!lcps against hillsboro es addition

8/7/2019 !LCPS against Hillsboro ES addition

1/21


2/21

Stinger

From: "Wayde Byard" To: "Stinger" Sent: Wednesday, May 27, 2009 10:49 AMSubject: [SPAM] Re: March 2009 Stinger FOIA followup

10/29/2009

Mrs. Stinger,

I have been as clear as I can be. We have given you all our information in regards to these questions. - WaydeB. Byard

>>> "Stinger" 5/27/2009 10:38 AM >>>Mr. Byard,

Thank you for your response. Sorry but I just want to be sure I am understanding what you are saying...to beclear...

1. Can you please state explicitly that LCPS never prepared any scope of work or solicitation (phonelog/email/written or otherwise) for the Cangiano/Burgess site hydrogeologic study that Urban/EGGI is

currently conducting?

2. Can you please state explicitly how LCPS classifies the RFP response sent by Mr. Mark Nelis on July 3?

3. Are there no preliminary cost data for water/wastewater infrastructure, traffic upgrades, wetlands andother mitigation needs for the Cangiano/Burgess site? These data were presented last night forMcDonough assemblage, so it seems reasonable LCPS would have equivalent cost types estimated forCangiano/Burgess.

Again, sincere appreciation for your help,Sarah

----- Original Message -----From: Wayde ByardTo: StingerSent: Wednesday, May 27, 2009 9:20 AMSubject: Re: [SPAM] Re: March 2009 Stinger FOIA followup

Mrs. Stinger,

1. You have received everything we have on this subject.2. The representatives of the Crim property never submitted a formal RFP, which is why it was not considered.

3. We have procurement policies that may be accessed through our purchasing office.We have documents waiting for you.

The School Board received a briefing on some of the properties you mentioned last night, which is availablevia the Web. Other parts of the analysis are ongoing. - Wayde B. Byard

>>> "Stinger" 5/27/2009 2:00 AM >>>Mr. Byard,

I understand . However:

1. If LCPS has no solicitation for the hydrogeologic study, I would expectyou to be able to simply state that.

2. Asking for LCPS to provide their rationale for excluding the Crim RFPresponse is a reasonable expectation.


3/21

Dr. Adamo's attached Moler Property memo raises more concerns than settles:

1. He explains staff's actions with respect to the Moler (aka Crim) property immediately adjacent toHillsboro Elementary School, stating they "pursued" the parcel. The memo specifically contradicts thestatement made by Wayde Byard, LCPS PIO, "The representatives of the Crim property never submitteda formal RFP, which is why it was not considered."

2. The need to prepare this memo underscores the ongoing significant effort LCPS has taken todiscount sites near Towns while pushing for more expensive sites located far from Towns. For example,overwhelming problems were raised about Lovettsville sites in LCPS presentations (Park and Miller inJuly07 and May 08 then Shoene and McDonough in May09). How much staff time has been spentmaking excuses and worse, paying consultants to help them develop excuses?

3. The memo fails to mention that this site was on LCPS lists of potential HS-3 sites. Priscilla Godfreywas asked about the Crim site at a 2007 Western Schools Task Force meeting, her response was "staffsays the slopes are too steep". The Planning Commission failed to approve LCPS' proposal to siteschools at Grubb due to its noncompliance with the Comp Plan. Instead of considering the 70-acre Crimproperty's open spaces on the central and eastern portions and its frontage on both paved MountainRoad and Route 9 (see attached topo map), LCPS staff ignored the Planning Commission's concerns andforged again with another, even more expensive proposal in Wheatland.

4. Dr. Adamo states soils are not adequate for an elementary school. Conversely, a consultant's report(SES, 11Dec08) states the soils are very good, able to accomodate 20,000-30,000 gallons per day.Considering the Wheatland pump test plan (EGGI, 27Apr09) cites Virginia Health Department Guidelinesfor elementary school water use of 10 gallons/day, a soil bearing capacity of even 50% of the consultant'slower estimate (10,000 gallons per day) indicate the soil can accomodate a facility of 1,000 students andstaff.

5. Dr. Adamo's statement regarding the $2M price was an outstanding "issue" suggests it was notconsidered cost effective. The parcel offered to the School Board was 18.6 acres (though negotiating formore land and lower price was always an option to LCPS), therefore, IF the price was really $2M for 18.6acres, that would still be less than LCPS' Burgess contract of $1.47M for 10 acres (see summary ofknownwestern Loudoun land acquisition efforts below).

6. Because the memo explains staff's actions to the School Board, it is clear LCPS staff unilaterallydecides which sites are presented to elected officials, including making the decision to disqualify the RFPresponse without even informing their own School Board members until now, much less present itto the Board of Supervisors in their briefing packet. If it were not for a citizen's FOIA request, electedofficials and citizens would never have even known about this option. Since the Cangiano contract wassigned, Jim McDonough has stated he approached Dr. Adamo a couple of years ago with an optionand was turned away. How many other viable sites has LCPS staff kept secret?

7. The memo suggests the consultant's soil report submittal in Dec08 was the reason it was not includedin the BOS briefing packet. That packet did not include any consultant's reports nor did it evensummarize such detailed site-specific soil study data (20,000-30,000 gpd) on any other site.

8. Dr. Adamo admits in his memo "staff believed it would be more prudent to let the contract expire". Theexact same tactic, wait for contracts to expire, was used to kill the McDonough Assemblage option thisyear.

LCPS staff's ongoing inclusion of closing down Hillsboro ES in their proposed budget cuts, yearafter year, is inexcusable when an expansion site immediately adjacent to it has been available foryears, and a proposal to acquire a portion of that site was placed in their lap in 2008 in directresponse to the RFP.


4/21

Conclusions:At a minimum, because FOIA restricts availability of information and requires requests be very specific, acomprehensive independent audit of LCPS' land acquisition files is appropriate. LCPS staff's unilateraldecisionmaking without input from officials elected by citizens to make these decisions drips of arrogance;their repeated disregard for the Comprehensive Plan demonstrates an inability to grasp the importance ofland-use planning; and, their expenditure of $1-2M (or more) on consultant studies on western sitesalone, including sole-sourced procurements hiring seller's consultants, indicate LCPS staff are incapableof cost-effectively managing the responsibility of land acquisition.

Summary of LCPS efforts in western Loudoun to sabotage affordable community-based alternatives infavor of Wheatland:

Year

Known Wheatland area

acquisitions initiated by LCPS

staff

Known Proposals offered to LCPS for

sites in/adjacent to Towns that comply

with Comp Plan

2006

$40k/acre Grubb contract 104

acres

$32k/acre Miller initiated offer of 155

acres ($4.9M) adjacent to

LOVETTSVILLE

LCPS first response to Millers offer:

we have authority to condemn your

land. Later: your land isnt even worth

$26k/acre.

$57k/acre Rackam letter of

intent $5.6M for 99 acres

$40k/acre Danner draft contract

$7M for 166acres

2008 $? HILLSBORO site next to existing ES

(subject of attch'd memo)

2009 $62k/acre Cangiano contract

$147k/acre- Burgess contract total

$11.4M for 170 acres

$54k/acre McDonough Assemblage

LOVETTSVILLE $5.87M for 108 acres

proposed in Apr2009. Contracts expired

Apr2010 before any study was initiated


5/21

Pagc I of

Randv Vlad - school siteFrom:To:Date:Subject:

"Mark Nelis" 71312008 3:43 PMschool site

Randy:per our discussions. my client, the contract purchaser of Moler- Crimm property adjacent to Hillsboro Elementary,would like to have this property considered as part of any effort to obtain school sites in accordance with the June1gth advertisement in ihe Leesburg Today. I believe you have adequate information to conduct a preliminaryreview.Thank you for your consideration.Mark NelisThe jnformatjon contained in this e-mait is confidentiaI and/or tegalty priviLegedIt is intended ontV for the addressee(s). lf you are not the intended recipient, donot disctose, copy, distribute or take any action in reliance on these documents.lf vou are not the addressee, ptease detete this e-maiL in its entirety.

Mark Nelis, P.C.196 N.21st StreetPurcelf vif le, VA 20132540-338-5843FAX 540-338-3702

fllc:,r,'(':\Docurnenrs and SettinqsiLCP S\Local Scttings\Temp'XPgrpu'isc\'{86CF3B8LOLTD. 7i31'200

The site plans that follow were not provided in my initial March-09 FOIA

all I received was this email. After subsequently submitting a more exhaustiive

FOIA request and paying ~$700 and going through an unorganized stack of papers

literally 6 feet thick and 50 drawings did I find these plans


6/21


7/21


8/21


9/21

Loudoun County Mapobiects/IMS

Loudoun Ceiunty fl*Iapping System7,122.651

7,119,901

INI

Page I ofl

11,705,6531,702,509Created

Mao Width=3.144 feeton 2111l2OO8 12:21:34 PM

Planned UseE nun-zoE rowruPIN Address

482263376

Esrima lname:rvebde.laultto is&a - 2llll20Q8


10/21

Lt'udour Counr) Mapubjects'lMS

Loudoun County Nlapping System7,122,764

7,120,014

Page I of i

INI

11,705,779

Steep Slopeslvloderately Steep Slope Areas 15%-25%I Very Sieep Slope Afeas 25% or creater

11,702,636Created

Map Width=3.144 feeton 211 1 /2OO8 1 2:43:50 PM

http://gisinterl.loudoun.gov/servlet/com.esri.esrimap.Esrirnap?name=webdefaultlogis&ap...2/11/2008


11/21


12/21


13/21


14/21


15/21


16/21


17/21


18/21


19/21


20/21


21/21

!lcps against hillsboro es addition

Documents