LoudounExtra.com

Killing of 3-School Deal Offers Lessons

Process to Acquire Land Might Change

By Derek Kravitz

Originally published at 12:00 a.m., May 28, 2009
Updated at 12:00 a.m., May 30, 2009

The Loudoun County Board of Supervisors' vote last week to strike down a plan to build a three-school complex near Lovettsville might have far-reaching consequences, including strained relations between supervisors and the School Board and a revamped process for purchasing land for schools.

A contentious, weeks-long debate between supervisors and School Board members over the proposal ended Wednesday night when the supervisors voted, 8 to 1, against funding the Wheatland Farm project.

It was a startling reversal by the board, which had all but signed off on the "edu-plex" three months ago. Since February, when the $11.4 million contract was drawn up between the county and the landowners, developer Salvatore J. Cangiano and cattle farmer Alvin Burgess, officials had given an informal nod to build the elementary, middle and high schools on 170 acres along Route 287, just north of Route 9.

But support for the project quickly eroded last month, as a group of western Loudoun farmers waged an aggressive campaign to stop the deal. The Wheatland Alliance, an advocacy group composed of eight farms in the Lovettsville area, organized a 1,200-name petition opposing the plan, and 65 people spoke at a lengthy county board meeting, arguing that the schools would damage the area's rural economy, cause traffic congestion and create water shortages.

Sarah Stinger, a Lovettsville area community school activist and member of the Wheatland Alliance, x said she was happy about the supervisors' vote, and she called on county officials to "take charge with a sincere willingness to find a way to bring these schools to Lovettsville."

"Now that the Board of Supervisors has effectively killed school sites in Wheatland, we trust Loudoun County public schools' apparent agenda to accelerate Loudoun development will finally come to a halt, with the county taking the lead on land-use planning," she said.

The chief concerns cited by county officials Wednesday were the $62,000-per-acre original price of the property, which was eventually negotiated down, and the often-secretive nature of negotiations between the Loudoun school system and the landowners.

Cangiano, the Leesburg developer who two weeks ago agreed to sell 160 acres of his 550-acre property to the county for $7.6 million, about $2.4 million less than the original asking price, said in an interview that he was not disappointed by the vote. He said he will go forward with plans to develop three-acre and larger estates and an equestrian center on the property, called the Reserve at Waterford. He called the controversy "the best advertisement I've ever had."

"I don't have an ax to grind. I'm not a politician, and I don't know what happened, but that's their job, not mine," he said. "I offered to sell it for what I paid for it, but, like my brother said, 'The path to Hell is paved with good intentions.' "

Cangiano said he thought problems with the county's official assessment of the property created the false appearance that he was receiving a sweetheart deal from the school system. He said the final vote on the project was a "fiasco," adding: "If I ran my business like that, I don't where I'd be."

In recent weeks, the public debate over the project led to an unusual display of sniping between county supervisors and School Board members, damaging the already-fragile relationship between the two bodies. The Wheatland vote marked the third time in the past year that supervisors had rejected the school district's school construction plans.

Before casting a vote to move forward with the Wheatland plan Tuesday, School Board Chairman Robert F. DuPree Jr. (Dulles) said he was sending this message to supervisors: "These are the options. If you still don't think this is the best option or something worth pursuing, then tell us on the record that you've changed your mind — don't just send us to do the dirty work."

The next day, Board of Supervisors Chairman Scott K. York (I), in voting against the Wheatland deal, said the public had not been given enough time to weigh in, adding that a discussion period should have been "built in for when both boards come together."

Sam Adamo, the school district's director of legislative and planning services, said officials knew the Wheatland site would involve a "dogfight." But he said that after considering the pros and cons of more than 30 other sites, school officials considered it the most ideal location. Adamo attributed the collapse of the deal to policy differences and an "issue of leadership."

"We followed exactly the process outlined by the Board of Supervisors. We did everything they asked us to do," Adamo said. "I can't figure it out."

During Wednesday night's meeting, supervisors indicated that they would explore ideas on how to retool the county's land purchase process.

Board Vice Chairman Susan Klimek Buckley (D-Sugarland Run) acknowledged that private discussions have taken place about whether the county board should "take over the school site acquisition process." Supervisor Stevens Miller (D-Dulles) called the appraisal process used to negotiate the terms of the Wheatland deal "mysterious" and "imperfect," and Supervisor Lori L. Waters (R-Broad Run) said the "time has come for the School Board and school system to focus on education."

The lone dissenting vote, Supervisor Eugene A. Delgaudio (R-Sterling), called the decision to cancel the contract a "hijacking based on a public outcry."

Copyright 2009 The Washington Post Company