School Board, Supervisors Find Common Ground from Divide

Officials Working to Change Land Acquisition Process

By Michael Birnbaum (Contact)

Saturday, October 25, 2008

Although last week's defeat of a plan to buy property in Lenah for two future schools highlighted deep divisions between Loudoun County supervisors and School Board members, they agree on one thing: the need to reform the school land acquisition process.

The two boards are working on a system that would trigger a joint meeting when school sites are being considered, allowing supervisors to express concerns and make suggestions on land deals far earlier than has been the case.

Although the Loudoun school district has been growing rapidly for many years, only recently have school officials had to actively seek out most of the land needed for future construction. During the fastest period of Loudoun's growth, the district typically built on parcels that developers provided as proffers, properties they donated to the county in exchange for being allowed to build higher-density housing. With the build-out of eastern Loudoun and the restrictions on development in other parts of the county, proffered land has become less common.

"I don't think that the land acquisition process changed in response to . . . the lack of proffered land," School Board Vice Chairman John Stevens (Potomac) said. "I don't think that the processes that the county has have adjusted yet. That's what the county needs to do, and we're working on it."

The School Board wanted to buy the 99-acre Lenah property for a middle school and a high school, to open in 2010 and 2011, respectively. But the Board of Supervisors turned down the district's zoning application Tuesday by 5 to 4, with the majority saying that the $19 million price for the land was too high and that the schools would be too far away from the communities they would serve. School officials said the site's rejection probably would delay the schools' openings two years.

Supervisor Stevens Miller (D-Dulles), who led the effort to veto the Lenah deal, agreed with Stevens on the need for changes in the land acquisition process. He said the last couple of deals the school district forwarded to the supervisors were "train wrecks."

Miller suggested a process that would include early input not just from the supervisors and the School Board but also the public.

"What's wrong with letting the public make those comments?" Miller said. "We seem to be finding with increasing frequency now that when people find out that we're looking for a site, people who own land are coming forward."

Miller said he recognizes the school system's need to expand. "We've got a down [real estate] market," he said. "This is a great opportunity to go out. If we've got the funds, we can even go out and do some land banking," buying properties in anticipation of future expansion.

The Lenah deal isn't dead. School officials could try to persuade a supervisor who opposed it to reconsider at the board's next meeting, in early November.

"We knew that there were a number of concerns on the Board of Supervisors" before the vote, Stevens said. "Frankly, we're still hoping to address some of those concerns."

He emphasized that the School Board had not met since the supervisors' vote.

School Board members will decide on their next moves when they meet Tuesday. Asking a supervisor to reconsider a vote would be a high-stakes move, because the school district will lose a $100,000 deposit on the Lenah property if it doesn't seek the deposit's return by Wednesday.

The district's planning staff also is taking a harder look at other potential sites, including a parcel near Bull Run Post Office Road known as the Lambert property.

The two boards also are working much more closely than they have in the past on their proposed operating budgets. Planning the next fiscal year's budget usually has been a December to January task; this year, budget talks started in September.

For the first time, the school district might prepare multiple budget proposals with different funding levels, including one with a cut of up to 15 percent, to make its priorities clear to the public and supervisors. That idea will be discussed at Tuesday's meeting.

"We're showing our cards up front," Stevens said. "Because we're saying with this budget level, this is what you'll get in your schools."

He said that in past years, he thought supervisors, who control overall school funding but have no say in how the money is spent, would simply cut the School Board's funding request on the assumption that its budget could be leaner.

Supervisors said they appreciate the new approach.

"I really have to give credit to the School Board," Supervisor Susan Klimek Buckley (D-Sugarland Run) said. "They're really stepping up."

Tagged: Board of Supervisors, development, growth, Lenah Run, school board, schools

Your Thoughts...

Are you happy that the school year is over?