, her misinformation tends to become what citizens believe is fact.

I have never opposed the Play to Win application. In fact, if citizens are interested in the truth, please check my comments to the Board of Supervisors on June 30. I began by saying how important applicants like Play to Win are to Loudoun. We need what they are willing to bring.

We have so over built residential housing that we can't afford the taxes to pay for all the services needed. We certainly can't afford to build numbers of active recreation facilities with tax dollars available.

Play to Win fills an important role in demonstrating a willingness to gamble there are enough youth and adult groups in Loudoun willing to pay to play.

What I objected to was the clear cutting of a piece of land to build recreation facilities and the assumption of the annual bill which will be sent Loudoun's taxpayers to pay for storm water management if Play to Win builds on the site in question.

Play to Win was encouraged to make an application to put their facilities on this specific piece of forest land. They were not encouraged to look elsewhere in Loudoun for open land, land which wouldn't require the citizens to pay massive tax fees for storm water management nor would it have caused the dreadful environmental impact this project will cause.

Building commercial playing fields on the site in question sends a terrific message to both children and taxpayers about our willingness to ignore the environmental impact clear cutting would cause. It says to me that we don't need to be concerned about the impact on air, water or the environmental health of the county's natural resources.

I'm not prepared to make that statement. We are all responsible for the impact we create or allow to be created by our actions.

Yes, we are in dire need of playing facilities but, how about showing maturity in our judgments about how to get this done.

My duties do not call for me to blindly follow or support decisions which will cause great harm to the county.

The question which will remain with me is, why wasn't there leadership within the county to help the applicant find a location for their much needed facilities, a location which didn't have the potential for massive environmental harm and didn't shift an estimated $70,000+ per year bill to taxpayers for storm water management?

By the way...the Parks Board has no legal standing in this process. I spoke as a citizen hoping for a mature solution to our lack of playing facilities.
Steve Hines

Posted by shines3243 (anonymous) on July 9, 2008 at 1:25 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Mr. Hines, you urged the Board to deny the application.

As for disinformation that is allowed to stand, if the application goes by right, 10 additional acres of trees will be clearcut, the voluntary large buffer to Goose Creek will be reduced to the minimum, and the parking will be much closer to the adjoining neighbors thereby creating greater impact from noise and lighting.

If the BoS denies that BUSINESS, after denying the cell tower BUSINESSES, based on impact, then we should all expect them to deny the HCA application if even ONE resident of Broadlands says it will impact them. (I won't hold my breath on that one!)

The game that there is a magic "someplace else" for everything that displeases the BANANAs is disgusting, and if this application goes down, it will cost us taxes.

If the school is moved to mythical land in the suburban policy area, much more highly valued land would be removed from the tax rolls entirely.

Under Ms. Chaloux' fantasy that a second story can be added to Mercer, what will it cost to close the facility for a year (thereby impacting the environment and our wallets at great fuel cost to bus the kids god knows where), take off the roof, and install a new support structure for that second story?

But wait! If this is really just about concern for community schools, again WHY would anyone think of putting 3000 kids in one place, while the protesters of the transition zone get all day kindergarten at a small private school on the other side of route 15? There goes that argument, unless someone eventually plans to 'fess up with a straight face that some animals are more equal than others.

There would go the traffic argument too--what would doubling Mercer do to Gum Spring? Oops.

You should disclose your position when opposing recreation and school facilities; your board receives staff support under the auspices of LCPRCS, which means my taxes help pay for it, as do the taxes of every parent of a school child or athlete whom you work against.

Other grownups do it: it's easy. Say your name, say your position, and then say "but I am speaking today as a private citizen."

Posted by BarbaraMunsey (anonymous) on July 9, 2008 at 1:45 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Its become so irritating to continually be placed in this make believe transition area stereotype. Yes, I live in the transition area. My child attended Kindergarten at Arcola, not west of 15, I contributed to that schools start up and its current success, both physically and financially. Tell me how many parents can say they also tried to make a difference. It takes a tremendous amount of energy to organize these projects and events.. Special thanks to the PTA and the many committees that have worked tirelessly to make our schools a better place for our children. I don’t believe the Lenah site is the best place for the schools, for a few reasons, but it seems any constructive factual debates are turning into personal attacks. on county officials unrelated to this project. People need the facts. How dare we be criticized for living in an area of Loudoun County that isn’t completely open to all development.

Posted by imagemaker1 (anonymous) on July 9, 2008 at 2:27 p.m. (Suggest removal)

This doesn't sound like the Supervisor, the Planning Commissioner and the Supervisors apointees (Mr. Hines and Ms. Tekrony) are anywhere near on the same page. I think Ms. Chaloux-Conway has made enough statements that she is clearly against the school site (without the public hearing process even started yet), Ms. Tekrony and Mr. Hines are clearly against the school site (without the public hearing process even strated yet), Mr. Miller says "I am not impressed with people who make up their minds before all of the evidence is in". Maybe he should have a talk with his appointees. I am certainly not impressed with any of them working in 'my best interest as a taxpayer'. Ms. Chaloux wants to build a second story on Mercer, Ms. Tekrony wants to condemn land for a school site, Mr. Hines still pretends that he lives in Loudoun County from 20 years ago. Yeesh, gonna be a long 3+ years until these jokers can be gotten rid of. I just hope they don't permanently damage the school system in Dulles South before we can be rid of them all 'working in our best interest'.

Posted by deanzywicki (anonymous) on July 9, 2008 at 2:45 p.m. (Suggest removal)

imagemaker, according to the Comprehensive Plan, schools are an allowed non-residential use in the transition zone.

The transition zone was adopted as policy in 2001, and only became real through the adoption of zoning ordinance revisions in 2003. It is a brand new experiment in land use--a fuzzy instead of a hard edge to growth.

Before that, when Loudoun actually had a plan for future growth cachement (called the Dulles South Area Management Plan, not the CboogeymanPAM), there were projected to be four high schools in Dulles South.

The word "fact" has a meaning, and fact based discussions should not be selective.

Mr. Hines is extremely selective--up until now, he has selectively omitted his title.

He selectively omitted that he urged to Board to deny Play to Win--not send it to committee. The applicant owns the land--and is allowed to propose a BUSINESS on it.

He selectively omitted what by right development of the land will cost the environment and the immediate neighbors.

All the while personally attacking me.

Delegate May attended the last Board input session as part of a resolution of appreciation for his work on the powerlin issue. His remarks were striking: he said that people in Richmond are very familiar with Loudoun because people here "get nasty" when they don't like something.

Some of the Board members actually beamed at this. Are they proud of it?

I have put in time volunteering at school myself, and my eldest attended kindergarten at Arcola on Goshen Rd. If these schools (one already approved by the voters) are not built, there won't be a PTA to volunteer for any time soon. I realize that not all transition zone residents are in the Aldie attendance zone.

Just a few of the very vocal protesters, some of whom also have county appointments.

Posted by BarbaraMunsey (anonymous) on July 9, 2008 at 3:28 p.m. (Suggest removal)

deanzywicki, you may wish to write the Planning Commission and the BoS.

I know the Planning Commission will be discussing the ethics policy tomorrow night--might be an opportune time to discuss recusal if one is incapable of reviewing an application with an open mind (or at least wait until the staff report comes out).

Posted by BarbaraMunsey (anonymous) on July 9, 2008 at 3:31 p.m. (Suggest removal)

What makes anyone think that the BOS can do a better job. Some pitiful examples of their handiwork: Bolen Park (8 years later no construction), the infamous overpaid for Saudi Academy property, Fields Farm and the effort to jam a public safety center in the wrong part of Round Hill. The lack of planning, foresight and the willingness to take the measures necessary to purchase property in strategic locations ahead of time are what is wrong with both the BOS and LCPS. Count me as being cynical.

Posted by LoudounModerate (anonymous) on July 9, 2008 at 3:46 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Boy, is this a laugh. If Steve Snow and Barbara Munsey didn't recuse themselves during the heyday of the 'build it and they will come' era of over development in Loudoun, I can't imagine how there can be any finger pointing now.

At least our current officials are willing to discuss ethics.

Steve Hines

Posted by shines3243 (anonymous) on July 9, 2008 at 3:53 p.m. (Suggest removal)

The only jokers deanzywicki are the School Board members trying their best to royally screw the taxpayers of Loudoun by letting Greenvest in the back door. Time to shine some light on the secret negotiations that always result in millions of profit for developers on our backs, and more re-zonings for more houses that we don't need or want. Taxpayers need to wake up and demand scrutiny and accountability of a Board that takes nearly 75% of our tax revenues and yet has no taxing authority!

Posted by starburst03 (anonymous) on July 9, 2008 at 4:13 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Actually Mr. Hines, I did recuse myself from any vote on the Dulles South CPAMs. Look it up.

What would be funny if it weren't so transparently hypocritical is the crew that campaigned against payback to special interest contributors has done nothing but appoint their cronies to positions they are using for their own personal agenda.

starburst, it remains activist disinformation that these schools means a Greenvest rezoning. They have a by right application on their land. That's still legal in Virginia.

As noted, the transition is an experiment in a fuzzy edge to development (to include schools). It appears some would have it be no development, even that allowed in the Comprehensive Plan.

As for the School Board "taking" 75% of our taxes, the Board gives it to them. And it may be instructive to hear, at the joint meeting between the Boards, what the county attorney has to say about state law, local law, and division of responsibilities.

Posted by BarbaraMunsey (anonymous) on July 9, 2008 at 4:36 p.m. (Suggest removal)

As a parent in South Riding with a 3rd and 1st grader, I agree we need a new middle and high school to handle the surge in students. However, as a parent that is actively involved in the school weekly, I don't think the schools should be up in Lenah. According to the preliminary mapping presented by Sam Amato at the LCPS public meeting, my kids and all the others in western South Riding will go from walking to Little River ES to being busing or driven 10 miles up Rt 50. If I or my husband want to drive my kids to school, it will be 20-30 minutes up Rt. 50 only to find ourselves in Lenah commuting back towards the beltway. That could be a 40-50 minute round trip in the morning!!! And, we would be driving past Mercer and Freedom both ways!!! That is nuts.

The high school especially does not belong on a two-lane road. I plan on continuing to be heavily involved as my kids move up, but not if the cost is all of my free time. Rt. 50 is going to be a two lane road in Lenah for the next decade or more. Braddock road is gravel now -- and, according to Amato, it will be gravel in parts between Stone Ridge and Lenah when the schools open. Have you ever tried to get out of Lenah Run in the morning? I was there two weeks ago and stuck for 7 minutes behind a landscaping truck and trailer turning left on to Rt. 50. Imagine throwing 5,000 more car trips per day on Lenah Rd.

The middle school needs to be in South Riding. Period. No debate. LCPS needs to do the right thing and purchase commercial property or condemn residential plots immediately. Amato said that the BOS does not want LCPS to buy commercial property because it undermines the tax base. Amato claims the condemnation process takes too long. Please! Should we suffer decades of traffic issues and the impact of having the school away from we parents (aka "the community") because Amato is behind on a task in 2008? LCPS needs to put the high school in the Stone Ridge community on Gum Spring or Braddock where the roads can support the traffic.

Lets take the extra year and get this right. Bring trailers into Mercer if needed for a year to manage the over-crowding. Its better to handle overflow for a year than make a bad decision that will last a lifetime. I had 5 classes in trailers at Chantilly HS while it was being re-built and managed to survive. Our kids can do that too.

Posted by SR-Parent (anonymous) on July 9, 2008 at 11:28 p.m. (Suggest removal)

SRParent, it will be more than a year delay, and massive increased cost, to condemn something in South Riding. The court battle would take years. Your older child will be on a bus to Ashburn before anything is built on condemned land here.

The land here is extremely valuable, far more costly per acre than the proposed site in Lenah. To purchase sites here would cause the cost per acre to more than double.

Many people thought this year that the school budget wasn't cut enough; how many people will support a hugely increased cost, perhaps plus the court cost of condemnation, of vested suburban residential and commercial land?

It may not matter, as some of the people most vocally opposing these sites simply oppose schools.

The Little River area was shown on the traffic study at the Mercer meeting as counted in to a cachement for the proposed Lenah schools, but the boundary process has yet to take place. I'm not going to cross that bridge yet; every school that has opened has seen leaflets on my street (unsigned) saying that kids right across the street from Little River will be bused. I prefer to wait and see what is proposed when the boundaries are to be set.

You meant you live in eastern South Riding, right? Little River is three blocks from the eastern edge of the community, and two more blocks past that puts you in Fairfax. Western South Riding goes nearly to Gum Spring Road now, so if your kids are really walking from the western community to Little River I salute you! Mine walked all through elementary too.

If someone has told you it is ten miles to Lenah they're stretching it a bit: from South Riding Blvd to Lenah Rd on Route 50 is approximately 4.75 mi. From Loudoun County Parkway to Lenah Rd. on Route 50 is approximately 3.9 mi. Because Lenah Rd. hooks southwest before joining Braddock, the distance from LoCo Parkway to Lenah Rd. on Braddock is approximately 5.75 mi.

The bus trips that WILL be going to Ashburn starting this fall for overflow students at Mercer will be much longer and farther than any trip to Lenah.

Posted by BarbaraMunsey (anonymous) on July 10, 2008 at 12:54 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Boo hoo... ten miles? Gee whiz, THAT sure warrants close scrutiny.
LoCo parents need to get over themselves. The county does not exist to pander to their dreams of private school education at public school rates.

Posted by Hoqenishy (anonymous) on July 10, 2008 at 5:05 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Barb and Hoq- By your logic, we should park the new schools in Front Royal or Charleston, WV in order to get a *really* good price per acre.

You make a few completely misleading statements. Allow me to correct you. The capital land purchases do not come out of the current year's operating budget. The impact of the land purchase on the current year LCPS budget is in the noise -- thus, whether the schools are where they should be or in Lenah matters a LOT less than our current property value assessments on the tax each of us pays. No teachers will be fired so that we can put the schools here where they belong. The expense to go through the buying process does impact the current year, but LCPS seems to have unlimited resources to do land acquisition spending under cover...

I, for one, am sick and tired of the lies and threats from LCPS. Sam Amato didn't even seem to believe himself when he claimed we would need to go to a "split-day" schedule. Please. Besides the homer-PTA parents in that meeting, the other 200 people saw that political BS for what it was -- a weak threat. LCPS did not look extensively for the best school site -- so they say -- because apparently that would raise prices. Hummm... that is just exactly the opposite of how free markets work. I'll bet if I visit 6 model homes in the area this morning I would find my ability to negotiate a competitive price fairly robust...

Build the right schools in the right locations. Why is that such a hard concept for you people? You strive for mediocre and then settle for falling short of that goal. Oh, and then when someone suggests shooting for great (or even good), not settling for mediocre, you attack them. Nice ethic.

Go ahead and see how many other South Riding parents you can clone into mediocrity-seeking zombies and have them unleash their email-based fury on the officials we elected to stand up and do the right thing. It looks like, in this case, you are doing too little too late to prevent the right decisions to be made about putting the schools where they belong -- for 50+ years -- even if there is a 1 year impact on students while LCPS catches up on its obligations.

Posted by SR-Parent (anonymous) on July 10, 2008 at 7:51 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Wow, "SRParent", that's a big change in tone!

Who said anything about building in WVA to get a good price? One of the other loud complaints about the Lenah site is the cost. It will get MORE expensive the farther east it (theoretically) moves.

You said your kids are young, and I don't know how long you've lived here, so you may not recall that the site acquisition budget for these schools was previously approved by the voters--your comments that the operating budget have nothing to do with the site purchase is a given. (I have problems with people who consume per-capita operating costs at an obscene rate protesting other people's kids' services. Like those residents of the Aldie attendance zone who have put out very bad info about these sites and the process.)
Well, of course. No one said the purchase price comes out of the current operating budget. What's your point exactly?

It sounds like you have received some of the bad info.

Posted by BarbaraMunsey (anonymous) on July 10, 2008 at 8:47 a.m. (Suggest removal)

p.s., "srparent"?

Dr. Adamo, not Amato.

Posted by BarbaraMunsey (anonymous) on July 10, 2008 at 8:47 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Good grief Barbara, don't you ever tire of being a developer lackey?

Posted by lucy11 (anonymous) on July 10, 2008 at 9:41 a.m. (Suggest removal)

lucy11, are you referring to the Loudoun County Public School system as a developer?

Yes, they do develop public projects. It will be interesting if they are now to be imaged as "greedy developers", but I suppose that would be predictable in the order of events.

The fact that the schools have the opportunity to purchase a large tract of appropriate land from Greenvest does not mean, as some are propounding, that the rest of their land will be rezoned to PDH-4 suburban density. They have an application in process to develop the rest of their land by right, in one acre lots.

Recent adjoining by right development in the transition zone is listed on the county assessment and parcel database under the state use classification of "suburban" for The Marches, and "urban", of all things, for Lenah Run.

I do indeed support development of schools to serve the kids that are already rising toward the grades present in the schools proposed, and to lessen the impact on existing middle school students who are already so overcrowded that the school is on overflow policy.

It would seem to me to serve "the needs of existing residents", another campaign meme flogged by those opposing the schools.

Posted by BarbaraMunsey (anonymous) on July 10, 2008 at 9:51 a.m. (Suggest removal)

SR-Parent,
Don't be ridiculous - I never suggested anything like putting schools in different counties. My point is that ten miles is nothing, and that unless you'd like to send your kids to a private school or pay a goodly sum into the voluntary tax fund, you should shut your hole. I don't particularly care if your kids have to be bussed a few miles to save the public some money. Once again - the county does not exist to pander to you.

Posted by Hoqenishy (anonymous) on July 10, 2008 at 12:05 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Some who are reading this thread know, Barbara and I have participated in some extraordinary debates over numerous and diverse topics.
.
With that said, I am compelled to come to her defense about this Lenah Run issue. This is an issue that she is feeding the fact monster with great efficiency. Slow down and read her points. She speaks the truth.

Posted by maravetz (anonymous) on July 10, 2008 at 5:41 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Glenn, I'd say I'm speechless, but we'd know better!

Thank you.

There is some seriously bad info batting around out there.

I was one of seven speakers at public comment at the joint meeting tonight, and I'm glad I was brief and factual; One person spoke of traffic, saying there were 4-500 cars waiting to turn onto Lenah Rd every day in evening rush hour. Aside from the fact that a signal or roundabout provided by the school project would improve the safety (because since the rest of the area is by right it sure ain't coming any other way!), what does that say about not only the impact of the by right growth in Dulles, but about the number of people who commute through it from beyond? Leapfrog growth, anyone?

This person went on to say the school board subordinates the authority of the BoS; he apparently is not aware that the only way the Board can take control of site selection (other than changing the Comp Plan and law), is to acquire sites through the proffer process.

Of course, the 99 BoS bought quite a bit of land (at well over list price) as a "present" for schools--one is Fields Farm, the site of the ongoing western HS debacle, and the other is good old Bolen Park--still not really online.

Another said schools didn't belong in the transition area--hasn't read chapter 8, Revised General Plan, Land Use, para 5.

Others wanted a public process to discuss assessed value of sites under consideration, and to be able to participate in negotiation.

Wow.

The final speaker, saying that they "like many, if not most residents" oppose the Lenah sites, referenced the "plot" between Greenvest and the School Board to develop the transition zone. She appeared to be under the impression that the county would be building roads and utilities for Greenvest, for the purpose of helping Greenvest develop (see "plot").

You know, I want someone to run a total on how much this kind of egged-on foolishness adds to the cost of the projects.

Posted by BarbaraMunsey (anonymous) on July 10, 2008 at 11:47 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Ms Munsey

I was also in attendance at last nights meeting. I would be the one that said I don’t think a 2 storey middle school ( the first one this big in Loudoun) and a 2 storey high school fit the spirit of the Transition area. I wanted to confirm I have read the transition policy, in fact, I read it before moving into my home years ago. I have also read paragraph 5 of chapter 8 Transition Policy Area. If you are referring to the Community design section, Im really not sure how you are interpreting it to fit this proposed project. Im sure you will enlighten me. While perhaps a middle school with 70% open space, minor inexpensive exterior design changes from the standard box design, and retention of existing old growth forest may be better suited to the “Village” ideal as outlined in the Transition Policy. I fail to see how a these 2 behemoth buildings complete with high school stadiums, concession stands fit that vision.
Last evening 5 Loudoun County residents spoke to the joint school/BoS committee concerned about the location of these schools. Only one person, yourself, came out to speak in favor of this site. Lets be clear, I don’t know of one person in our group that is opposed to our schools. Most are parents, like yourself Ms. Munsey, that want the best education for our children, but we will not be shamed into agreeing with a “ low hanging fruit” site Dr. Adamo picks and then completely disregards our questions and inquiries’ as to what other sites were considered.
Thanks again to Supervisor Miller for ensuring we will now get that answer. Now, long before Mr. Millers request, the planning Commission did not have all the referrals’ back and couldn’t look at the application at the June meeting. This is causing the current delay in the project’s approval Not Mr Millers request for a land inventory.
Poor foresight and planning by the School Board has got us here to this frenzy of “The sky is falling the sky is falling”. Our children will be in classes in the halls, going to school in double shifts, etc. Yes we need schools. We just need the Board to be somewhat more visionary. Building schools where 100% of students will be bussed or driven to doesn’t make good sense, Especially now, with diesel at nearly $5.00 a gallon. I doubt we’ll see a decline in costs of fuel ever again. This is the new reality. These schools need to be accessible, both for educational purposes and extra curricular activities.

Posted by scooterama (anonymous) on July 11, 2008 at 10:01 a.m. (Suggest removal)

LCPS will be paying for the new intersection at Rt. 50 and Lenah Rd? Really? That is a multi-million $$ project. Perhaps it is a part of the dis-information campaign, but I read VDOT's feedback on the proposed school site and they indicated that there are no funds now or anytime in the foreseeable future for that intersection. LCPS will also need to improve and pave a large section of Braddock Rd between Stone Ridge and Lenah. Just how expensive is this land acquisition when all costs are added in?

I bit the bullet and paid more to live in South Riding because it was CLOSER to where I need to travel to each day. So did 8,000+ other people. Why is it such as hard concept for LCPS to understand? South Riding needs a middle school. Period. Yes, the land may cost more, but at least there are already roads, water, and electricity in South Riding -- unlike the Lenah property.

When you add it all up, the Lenah site is worse for the community it will serve and probably as expensive or more than a South Riding alternative. The only compelling argument for the Lenah site is timing -- and that is not a good enough reason to enter into a long-term damaging decision.

Posted by SR-Parent (anonymous) on July 11, 2008 at 11:20 a.m. (Suggest removal)

What scares me the most is that because of the hysteria, we'll put schools far away from where students live - and then, they'll be forced to drive quite a distance to get to school.

What will the cry be when a student driver is killed at Rt. 50 and Lenah Road because they tried to turn at the wrong time?

Posted by lucy11 (anonymous) on July 11, 2008 at 12:03 p.m. (Suggest removal)

scooterama, nice to meet you. No, I was not referring to the Community Design section, I was referring to the Land Use section, as I said. Here is the text.

Revised General Plan
Chapter 8, Transition Policy Area, Land Use Pattern, paragraph 5:

"The non-residential component of the Transition Policy Area will be comprised of uses that represent an appropriate transition from suburban to rural land uses, such as golf courses, active recreation uses, kennels, nurseries and similar commercial uses, public and private schools and other compatible institutional uses... These uses will serve to promote a rural character while serving both rural and suburban parents."

In addition, I spoke about three things I asked the committee and the BoS to remember as they work through this controversy:

1) The voters have already approved spending for site acquisition, and it appears that the school board is proposing to spend 80% of what the voters approved.

2) The voters have also approved funding the construction of this middle school.

3) The Board themselves voted during the adoption of the current 6-year Capital Improvements Plan to keep the high school on schedule, so if they are to carry out what they voted for in adopting the CIP, please maintain the schedule for sending the high school to referendum.

I also said in the interest of courtesy I would only discuss those three things.

Which may be why I used less than my allotted two and a half minutes.

Mr. Miller's Item 17 is in response to the fact that Ms. Chaloux requested of staff a land inventory of Dulles district, and apparently was told that an allocation of resources of that magnitude would take an action by the BoS.

Her emails to constituents (I mean responses, not her usual correspondence to her mailing list) have evolved accordingly. They are still a matter of record, which bolsters the case for her recusal on this item.

(cont.)

Posted by BarbaraMunsey (anonymous) on July 11, 2008 at 12:17 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Under VA Code, one of the very few things that can be discussed by a public body out of the public eye is land acquisition.

The reasons for this should be obvious.

Since public land is financed with tax dollars, public discussion can affect the cost. It is so obvious it is enshrined in law.

Imagine if the request for a public process involving sites and negotiation were instituted. The community gets together and, through focus groups and committees determines that site M, of A though Q, is the one they want.

What has just been handed to that landowner, before the "public negotiation" even begins?

Lots of time and money wasted (remember, taxes also pay for the government to run the unrealistic, onanistic and currently not legally enabled under the State Constitution "public process") before you ever get to condemnation.

Which is where it might end up in such a process anyway.

With diesel at nearly $5, let's not waste any more time than we already have to busing kids farther than Lenah while delay hopes to progress to defeat and deny.

While we're at it, let's stop busing a few people's kids out to Aldie for seats two to three times more the cost.

Posted by BarbaraMunsey (anonymous) on July 11, 2008 at 12:26 p.m. (Suggest removal)

"srparent", it is as yet undetermined what the school project will be paying for at 50 and Lenah Rd.

The staff report hasn't been written yet, which is why it is remarkable that Ms. Chaloux has already put negative opinions in writing about it.

More than South Riding needs a middle school.

Let's say the schools are magically moved to condemned land in South Riding, like, oh, maybe the rest of the Giant shopping center, since many of the same people protesting these schools also feel "we" have too much retail. (The last time I looked, Lenah Run and The Marches had NO retail)

Then the school would need to pick up the rest of Tall Cedars Parkway and the 50/606 interchange.

No way even on Mars that's cheaper than Lenah, with colocation and the seller providing utilities.

And that retail site would be SO much safer!

Posted by BarbaraMunsey (anonymous) on July 11, 2008 at 12:33 p.m. (Suggest removal)

lucy11, the cries that will come if kids are hurt while being AGAIN bused to Ashburn for years while this fight plays out are the same ones that were heard before Mercer and Freedom were built.

Posted by BarbaraMunsey (anonymous) on July 11, 2008 at 12:34 p.m. (Suggest removal)

VA Code detailing FOIA exemption re real property:

Meeting Exemptions of General Applicability

§ 2.2-3711(A)(3): Discussion or consideration of the acquisition of real property for a public purpose, or of the disposition of publicly held real property, where discussion in an open meeting would adversely affect the bargaining position or negotiating strategy of the public body.

Posted by BarbaraMunsey (anonymous) on July 11, 2008 at 12:40 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Barbara is on the money here. Either question her points, or provide a valid alternative. And that doesn't mean "just move it somewhere else". Be specific.

Posted by maravetz (anonymous) on July 11, 2008 at 5:50 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I had an idea on the way home from work today. Since this process is going to cost us so much money in delays, can the BOS/LCPS authorize a survey to be sent out to the current attendance area for Mercer and Freedom asking if each person would accept a delay in the MS and HS being built to look for condemnation candidate sites in South Riding? Those who are ok with it could be the first to have their kids bused up to Ashburn. Sounds like the Lenah residents opposed to school (or anything most likely) adjacent to them shouldn't mind the bus ride to underutilized schools in Ashburn or other parts of the County. Might alleviate the current overcrowding at Mercer and the future over crowding at Freedom. That solution could satisfy a lot of people. Would be a good way to actually hear from more people instead of having non-advertised 'public input sessions'

Posted by deanzywicki (anonymous) on July 11, 2008 at 6:22 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Dean: What non advertised public input sessions are you talking about? Please do not quote Jeff Morse's email. That email is full of fluff.

Posted by southridingneedstheschools (anonymous) on July 11, 2008 at 8:24 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I attended a "transportation meeting" in the upstairs room at the Arcola firehouse the week after the Mercer input meeting.

The only way anyone found out about it over here is if someone got the e-mail from Ms. Chaloux and forwarded it on.

Supposedly Ms. Chaloux did a press release but the papers didn't print it.

?

Of the approximately 2 dozen people at the meeting (other than officials, staff, and a court reporter--?), a good half or better were there to talk about why the schools were a very bad idea.

Maybe that is the meeting?

fhartsock, I saw one email from Jeff Morse. Fluff?

Hardly.

Posted by BarbaraMunsey (anonymous) on July 11, 2008 at 10:49 p.m. (Suggest removal)

fhartsock,
This is from an email I recevied from Ms. Chaloux-Conway regarding the transportation 'public input session' held in May at the Arcola Firehouse: "I will address your question since I was responsible for advertising the event. Since the input session was requested by the Gum Spring Regional Citizens Network, I sent multiple email notices to this network to inform them about the event. I also asked Network members to help me get the word out to their neighbors and HOA's. I understand that the event was posted on the Stone Ridge website and several neighborhood HOA reps sent me emails indicating that they had notified their HOAs.

I also sent a press release out about the event on May 21 to Cheryl Bacak, and editors/reporters for the following media outlets - Loudoun Easterner, Loudoun Independent, Donna Hickman (South Riding Scoop.com), Loudoun Times, Leesburg Today, Loudoun Connection, Loudoun Observer and the Washington Post. Unfortunately none of these newspapers posted a notice about our event. I do not have a budget to place public notices in newspapers for these sessions. I will start with media notification earlier next time and will call the outlets to ensure that we get our event listed next time."
Somehow, it was arranged to have County paid staff and stenographers at the event to record the 'public input' since it was so important. Ms. Chaloux-Conway also claims that this 'publix input' meeting was what prompted Mr. Miller to start the land inventory request.
Please send an email to Ms. Chaloux-Conway and ask for the transcript. Must have cost quite a bit to get it all transcribed. But, somehow she doesn't have a budget to notify the residents of Dulles South that we will be graced by the presence of Mr. Miller for 'public' input session?
Unless you have any other silly questions or comments, please follow Hoqenishy's advice and 'shut your hole'.
Jeff Morse has more integrity than Ms. Chaloux-Conway and Mr. Miller combined. At least I know he (and I) are looking out for the best interest of our school age children.

Posted by deanzywicki (anonymous) on July 12, 2008 at 12:40 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Dean, a neighbor forwarded me the same response to their question about notice for the meeting, but it included the following:

"I disseminated the press
release to a media list group that I created in the County’s Groupwise
email system and now believe that this email may not have successfully
been delivered for some reason. Unfortunately...etc."

I am much more interested in the fact that multiple emails were sent to the group Ms. Chaloux supposedly resigned from in taking her position, and the group was encouraged to get the word out.

Here is an email that came to me about fifth-hand, I'm supposing from one of the original recipients to their buddylist and so on:

"Friends,

At the request of the Gum Spring Regional Citizens Network, Dulles District Supervisor Stevens Miller and I will be hosting a public input/exchange session on May 29 at the Arcola Fire Hall (on Gum Spring Road) to discuss the transportation improvements that are planned and anticipated for our area and the County¢s draft Countywide Transportation Plan (CTP). This session will begin at 6:30 p.m. Light refreshments will be served. We will have several representatives from the County¢s Office of Transportation Services with us to present information to you and answer your questions. We will also have CTP maps on display and documents for review.

I hope you will mark your calendar to join us. Supervisor Miller and I very much would like your input before this Transportation Plan gets finalized.

So that we can have the information you are seeking, please forward your questions to me by May 22. Following our session, I will prepare a Question & Answer document and will post it on the new web site/blog I am developing for this transportation planning effort.

Hope to see you on May 29. Please help me spread the word to your HOA and neighbors.

Thanks."

There is nothing wrong with meeting with a particular citizens' group, or service organization or HOA or whatever, but don't call it a "public input session" or "public hearing" unless it is going to be PUBLIC.

And how did that ad for a public meeting on the CTP, at the request of a group, produce Mr. Miller's conviction that a site search needed to be done?

Posted by BarbaraMunsey (anonymous) on July 12, 2008 at 1:21 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I'm wondering if it had something to do with two other related email responses that changed slightly.

One resident submitting a letter of support for the high school received this:

"Thank you for your email. Supervisor Miller was successful returning HS-7 back into the CIP.

I have attached the 2-page section of the Revised General Plan that addresses the County's School Policies. Unfortunately, the proposed Lenah School Site does not comply with the County's School Policies (see Policy 2 and 4). I have requested that the County conduct an independent available land inventory assessment in the Suburban Policy area which is the primary "focus of the attendance area". I have been informed that this request must be approved by the Board of Supervisors.

My hope is that we can locate a Middle School in South Riding to serve the 5,700+ residential units that have been approved there. I also hope that we can locate the next high school in the Stone Ridge/Gum Spring Road area to serve this growing community."

I received this:

"Thank you for your email. I have attached the 2-page section of the
County's Revised General Plan that addresses the County's School Policies.
Supervisor Miller and I are committed to seeing that MS-5 and HS-7 get
built in a timely fashion.

As the LCPS reps indicated, 76% of the proposed students for the Lenah
Run application would be coming from the east (Suburban Policy Area) to
handle overflow from Mercer Middle and Freedom High School.

I believe that we still have time to evaluate other school site options
that would be located within the primary attendance area.
I would like to see if we can find a Middle School site to serve the
5,700+ residential units that have been approved in South Riding.

I hope we can find a HS in the Stone Ridge/Gum Spring Road area to
serve all the homes that have been approved in this corridor.

I have requested that the County conduct an independent land inventory
assessment for this effort. This request must be approved by the Board
of Supervisors. I hope working with the community we can come up with a
solution that makes more sense for everyone."

The second has much softer language (i.e. does not say the site is not compliant!).

The date of the first response was May 27. Mine was dated May 30.

The meeting was on the 29th.

This just gets better and better!

Posted by BarbaraMunsey (anonymous) on July 12, 2008 at 1:29 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Checking in before heading away for the weekend--Dean, do you have a date on the first notice or email you received about the public input meeting?

I went back and looked at the forwarded chain I got, and the first letter from Ms. Chaloux to "Friends" was dated May 9.

That would seem to be plenty of time and at least two publication dates in advance of the May 29 "public meeting".

It was re-sent By Ms. Chaloux with the additional message "Just a reminder. Hope to see you on May 29." on May 21.

What may be at issue here is Ms. Chaloux' use of the word "public". There may have been only the intention to meet with the specific citizen's group at the beginning.

The court reporter may be a bit much just for a local citizen's group meeting, though, particularly if it is her citizen's group.

If Mr. Miller truly intends to place this public/private meeting as the impetus for the site search, it should have been a public meeting from the get-go through to the end.

Posted by BarbaraMunsey (anonymous) on July 12, 2008 at 8:22 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Barbara,
This is the notice I happened upon (didn't come directly to me in an email, it was posted to a non-official neighborhood group site) on May 21.

"At the request of the Gum Spring Regional Citizens Network, Dulles District Supervisor Stevens Miller and I will be hosting a public input/exchange session on May 29 at the Arcola Fire Hall (on Gum Spring Road) to discuss the transportation improvements that are planned and anticipated for our area and the County’s draft Countywide Transportation Plan (CTP). This session will begin at 6:30 p.m. Light refreshments will be served. We will have several representatives from the County’s Office of Transportation Services with us to present information to you and answer your questions. We will also have CTP maps on display and documents for review.

I hope you will mark your calendar to join us. Supervisor Miller and I would very much like your input before this Transportation Plan gets finalized.

So that we can have the information you are seeking, please forward your questions to me by May 22. Following our session, I will prepare a Question & Answer document and will post it on the new web site/blog I am developing for this transportation planning effort.

Hope to see you on May 29. Please help me spread the word to your HOA and neighbors. If you would like to be added to our email list to receive updates on Dulles District County news, please forward your email address to Sandra.Chaloux@Loudoun.gov

Thanks.

Sandra Chaloux
Dulles District Planning Commissioner
Cell: 571-258-7426"

This must have been planned further in advance to have so many county staff and a recorder in place. This 'public' input session was clearly populated with the 'no growth' crowd. Would have been really nice to have more folks from Dulles South there for the 'public' input session (if they had only known about it). I sure hope Chaloux-Conway and Mr. Miller do a better job of advertising these events better in the future (I'm not holding my breath, that's for sure). They clearly don't like hearing from anyone that disagrees with their view of the world.

Posted by deanzywicki (anonymous) on July 12, 2008 at 10:49 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I was looking for something else and came across this article (http://miller4dulles.com/m4d/?p=28). It's all about Mr. Miller launching an investigation into public notice laws that Mr. Snow may have violated in one of his Waxpool task force meetings. Sounds like the same thing needs to happen in the transportation public input session case. Not sure if I should laugh or cry on the quotes from Mr. Miller.

"Miller’s campaign suggested business interests dominate Snow’s attention. In a press release issued on Aug. 31, Miller called on Snow to disclose the participants in the meeting and criticized what he called a “secret” meeting and suggest it amounted to “special interests [having] better access to government than ordinary citizens,” which he called “unethical and insulting.”"

Yes, I would say having 'public' meetings with no public notice, recording and transcribing the event as 'public input' and then using that to base future actions on is "unethical and insulting" to all residents of Dulles South.

Posted by deanzywicki (anonymous) on July 12, 2008 at 10:38 p.m. (Suggest removal)

deanzywicki - you're gonna fall over if you keep reaching like this. Miller's complaint on Snow was because certain individuals, after attending one Waxpool Task Force meeting, were excluded from an invitation to a future meeting of the group. The only people invited to that meeting were developers. Big Surprise. You're pretty eager to make everyone think Miller is a terrible person. Anyone who's met Miller knows he's rational, good-hearted, and maybe a little shy...

Anyway, maybe they could have advertised the first community meeting better, but it's hardly the outrage you make it out to be. Methinks thou dost protest too much. You're showing your true colors. You don't give two cents for any of these issues. You're a partisan who hates that Snow lost and is determined to twist whatever you have to twist to make Miller look bad. These attempts to disguise your obvious contempt in mock outrage are pretty feeble and transparent.

Posted by GR8PMPKN (anonymous) on July 13, 2008 at 10:48 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Quite the contrary GR8PUMPKN,
I care quite a bit about these issues. I have 2 children in the school system (will be 3 this fall). 1 of them is starting at Mercer next year. I believe it is Ms. Chaloux-Conway that is showing her true colors holding a meeting advertised to a special interest group. then, I show up at the 'meeting' to see 'public input session on the CTP' signs all over the place and a county recorder present because the meeting is so important. Then it turns from a meeting to discuss the CTP to a discussion about the school site. It would have been really beneficial to for ALL Dulles South residents to have known about the 'public input' session. Why couldn't Ms. Chaloux-conway have put up a sign at the school meeting at Mercer held just 2 weeks earlier? I do think that Ms. Chaloux-conway purposely did not follow proper public notification policies for this meeting. Mr. Miller keeps pointing any correspondence regarding the meeting back to Ms. Chaloux-conway. So, perhaps it should just be Ms. Chaloux-conway that needs to hold another 'public input session' dedicated to the schools as soon as possible (e.g. prior to september) and ensure that proper notification is followed and all residents have a chance to know about to attend.

Posted by deanzywicki (anonymous) on July 13, 2008 at 1:36 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I would imagine Ms. Chaloux (why do you keep hyphenating her name? I've never seen it that way) and Miller would have done things differently if they'd realized the meeting would get hijacked by the school issue and would become of such interest. I sincerely doubt that there was any attempt to keep the meeting secret. My suspicion is that it was simply a beginner's error and little else. I think depicting it as anything else is silly. Why on earth would they publicize it at all and not just invite the very small group you suppose it was for? It seems they struggled to get the word out and relied too much on their own contacts. I think that might be a mistake they avoid in the future, but I just can't see any malicious intent in the excerpts you've posted from the emails, etc.

Posted by GR8PMPKN (anonymous) on July 13, 2008 at 2:25 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I agree another public input, specifically about the schools, is a good idea...and certainly it will be publicized much more broadly.

re: the road stuff. The hospital is proposing a location on/near Belmont. I don't think the county steered them there for a road improvement, and I doubt the hospital people would be interested in improving roads halfway across the County from where they are locating.

Posted by GR8PMPKN (anonymous) on July 13, 2008 at 2:30 p.m. (Suggest removal)

You call it beginners error. I call it deliberate. Maybe I've just had more opportunities to see Ms. Chaloux-conway's true colors (as you say). I can only imagine what Ms. Chaloux-conway and her group would have done if the previous Board or planning commission had done something similar.

Posted by deanzywicki (anonymous) on July 13, 2008 at 6:43 p.m. (Suggest removal)

****It happens all the time, far off site improvements beyond the project is done everyday in this country to trade off something to be built.
Posted by lbuividas (anonymous) on July 13, 2008 at 10:30 p.m.***

I'm not saying this isn't true, but it pretty much contradicts my long-term understanding about proffered or conditional improvements. Do you have any examples of far-off-site improvements such as a major road connection or expansion?

Posted by GR8PMPKN (anonymous) on July 14, 2008 at 6:36 a.m. (Suggest removal)

gr8pmpkn, I am willing to believe parts of the notification issues are beginner's ignorance, but not the communication aspect of it:

Ms. Chaloux owns her own communication business, Chaloux Environmental Communications, and if you visit her website you can see she does a good chunk of government work, with the specialty apparently being "community outreach".

Add in her appearance on VPAP as "self employed/direct mail marketing" (like the at large rep to parks and rec whose emails have landed her in hot water before), and I think Dean may be correct that Ms. Chaloux was targeting a certain group in her "invitations".

The inexperience shows in not only calling it a public meeting when there may not have been the intent, but it shows on her part and Mr. Miller's in attempting to reimage it as comprehensive input worthy of Board action to delay the school.

Do go to Ms. Chaloux' company website, the company motto is quite interesting:

"Building Trust and Credibility Through Effective Communication"

Well, not so far on this one.

Posted by BarbaraMunsey (anonymous) on July 14, 2008 at 6:52 a.m. (Suggest removal)

"but it shows on her part and Mr. Miller's in attempting to reimage it as comprehensive input worthy of Board action to delay the school."

How are they reimaging? You and Dean are the only ones I've heard talk about the meeting as significant to the schools debate.

What Board action has delayed the school?

Posted by GR8PMPKN (anonymous) on July 14, 2008 at 7:48 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Do we have any other examples of planning commissioners hosting public input meetings? I think a point of reference would help with forming an opinion on this meeting. If this is a rare event, I think the effort deserves gratitude even if the execution was flawed.

Posted by GR8PMPKN (anonymous) on July 14, 2008 at 7:57 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Mr. Miller has referred to "substantial community input" on the record in proposing his motion to do a site inventory in the Dulles Suburban Planning Area ONLY.

If the "process is broken", which seems to be the phrase of the day, why not inventory countywide?

Ms. Chaloux has allowed herself to be quoted in the press not only expressing displeasure with the location, but in outlining the timeline for possible approval of a different site.

The middle school has already been to bond referendum for funding and was passed by the voters.

Both staff and Mr. York raised concerns when Mr. Miller's initiatve was up for a vote, saying a comprehensive search would be impossible in the time range for which Mr. Miller has requested it.

Yes, the process of delay has already begun.

It began two years ago when every possible proffered site in Dulles South was shot down by the same protesters (one basically across the street from South Riding, where the protesters maintain the ill-informed fiction that all of the students are coming from).

Deliberately bad information ("This means Greenvest will rezone! The county is paying for utilities to Greenvest! Schools are not supposed to be in the transition zone!") plus (deliberately?) poor public process geared to special interests equals the usual Dulles South war: in fantasyland, nothing was ever supposed to be here, so don't give us our services in return for our taxes.

Posted by BarbaraMunsey (anonymous) on July 14, 2008 at 8:02 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Commissioners often meet with residents, are SUPPOSED to meet with applicants, and other groups.

Usually when commissioners (plural) take public input, it is an official meeting with proper notice handled by staff.

pumpkin, no applause if a solo communique to her own group has been used to leverage the process for the minority by giving it a makeover as "substantial public input" on schools.

Posted by BarbaraMunsey (anonymous) on July 14, 2008 at 8:05 a.m. (Suggest removal)

BM said: "South Riding, where the protesters maintain the ill-informed fiction that all of the students are coming from" Hello? Do you not see the three elementary schools here? Do you not see how many 5th grade classes there are (or will be) in these schools? South Riding can fill a Middle School. Let Mercer be the commuter school.

Posted by SR-Parent (anonymous) on July 14, 2008 at 1:32 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Hello to you too, "srparent".

Those three elementary schools are all proffered sites, and all contain commuters.

(Remember these are County PUBLIC schools.)

None of the elementary schools is appropriate for a middle school--the facilities are built to different specs for differing needs. How will you redesign the gyms? Add fields? Add the additional technical facilities and higher level skills classrooms? Put on the addition for lockers?

The third elementary was an additional proffer by Toll Brothers when doing South Riding Station. The by right growth in this area under the 99 BoS was so overwhelming, Poland Rd. generates enough students for an elementary on its own.

Freedom HS was a two part proffer, which reserved approximately half of the land, leaving it up to the discretion of the school system to use the site as a middle school, or as a high school with the addition of the reserve.

That decision was made years ago; it was never planned to have both a middle and a high school here, as all schools are not subdivision (or hamlet) specific.

Yes, I've seen for some time, "srparent".

The issues you cite are appropriate to the boundary process, between Mercer and the Lenah site.

One of the elementary schools located in South Riding is not going to turn into a middle school, and Market Square will only turn into one several years and millions of extra dollars late after condemnation.

Posted by BarbaraMunsey (anonymous) on July 14, 2008 at 3:28 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Not to speak for her(?), but I don't think sr-parent was suggesting conversion of an elementary school into a middle school; rather, that three elementary schools could clearly feed a new middle school within south riding.
Where in south riding? What would the cost be? How long would it take? What are the economies of scale that are gained from combining an MS and HS on the same site? Can south riding support two High Schools? Is there a 100 acre site in SR -- even if you could condemn it?
Is there a preliminary drawing of where the students for new MS will be coming from?

Posted by daggar (anonymous) on July 14, 2008 at 7:15 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Daggar, I realize that she may have meant that about three schools here, but those schools just happen to be located in South Riding, because South Riding had land to proffer. They don't belong to us, and communities outside the boundary of the South Riding rezoning are included in both Liberty and Little River attendance zone, and possibly Hutchison as well if I'm reading the map right. People often confuse location with ownership.

Communities to the east of South Riding are bused to Pinebrook; as I said, Poland Rd. has generated enough for an additional elementary.

(Generally four elementary schools feed a middle.)

There has also been some talk about "retrofitting" or "redesigning" existing school buildings, which is why I answered the way I did.

Your questions are good ones, and I think they deserve some answers before we go any further down the road of delay.

Anything within South Riding would be a matter of turning vested land into something else.

I attended the Board input session tonight, and was shocked but not surprised to STILL hear people saying that the county would be paying for utilities to Greenvest land, or that the school would be on wells (!), which was very bad too.

Please gang, pick one or the other (preferably neither, since neither one is true!).

Posted by BarbaraMunsey (anonymous) on July 14, 2008 at 11:30 p.m. (Suggest removal)

BarbaraMunsey.
I think the clarification is Greenvest is somewhat providing the utilities by incorporating them in the cost they are charging for the land at $200,000 an acre, I understand they are requesting from the Board of Equalization a worth of about $4,000,000 or less.
Im assuming utilities are included in the sale price based on the potential selling price and the requested appraised value) .
Second point, I believe the schools intend to irrigate their sports fields and lawn with well water if Im not mistaken.

Posted by scooterama (anonymous) on July 15, 2008 at 9:39 p.m. (Suggest removal)

scotterama, Greenvest is not "somewhat" providing the utilities--they are laying them in anyway for the by-right development of the rest of their property there.

That is part of the BOE issue as well. Property valuation is as of January 1, which means it is based on the preceding year's conditions. The preceding year, the utilities weren't on the property yet, so it had a lesser value. If it is true that they've requested $35K per acre for the preceding year's valuation, that isn't out of line with current values in the transition--I've found properties ranging from $34K to $39K per acre listed transitional.

I would imagine that it has been negotiated for Greenvest to deliver a PAD site instead of raw land--that is standard for proffered sites, and since this land is being purchased from a development entity, they (the schools) may be doing it the same way.

A development company can deliver a PAD ready to go much more easily than a civilian can of raw land!

That may raise the price a little, but it is not out of line with developed land in the area: The Marches runs from about $150K to $250K an acre, which is in the range, and Lenah Run clocks in at $400K. (Remember, South Riding residential land is about $700K).

The by-right development of the Greenvest land would probably put it in the range of the Marches or Lenah Run, maybe a bit higher because of the utilities Greenvest is already putting into their land.

$200K an acre may not be out of line at all.

Posted by BarbaraMunsey (anonymous) on July 16, 2008 at 6:22 a.m. (Suggest removal)

As for the well for field irrigation, that is FAR different than drawing for two schools' worth of students.

For people to take that and imply that the schools themselves will be on wells doesn't boost credibility.

I've read the referrals, and it looks like Loudoun Water is all over monitoring the fields in relation to the community wells.

Posted by BarbaraMunsey (anonymous) on July 16, 2008 at 6:26 a.m. (Suggest removal)

"People often confuse location with ownership."
I'll bet I'm guilty of that, or at least guilty of being confused! Can you explain further?

"(Generally four elementary schools feed a middle.)"
So how does that break out with the new middle school? Little River, Hutchison, Pinebrook, Arcola, Aldie...??

And to your last comment, does the site prep explain the difference between $11M for 174 acres at Evergreen/Ryan and $20M for Lenah? If the $11M seemed to high, how do you think twice as much for half the land sounds? Just tryin' to make sense of the whole thing...

Posted by daggar (anonymous) on July 16, 2008 at 7:43 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Daggar, people get very attached to "their" schools. It becomes very easy to think that because a school is sited in one's own community that that's who it belongs to.

Nope--public for everybody. That's why the boundary process can be so vicious.

I don't know how it will break out for the new middle. One of those relaxing boundary processes!

I don't think site prep explains the whole difference in Rouse vs. Lenah. I think the Rouse property was an absolute steal--173 ac for $11M, which, according to staff, saved $28M in the out-years of the CIP on sites that had been budgeted for but would already be purchased through that transaction.

Rouse is in a different part of the transition zone, and I think it is in land use, but may be wrong. I have not been following it as closely, because it is not the site that provides relief to the schools my kids are in.

A lot of factors go into the appraisal, and I repeat, Rouse was a GREAT deal that got torpedoed for political reasons.

Posted by BarbaraMunsey (anonymous) on July 16, 2008 at 8:20 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Meh, everything's political reasons. But unless Adamo can counter the argument that the man-on-the-street reads (here, LTM, Leesburg Today) that the Rouse deal will cost $11M for a property that was appraised at $5M, or $3M, or $8M, and assessed at $4M or $5M, or whatever, I don't see how Lenah ends any differently.
Add in the NIMBYs and You-better-believe-IMBYs (YBBIMBYs?), and it's a real tough sell.
And time is not our friend.

Posted by daggar (anonymous) on July 16, 2008 at 9:53 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I doubt that the Rouse deal can be saved anytime soon--the Board had the opportunity to move money that had been budgeted for the fiscal year that just began this month to the fiscal year that was ending to consummate the deal, and some of the members didn't seem to remember what they adopted in the 6-year plan.

Add in some canned activism and they had a reason to vote it down, and begin to "take control of the process".

Taking control will take a lot more than just voting against their own plans. The school system is charged with selecting sites. The Board can only control that currently through accepting proffered sites, or changing the law, and I mean up to the state level.

The Lenah site is in a different situation: two years ago it went on the ballot to allot $25M for a site purchase, and they aren't spending all of what the voters approved. The money is already approved to buy Lenah, and then some.

Mr. York did a great job clarifying this for Ms. McGimsey during discussion of the bond items. He and staff told her at least three times that no, the voters had already approved money for the site, and NO, that bond language didn't include buying it from Greenvest. Money to buy land. From someone who owns land. That's all. Repeat.

No, time is no one's friend but the BANANAs. Delay, delay, delay, soon becomes defeat, deny.

Posted by BarbaraMunsey (anonymous) on July 17, 2008 at 6:31 a.m. (Suggest removal)

It looks like Barbara Munsey has too much time on her hands. The schools don't fit into the Comprehensive Plan or the Transition Policy Area. This is why they require approval by the P&Z as a "special exception." The requirements of a special exception are just that..."special." Give the process a chance to work instead of being a sore loser. Let the planning commission look at the facts and make a recommendation to the Board of Supervisors. If you don't have confidence that they will make the right decission perhaps it is because you voted for someone else...who Lost. Our representatives are voted by a majority for a reason.

Posted by tbellanca (anonymous) on July 17, 2008 at 4:39 p.m. (Suggest removal)

tbellanca, I'm going away for a week tomorrow, so won't be checking in as often, but I do have time to tell you before I go that you have been misinformed.

Chapter 8 of the Revised General Plan is the section on Transition Policy Area. If you read the "Land Use Pattern" section of chapter 8, you will see that acceptable non-residential use includes public and private schools, and that these non-residential uses are intended to serve both rural and suburban residents.

http://loudoun.gov/controls/speerio/reso...

The requirements of a special exception are that they conform to the guidelines of the Comprehensive Plan. The transition zone is not too "special" for schools.

Are you implying that those who won are entitled to disregard the Plan for their backers, even though they campaigned on upholding it?

Posted by BarbaraMunsey (anonymous) on July 17, 2008 at 5:10 p.m. (Suggest removal)

It is interesting how you skip over parts of the document to a specific clause that serves your purpose. Most educated people would read the document in its entirety and see the intent and purpose behind it. I can't see how 350,000 square feet serves the purpose of a transition area. Even in Fairfax and Arlington there are few schools this size. It is amazing you could call me misinformed about this process. The special exception will in fact go to the board and they will make an informed decission. They do have a mandate provided by their electorate and a term in which to provide that mandate. Everything is not as black and white as you might wish it to be unless you have an agenda of your own.

Posted by tbellanca (anonymous) on July 17, 2008 at 8:40 p.m. (Suggest removal)

tbellanca, I have my doubts you've read the whole thing, or you wouldn't be making the sweeping (and sweepingly incorrect) statements that you have.

That specific clause is the LAND USE section. It says what USES may occur on LAND in the transition zone.

It doesn't serve any purpose of mine, it is COUNTY POLICY.

Fairfax builds BIGGER SCHOOLS.

The size of the school built in Loudoun is also a matter of adopted county policy.

The special exception will first finish staff review, then they will issue a report on its compliance with county policy and the plan, recommending either approval or denial.

Then it goes to the Planning Commission for review and public hearing. They can send it to committee of the whole for further work, or pass it on to the Board of Supervisors with a recommendation of approval, denial, or no recommendation.

THEN the Board gets it, for review and another public hearing. They can either send it to committee for further work, pass it or deny it.

Hopefully both voting bodies will make an informed decision. That is staff's job, to inform them. Unfortunately, at least one commissioner seems to have already made up their mind, in which case they should recuse themselves from voting.

You do sound very misinformed.

The fact that they were elected means they get to vote on it, that is true.

But there is adopted county policy (which they campaigned to uphold), in fact a lot of county policies! which under state law they have a mandate to follow or a proper procedure to follow for changing policy.

The school board is charged under state code with selection and acquisition of sites.

If the Board wishes to change the Comprehensive Plan to disallow schools in the transition zone, then they need to initiate a CPAM and change it.

Look it up.

Posted by BarbaraMunsey (anonymous) on July 17, 2008 at 9:24 p.m. (Suggest removal)

As I said. Too much time on your hands. Thanks for the education lesson. I'll send my kids over to your house since you seem to know it all.

Posted by tbellanca (anonymous) on July 17, 2008 at 11:16 p.m. (Suggest removal)

tb, you're being juvenile yourself.

The Comp Plan weighs several pounds, most people haven't read it. I wouldn't recommend it for your kids, but it is online if you want to read it with them:

http://loudoun.gov/Default.aspx?tabid=32...

This area has always been so competitive, only truly talented people survive and thrive here. However, being an ace in whatever your specific discipline is doesn't mean you're an ace in every subject. Another thing prominent in the DC area is the type of ego that comes with competitive success, and sometimes people have one hell of a hard time admitting when they don't know something.

So they get angry and bluster in the face of fact.

I never said I know everything. The real experts are over in the county building--the ones who do nothing but review land use applications against county policy every day.

First referrals by those experts in Community Planning found the Lenah site in substantial conformance with the plan.

Posted by BarbaraMunsey (anonymous) on July 17, 2008 at 11:49 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Ah ha, now it is clear. You were Steve Snow's nomination to the Planning Commission. I guess I hit the nail on the head, republican activist, sore loser aka know it all.

Posted by tbellanca (anonymous) on July 18, 2008 at 12:05 p.m. (Suggest removal)

tb, if it makes you feel better, think anything about me you like. It is immaterial to me.

The fact remains you are ill-informed about the plan and the process. As I said, I don't know everything. As the process continues, it might help you to be able to admit the same about yourself.

Posted by BarbaraMunsey (anonymous) on July 18, 2008 at 12:27 p.m. (Suggest removal)

hoookaay...
If the 'winning argument' is that the schools don't fit because of some obscure set of rules in a 400 page document written by lawyers, then let's start digging now.
I'll call myself a bit more concerned about:
1. how Rt. 50 narrows right before Lenah Rd. (and asking HS kids to figure out how to handle it safely)
2. whether $20M is the right price
3. how to continue funding decent schools during a period of student expansion and budget contraction. The track record of gov't. in making hard choices is not encouraging.

But if you guys want to argue about subsection 15 of paragraph 3.a, go for it.

Posted by daggar (anonymous) on July 18, 2008 at 4:58 p.m. (Suggest removal)