Request for Audit of LCPS Planning Dept

8/7/2019 Request for Audit of LCPS Planning Dept

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/request-for-audit-of-lcps-planning-dept 1/40

Request for Audit of LCPS Planning DepartmentNovember 9, 2010

Citizens are very concerned with the preponderance of irregularities that exist with respect to

LCPS’ selection of school sites. Citizen support of LCPS’ operating and CIP budgets requirestremendous trust that our tax dollars are being wisely spent to advance a single agenda, that is to

provide the best possible education for students in Loudoun County for the available budget.

Therefore, citizens request that these irregularities be reconciled immediately to build citizen trust

in LCPS’ fiduciary responsibility. We recognize past events are just that, the past, however, we

believe in the role and importance of history lessons. Because looking at history is perhaps the

best way to fix problems we don’t want repeated in the future. Therefore we submit the following

partial list of questions that have been raised on western Loudoun site acquisitions.

1. McDonough Assemblage

a. Why were tens of thousands of dollars paid to consultants for continuing studies on

Wheatland Farm after the May 2009 rejection of that site by the Board of Supervisors?

(see page C-3)

b. Why were funds available for continued study in Wheatland but not on the McDonough

Assemblage? (see page C-3)

c. Why did LCPS wait until April 2010 (expiration date of McDonough Assemblagecontracts) before asking Supervisors for more money to study options, when the

advertisement for land closed 5 months prior, in October 2009?

d. Why were detailed costs presented for McDonough Assemblage-associated traffic

improvements but no equivalent cost estimates were shared with the public for

infrastructure and mitigating measures anticipated for the Wheatland Farm school

1

1



Western School Site Acquisition Summary

2. Hydrogeologic Study of Cangiano Wheatland property

a. Considering the LCPS-Cangiano contract was contingent on favorable results of the

hydrogeologic study, why did LCPS ignore the conflict of interest associated with hiring

the seller’s contractor instead of simply hiring an independent contractor?

b. What is the sole source (non-competitive) justification for LCPS to hire Mr. Cangiano’s

consultant?

c. What is the justification for proposing a school water supply well located on land that

was not even under LCPS contract for purchase (Well WLS-16 on Attachment B); and,

what was the cost for improving that well (from residential design to a community water

supply)?

d. What was LCPS’ plan for acquiring water from that well to supply the proposedschools? For example, did LCPS plan to buy even more land from Mr. Cangiano? or,

did LCPS plan to lease the land/well over the long-term such that Loudoun citizens

would make ongoing payments to Mr. Cangiano for the school facilities’ water?

e. A November 2009 invoice to LCPS for $28k (Attachment C) referenced preparation of

the Final Hydrogeologic Study and submittal to local and State agencies, was this

invoice paid? If so, what work product(s) did the invoice cover and when was that work

conducted?

3. Wheatland Farm Contract

a. When copies were requested (via March 2009 FOIA request) of all correspondence

between LCPS and Mr. Cangiano, LCPS asked me to come to a meeting with their

legal counsel. In the meeting I was told this item would require significant research,



d. Did the Supervisors briefing packet include soil study results for other sites which were

comparable to the Moler site soil study results? (reference June 2010 LCPS memo to

School Board and Dr. Hatrick – Attachment D)

e. What attempts did LCPS make in 2008 to contact landowners adjacent to the 57-acre

Scott site presented in a RFP response?

f. Why were the Shoene property representatives (Lennar) told that responding to the

RFP was unnecessary because LCPS had already selected a property?

g. Why did LCPS’ response to the March 2009 FOIA request exclude the results of due

diligence studies (invoiced by Bury+Partners and others) conducted on the Hillsboro

Moler (Crim) property?

h. Was a cost-benefit analysis presented to the School Board comparing any options forES-25, including: 1. new facility at Wheatland Farm 2. new facility in Hillsboro on the

Moler property 3. Addition/expansion of existing Hillsboro Elementary on the parcel(s)

offered to LCPS in their proposal? If so, did the analysis include the $233,907 LCPS

has already committed to constructing a roundabout at the intersection of Hillsboro Rd

and Rte 9 to mitigate traffic related to HS-3 (Woodgrove)?

i. The June 2010 memo LCPS stated, “Staff believed it would be more prudent to let the

contract expire, and then negotiate directly with the landowner ” What correspondenceexists between LCPS and the owner of the Moler property in Hillsboro property?

j. With respect to the June 2010 memo, what are the specific benefits to Loudoun school

children and taxpayers for allowing land contracts to expire? Did this rationale also

apply to the McDonough Assemblage contracts expiring in April 2010? (see question 2d

above)



c. LCPS stated in 2008 that, at build out, western Loudoun would need 2.5 additional

1800 student high schools (4500 seats). What is a 0.5 high school? What is the

rationale for a more expensive building (1800-student) and greater expense for

associated infrastructure/mitigating measures when citizens in the small Town have

raised reasonable concerns about impacts on the character of their community related

to a high school larger-than-County’s average?

d. Has LCPS ever received (or have knowledge of) information from individuals

associated with the Town of Lovettsville requesting new schools be sited outside of

Town?

e. In November 2007 Lovettsville issued a Resolution in support of a high school,

including the Town’s willingness to supply sewer service. Has LCPS received (or haveknowledge of) any information from any Lovettsville official to believe the Town’s

position has changed?

f. Does LCPS have any knowledge of any agreement (formal or informal, recent or

historic) that middle and high schools are to be sited outside of Lovettsville, specifically

agreements among individuals or officials currently or formerly affiliated with LCPS,

Loudoun County or the Town of Lovettsville?

6. 2006 Contracts

a. Did anyone at LCPS, including their legal counsel, consultants or agents, have any

contact whatsoever (implied or documented) with Mr. Cangiano or his representatives

regarding LCPS’ interest in Wheatland Farm prior to Mr. Cangiano initiating his

acquisition of that property?



for Wheatland Farm and $40k/acre for the Grubb Farm where stand-alone

water/wastewater treatment systems would be needed?

i. Does LCPS have any documentation supporting statement made in their June 2006

letter that the value of Mr. Miller’s land was $25k/acre, instead of the $32k/acre value

documented in the Miller’s February 2006 appraisal?

j. Did Mr. Grubb specifically request all wells drilled by LCPS’ contractor be abandoned?

k. Did LCPS confer with Loudoun County staff about the possible benefit to Loudoun

citizens of using one or more of the wells drilled by a LCPS contractor for the County’s

ongoing groundwater monitoring program?

l. Why did LCPS ignore the recommended alignment for schools on a Lovettsville site that

was initially identified by a VDOT representative (see Attachment A) during a March2006 meeting attended by LCPS, VDOT and Loudoun County officials?

m. Repeated requests have been denied for a copy of ****Mayor Walker’s Plan*****

(see Attachment A). What is “Mayor Walkers Plan”?

7. To demonstrate LCPS’ efforts to find near Town sites, what correspondence exists between

LCPS and owners of properties listed by LCPS as possible HS-10 sites that offer existing

paved road frontage and are located near the Town of Lovettsville, including these properties,Shoene, O’Brien/Athey Assemblg, Opeka, and Mercker; and, owners of contiguous parcels?

GENERAL QUESTIONS

8. What is LCPS’ rationale against taping School Board Executive Sessions involving real estate

so incoming School Board representatives can objectively understand past decisions?



Western School Site Acquisition Summary

Date Known Wheatland acquisitionsinitiated by LCPS Planning Dept

Known Proposals near TownsRejected by LCPS Planning Dept

$57,000/acre Rackam letter of intent99 acres for $5.6M (13Feb06)

$40,000/acre Grubb contract104 acres for $4M (Mar06)

2006

$40,000/acre Danner draft contract166 acres for $7M

$30,000/acre Miller initial asking price156 acres for $4.65M (4Jan06)

Note: LCPS asserts authority to condemn (27Jan06)

$32,900/acre - $5.1M Property appraisal ordered byMillers (10Feb06)

$31,935/acre on contract signed by Mr. and Mrs. Millerand notarized - $4.95M (7Apr06)

$29,677/acre - $4.6M - Miller final asking price (9Jun06)

LCPS’ states their appraiser valued Miller Farm at$26,000/acre (28Jun06) No LCPS appraisal to verify.

200870-acre Moler site contiguous to Hillsboro Elementary,terms and price not disclosed by LCPS (3Jul2008)

Scott – terms and price not disclosed by LCPS (Jun08)

2009$67,000/acre:

$62,000/acre Cangiano contract+ $147,000/acre Burgess contract= 170 acres for $11.4M

$54,000/acre McDonough Assemblage contracts108 acres for $5.87M



ATTACHME



by moving the round-about north to Loudoun St, the need to align the

school access road through (and condemn) the Moore home is eliminated.

This suggestion was never considered in subsequent presentations.

A



Emery & Gurrett Groandwater, Inc"56

Main Streetc P.O"

Box1578

Meredith, New Hampshire 03253

(603) 279-4425 www.eggi.com Fax (603) 279-8717

Aprll}7,2009

Mr. Dennis Cumbie

Loudoun CounfyDepaftment of Building & Development

I Harrison Street, SE, 3'o FloorLeesburg, V A 20177 -7 000

RE: Wheatland/Western Loudoun Schools - Pumping Test Plan

Dear Dennis,

Loudoun County Public Schools (LCPS) is proposing to develop an Elementary School, a

Middle School, and a High School at the Wheatland project site, located near the intersection ofthe Berlin Turnpike (Route 287) and John Wolford Road (Route 694) in Loudoun County,

ATTACHMENT B

B



fr{r" Dennis Cwmbie Fage 2 April 27, 2009

Elementary School875 students

+

90 staff:965 x 3.1 gallons per day perDel'son

2,992 gallons per day

Middle School 1,350 students + 140

staff : 1,490

x 2.9 gallons per day per

Derson


High School 1,800 students + 200

staff :2,000x 5.0 gallons per day per

Derson


Total 17,313 spd (12 snm)'These calculations reflect actual potable water use rates per person as reportedby Loudoun County Public Schools (information provided by Sara Howard-O'Brien LCPS, March 2009) for the time period Januarv 2005-Januarv 2006.

The demand for potable water is to be met by three (or possibly four) proposedCommunity Supply Wells. These wells are identified as Wells WLS-2B2, WLS-10, and WLS-l6 (and possibly Well WLS-I) (Figures I and 2). Water Well Completion Reports (GW-2s) forthese wells are included with this document.

During the proposed yield and quality testing program, all Community Supply Wells willbe pumped simultaneously to create a maximum stress on the local bedrock aquifer(s). Weanticipate pumping each well between 10 and 20 gpm. Each community supply well will bepumped for a minimum of 72 hours. All discharge water will be directed a minimum of 200 feetaway from each well to the streams draining the site. Preventative measures will be taken tominimize bank erosion at each discharge point.



frfr. Dennis Cumbie Pcge 3 Aprit 27, 2009

Near the conclusion of pumping, water samples willbe collected from each Community

Supply Well and delivered to the Virginia Division of Consolidated Laboratory Scrvices (StateLaboratory), and Joiner Micro-Labs for all analyses required by the State Department of Health

and Loudoun County Department of Health for new community water supply rvells.

EGGI will also install three piezometers within the streambed located along the northemproperty boundary and water levels will be monitored every 30 minutes to assess potential

impacts to the fluvial plain area. We will also be installing staff gages in on-site ponds to assess

possible changes in surface water levels.'

I hope you find this information responsive to your needs. If you have any questions

regarding the proposed pumping test plan please do not hesitate to contact me.

Sincerely,

lhL6$u-^-

Mark Wingsted John Brooks, Ph.D., PG

Projegt Manager Senior Hydrogeologist

Cc: Sara Howard-O'Brien, Loudoun County Public Schools



Supply well on seller's

property not under

contract for purchase.





ATTACHMENT C



C



ATTACHMENT

D

ATTACHMENT E



ATTACHMENT E



A t t h e 2 8 M a y 2 0 0 8 c o m m u n i t y m e e t i n g , L C P S o n l y

p r e s e n t e d t h e

a l i g n m e n t s i n t h i s d r a

w i n g ( F i g u r e 1 ) .

T h e a l i g n m e n t s s h o w n h e r e r e q u i r e d c o n d e m n a t i o n

o f t h e M o o r e

h o m e . A t t h e m e e t i n g

, L C P S m a d e n o

m e n t i o n o f o t h e r r o a d a l i g n m e n t a l t e r n a t i v e s . T h i s

m i s r e p r e s e n t a

t i o n l e d t h e p u b l i c t o f a l s e l y b e l i e v e t h e

o n l y v i a b l e H

S s i t e w a s C a n g i a n o

. T h e f o l l o w i n g

F i g u r e s 2 a n d

3 s h o w t w o a l t e r n a t

i v e s , w h i c h w e r e

w i t h h e l d f r o m

t h e p u b l i c u n t i l u n c o v e r e d i n 2 0 0 9 b y

t h e F O I A

.

F i g u r e 3 r e f l e c t s t h e a l i g n m e n t a n d

r o u n d a b o u t s p

e c i f i c a l l y s u g g e s t e d b y V D O T s t a f f . E

- 2





C t St tPage 14 from LCPS Presentation:



Current Status

Miller Property not for sale

Lovettsville Park option requires additional acreage from both Moore and M

Effect on Park and its program requires additional examination. Impacts are

selected

Right-of-Way Access would have to be purchased or acquired via condemna

Road improvements are estimated at $7,000,000

Property and Right-of-Way needs would likely require condemnation of mul

Town of Lovettsville would have to amend its comprehensive plan to reflect

public schools to the town utility grid

Page 14 from LCPS Presentation:

"Secondary School Sites in Lovettsville"

May 28, 2008

ATTACHMENT G



ATTACHMENT G

G



G



G







G



G



G



G

G-10



Co*tRACror So""

I'

Between

G



CONTRACT,OF SAIjB

THIS CONTRACT OF SALE (hereinafter refened to as "Contract") is hereby entered

into this day of February, 2006, by and between the county school Board of Loudoun

County, a body politic (hereinafter referred to as the "Buyer"), and Herbert J. Miller, Jr. and

Carey K. Miller, his wife (although more than one, they are hereinafter referred to as the

"SeUerr').

RECITALS:I

A. Seller is tfre owner of twelve (12) contiguous tracts of land located in Loudoun

County, Virginia, containing in the aggregate approximately 155 acres of land and identified as

MCPIs # 334-36-9458,334'27-4572,334-16-9770, 33547-9544, 334-tB-5531, 334-2T-9937,

G-

G



"8" and incorporate.d herein by reference to be executed by Seller, Buyer and Escrow Agent

contemporaneousiy with the execution of this Contract, the receipt of which by Escrorv Agent is

acknowledged hereon, Buyer hereby agrees to buy and Seller hereby agrees to sell the property

upon the following terms and conditions:

l. Purchase Price: Paymen(. The purchase price for the Property (the "Purchase

(rice") shall be the sum of Four Millio/H H""dfJffousand and no/100 Dolars

(!4,2eS,000.00). Ttris is a sale in gross and not by the icre. The entire Purchase Price shall be

payable by Buyer to Seiler in cash, certified or bank cashier's check, or by wired funds at closing

from which the deposit shall be a part.

2. StudY-.Period- For the period commencing on the date of full execution hereof

G



SELLER:

Ay"il 7,Joa6

/*g r,' I ?/ '?a a 6

A

Ua"u t< /1,1'lL-

Deposit in the amount($__ .J is hereby acknowledged this

t,

Receipt of Buyers's

day of ,2006.

G-



COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIACOTJNTY OF to wlt:

I, the undersigned Notary Public, in and for the jurisdiction aforesaid, do hereby certifythat as of COUNTySCHOOL BOARD OF LOUDOUN COUNTY, whose name is signed to the foregoinginstrument, appeared before me and personally acknowledged the same in my jurisdictionaforesaid.

GIVEN under my hand and seal this _-

day of 2006.

My commission expires:

Notary Puplic

COMMON\I/EALTH OF VIRGINIACOLNTY OF Loccrlrt r'** . to wit:

[, the undersigned Notary Public, in and for the jurisdiction aforesaid, do hereby certifythat HERBERT J. MILLER, JR., whose name is signed to the foregoing instrument, appeared

G



E, William Chapman, Esq.

Division Counsel

LOUDOUN COUNTY PUBLIC SCHOOLS

21000 Education Court

Ashburn, Virginia 20148telephone: (57 1, 252-1259

facsimile: (571) 252-003

[email protected],va,us

April28, 2006

VIA FASCIMILE

David H. Moyes, Esq.

21 North King Street

Leesburg, VA20176

Re: Miller to Loudoun County public Schools i

Dear David,

Sam Adamo has asked that I respond to your letter of April 7 , 2006. He has talked with the



9 (B) Loudoun County Public Schools agrees that any required compliance may be

accomplished after the conclusion of the Study period. Loudoun county public

Schools will not agree tothe dollar limitation. i

9 (D). This change is acceptable.

9 (H). This change is acceptable.

Please promptly let me know if these are acceptable to your clients. If they are, I will revise the

contract and get it to you.

Very truly yours,

&u. William Chapman

{:

cc: Sam Adamo

form

represen

Cang

G-



G-1



ATTACHME



School Site Selection and AcquisitionProposed Reform

Develop Criteria &

Weighting

Prepare &

Advertise RFPBidding

Proposals

Received and

Evaluated

Committee holds

public hearings t o

develop and vet

project-specific

criteria* and

weighting factors.

Public Input

Analysis and

Recommendation

SB/BOS Public

Input Session

SB Review /

Site Selection

BOS

Approval

Joint SB/BOSpublic input

session.

Presentation of all

proposals and

summary of

Committee

recommendations.

Public Input

*Criteria examples:

» Projected Student Population Location (proximate) » Physical characteristics (size, topography, floodplain, wetlands,

» Length of bus ride » Compatibility wit h surrounding land use

» Pro xima te to o the r s c ho ols ( clus ter s) » C on fo rman ce w ith Plan Polic ies , Zo ning

» A cces s (vehic ular and pedes trian) » Cos t

» A vai labi lit y of P ublic Ut il it ies » W ill ing s eller

RFP is developed

by Committee and

advertised.

Bids are received

and distributed.

Committee

members

evaluate proposal

components

specific to their

area of expertise.

The Committee

documents their

analysis and

recommendations.

SB

Recommends

site selection.

Landowners

prepare

proposals in

response to the

RFP.

BOS Review and

Approval

Site Review Committee:

•Staff from LCPSConstruction and PlanningDepartments

•Staff from County Building

& Development andPlanning Departments

•Staff from other Agenciessuch as VDOT,..etc..

Documents

Request for Audit of LCPS Planning Dept