Request for Audit of LCPS Planning Department

November 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 requires
tremendous 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) 1
b. Why were funds available for continued study in Wheatland but not on the McDonough
Assemblage? (see page C-3) 1
c. Why did LCPS wait until April 2010 (expiration date of McDonough Assemblage
contracts) 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
complex?
e. Does LCPS include estimating costs for site improvements in their due diligence study
scopes of work and fully disclose results to Board members?
f. Did due diligence studies conducted for the proposed Wheatland Farm schools
recommend upgrades to interstate thoroughfare Route 9?
g. Why did LCPS’ cost analysis of the McDonough Assemblage exclude cost savings
associated with the Town providing sewer service? i.e., LCPS-constructed and
operated wastewater treatment plants would not be required.
h. Staff from State and County Transportation Departments (VDOT and Loudoun) were
consulted during evaluation of HS-3 sites. (Attachment A) Therefore, why were these
agencies not consulted during analysis of HS-10 sites?
i. Other co-located schools in the County share a single access road. Why did LCPS
assume, and present costs for, separate access roads serving MS/HS-10 on the
McDonough Assemblage?
j. Did LCPS inform the School Board of previous offers made by Mr. McDonough to
negotiate assemblages for secondary school sites in the Lovettsville area?
k. What correspondence exists between LCPS and landowners in the McDonough
Assemblage since the Assemblage was first presented to LCPS in 2009?

Request for Audit of LCPS Planning Department Page 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 proposed
schools? 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,
with costs likely exceeding LCPS’ cost estimate of $700. Therefore, I agreed to retract
the request for pre-2006 correspondence. LCPS’ response included one 2008
transmittal memo and one 2009 final contract document. Is there any additional
correspondence relating to properties in Wheatland?
b. What evidence exists that Mr Cangiano submitted a proposal to LCPS between June 19
and July 3, 2008 to support LCPS including his land in the list of RFP responses?
c. Did LCPS ever suggest in any way to Mr. Cangiano or his representatives that a RFP
response was not necessary because LCPS intended to purchase Wheatland Farm?
d. Why did LCPS opt to ignore the perception of a conflict-of-interest and allow Mr.
Cangiano’s former legal counsel to represent Loudoun citizens during negotiation of the
Wheatland Farm contract, instead of simply hiring outside counsel to represent LCPS?

4. 2008 RFP
a. Have 2-week RFP response timeframes been specified for any other LCPS or County
procurement? Why such a short fuse when LCPS’ CIP did not reflect an accelerated
schedule for opening those schools?
b. When did LCPS staff first advise the School Board that a RFP response was received
for a site contiguous to Hillsboro Elementary school (i.e., the Crim/Moler property)?
c. Why was that RFP response never included in presentations to Supervisors or the
public when presenting the list of RFP responses?

Request for Audit of LCPS Planning Department Page 2

 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 for
ES-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 correspondence
exists 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)
k. What documentation exists to demonstrate that LCPS has confirmed no 20-acre sites
(or assemblages thereof) are available for elementary school ES-25 “in or adjacent to”
the Town of Hillsboro, particularly considering closure of Hillsboro Elementary has
historically been proposed in several LCPS budgets?
l. Does the School Board have a policy which encourages community or neighborhood
elementary schools? If so, why does that policy not apply to ES-25 at Wheatland
Farm?
m. How does LCPS reconcile the discrepancy between their June 2010 assertion that the
Moler site “can not support an elementary school” while the consultant’s report stated
the soil could accommodate 20,000-30,000 gallons per day (gpd), which exceeds the
Virginia Health Department’s guidance for an 875 student elementary school (i.e., 9,650
gpd)?

5. Lovettsville Park /Miller flip proposal

a. During the May 2008 community presentation, why did LCPS withhold drawings
prepared by their consultant showing numerous road access alignments (Attachment
E), and instead choose to present only the options that would require condemnation of
a family’s home, and specifically report to the public that site access required
condemnation (Attachment F)?
b. Why did LCPS prohibit the Lovettsville parent teacher organization from notifying
parents of 2007 and 2008 community presentations which were held at Lovettsville
Elementary on the subject of future schools?

Request for Audit of LCPS Planning Department Page 3

 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 have
knowledge 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?
b. Why did LCPS fail to respond to Mr. Miller’s letter first letter dated November 2, 2005 in
which Mr. Miller offered his 156-acre farm situated at the intersection of (with frontage
on) two paved roads immediately adjacent to the Town of Lovettsville?
c. Why did LCPS’ letter to Mr. Miller dated January 27, 2006 include two specific
references to the School Board’s authority to invoke eminent domain; and, fail to
acknowledge either of the two prior letters submitted to LCPS by Mr. Miller/ agent,
including the Miller’s offer of their farm for $29.8k/acre dated January 4, 2006?
d. Why did it require several follow-on FOIA requests to obtain all correspondence on this
matter?
e. How does LCPS believe that during initial contact with landowners submitting offers to
sell their land for schools that multiple assertions of the School Board’s authority to use
eminent domain effectively demonstrates LCPS’ willingness to negotiate in good faith,
and in the best interests of Loudoun citizens?
f. The School Board has stated on numerous occasions that condemning land is to be
avoided whenever possible. Therefore, did LCPS staff obtain permission from the
School Board prior to asserting their authority to condemn Mr. Miller’s land?
g. Were School Board members consulted when LCPS rejected a LCPS contract modified
and signed by both Mr. and Mrs Miller on April 7, 2006 for $31,730 per acre, which was
submitted to LCPS by the Miller’s attorney (Attachment G)?
h. How does LCPS justify repeated rejection of Mr. Miller’s multiple offers, ranging from
$29k-32k/acre for his farm, (a site that offered potential access to Town-supplied
water/sewer) at the same time that LCPS simultaneously submitted offers of $57k/acre

Request for Audit of LCPS Planning Department Page 4

 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 March
2006 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?
9. Why are current student distribution maps (readily available using LCPS’ existing GIS-based
software) not a tool used by LCPS during the site acquisition and boundary zone processes?
10. Has LCPS ever used their Edu-log software to develop attendance boundary alternatives and
predict student enrollment?
11. The MacKenzie Group reported in 2003 that, “When sites are being sought, the [Loudoun
County] school district either advertises publicly that they are looking for land for a new school,
or they use "scouts" to search out land.” If this is correct, does LCPS believe that driving
around scouting potentially available properties is an effective use of staff’s time?
12. Why does LCPS continue to resist using a siting process where early public input is solicited on
proposed school sites, as requested by citizens during the February 2009 public hearing on the
topic? (see process presented to the Joint Committee in 2008 – Attachment H)
13. Why did LCPS reject assistance offered by two experts (through a citizen advocate) on
resolving recalcitrant school siting issues, specifically a school siting expert with the USEPA
Smart Growth Initiative and a land acquisition expert with the Commonwealth of Virginia?
14. Does LCPS reserve rights to resubmit their proposal for siting HS/MS-10 at Wheatland Farm?
15. To build trust, would officials involved in any way with LCPS site acquisitions be willing to
submit, for a confidential audit, detailed personal financial statements, including funding
sources for recent personal travel, home improvements or other major
purchases/expenditures?
16. Will these same public officials formally disclose all previously undocumented conversations
and correspondence regarding possible land acquisitions (or study of sites) shared with
contractors and landowners who have any interest (profit or advantage) in the acquisition?

Request for Audit of LCPS Planning Department Page 5

 Western School Site Acquisition Summary
Date Known Wheatland acquisitions
initiated by LCPS Planning Dept
$57,000/acre Rackam letter of intent
99 acres for $5.6M (13Feb06)
2006 $40,000/acre Grubb contract
104 acres for $4M (Mar06)
$40,000/acre Danner draft contract
166 acres for $7M
2008
$67,000/acre:
2009 $62,000/acre Cangiano contract
+ $147,000/acre Burgess contract
= 170 acres for $11.4M
Known Proposals near Towns
Rejected by LCPS Planning Dept
$30,000/acre Miller initial asking price
156 acres for $4.65M (4Jan06)
Note: LCPS asserts authority to condemn (27Jan06)
$32,900/acre - $5.1M Property appraisal ordered by
Millers (10Feb06)
$31,935/acre on contract signed by Mr. and Mrs. Miller
and 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.
70-acre Moler site contiguous to Hillsboro Elementary,
terms and price not disclosed by LCPS (3Jul2008)
Scott – terms and price not disclosed by LCPS (Jun08)
$54,000/acre McDonough Assemblage contracts
108 acres for $5.87M
ATTACHMENT A

A-1
 A-2
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.
 ATTACHMENT B

B-1

Emery & Gurrett Groandwater, Inc"

56Main Street c P.O" Box 1578
Meredith, New Hampshire 03253
(603) 279-4425 www.eggi.com Fax (603) 279-8717

Aprll}7,2009

Mr. Dennis Cumbie

Loudoun Counfy
Depaftment of Building & Development
I Harrison Street, SE, 3'o Floor
Leesburg, 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 of
the Berlin Turnpike (Route 287) and John Wolford Road (Route 694) in Loudoun County,
Virginia (Figures 1 and 2). Emery & Garrett Groundwater, Inc. (EGGI) is submitting to you this
yield and quality groundwater testing proposal for the new community water supply wells being
developed to serve potable water to the three proposed schools at the Wheatland project site.

The maximum combined potable water supply requirements of the Elementary, Middle,
and High Schools at this project site are estimated tobe 65,490 gpd (a5.5 gpm). These estimates
are based on the following Virginia Health Department guidelines:

Elementary School 875 students + x l0 gallons per day per 9,650 gallons per day
90 staff: 965 Derson
Middle School 1,350 students + 140 x 16 gallons per day per 23,840 gallons per day
staff:1.490 nerson
High School 1,800 students + 200 x l6 gallons per person per 32,000 gallons per day
staff :2.000 day

Total 65.490 epd (45.5 epm)

We anticipate, based upon historic water use recorded at the other Loudoun Counfy
Public Schools, that actual average daily water use will be reduced to the following:
 B-2

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

Elementary School 875 students + x 3.1 gallons per day per 2,992 gallons per day
90 staff:965 Del'son
Middle School 1,350 students + 140 x 2.9 gallons per day per 4,321 gallons per day
staff :
1,490 Derson
High School 1,800 students + 200 x 5.0 gallons per day per 10,000 gallons per day
staff :2,000 Derson

Total 17,313 spd (12 snm)'

These calculations reflect actual potable water use rates per person as reported
by 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) proposed
Community 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) for
these wells are included with this document.

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

The pumping test program is scheduled to begin sometime between May 7th and May
131h,2009. The start of pumping for each Production Well will be sufficiently staggered so that
potential pumping interference between wells (if any) can be recorded. The pumping of all the
wells will be terminated at the same time.

EGGI has contacted 26 nearby property owners to determine if they have a well on their
propeffy and if they are interested in participating in the groundwater monitoring program
(Figures I and 2). EGGI hopes to monitor approximately l5 to 25 off-site wells, dependent upon
the response of nearby well owners and the ability to install monitoring equipment into each
available domestic well. In addition to the off-site wells, EGGI will monitor changing water
levels in approximately l0-15 on-site wells. All locations will be monitored every 30 minutes
using automated water level recorders accurate to within 0.01 feet. The monitoring of
groundwater levels will take place for approximately one week prior to the testing period,
throughout the pumping period, and one week after the pumping period is concluded.

' Please note that the majority of potable water used on site will be returned into the groundwater system vra on-site
septic drainfields.
2
well wLS-28 is intended to be drilled adjacent to existing well wLS-2, which is only 35 feet from the nearby
stream. This Well will be drilled during the week of April 27 ,2009. It will be located 53 feet fiom the stream. A
walver request has been submitted to the County Health Department to allow a 5O-foot setback from the stream for
this proposed communily supply well. This proposed 5O-foot setback is consistent with VDOH requirements.

Emery & Garrett Groundwater,Inc.

 B-3

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 (State
Laboratory), 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 northem
property 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

Dave McElhaney, Urban Engineering, Ltd.

' We are not intending to measure the flow of the norlhem stream due to its significant flow rate, which was
estimated to be in excess of I ,500 gpm during the rveek of April I 5. 2009.

Emery & Gamett Groundwater,Inc.

 B-4

Supply well on seller's

property not under
contract for purchase.
B-5
ATTACHMENT C
C-1
C-2
ATTACHMENT D

D-1
ATTACHMENT E E-1
 E-2

At the 28May2008 community meeting, LCPS only

presented the alignments in this drawing (Figure 1).
The alignments shown here required condemnation
of the Moore home. At the meeting, LCPS made no
mention of other road alignment alternatives. This
misrepresentation led the public to falsely believe the
only viable HS site was Cangiano. The following
Figures 2 and 3 show two alternatives, which were
withheld from the public until uncovered in 2009 by
the FOIA. Figure 3 reflects the alignment and
roundabout specifically suggested by VDOT staff.
E-3
E-4
Page 14 from LCPS Presentation:
"Secondary School Sites in Lovettsville" Current Status ATTACHMENT F

May 28, 2008 F-1

Miller Property not for sale

Lovettsville Park option requires additional acreage from both Moore and Miller

Effect on Park and its program requires additional examination. Impacts are dependent upon the option
selected

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

Road improvements are estimated at $7,000,000

Property and Right-of-Way needs would likely require condemnation of multiple properties

Town of Lovettsville would have to amend its comprehensive plan to reflect addition of
public schools to the town utility grid

Additional treatment module approximately $2,500,000, infiltration and inflow issues need
to be resolved

Without utilities from Lovettsville, hydro geologic and soils analyses have to be performed to determine if
water and sewer capacities exist on the above properties and a larger area would be required for drainfield
locations

In order to locate a school in areas outside of the towns, villages and/or their JLMAs, the BOS must provide
support for an alternative location
ATTACHMENT G

G-1
G-2
G-3
G-4
G-5
G-6
G-7
G-8
G-9
 G-10

Co*tRACror So""
I'
Between

COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD OF LOUDOUN COUNTY

(Buyer)

and

TIERBERT J. MILLER, JR. and

CAREY K. MILLER
(Seller)

Febru.arlt , ,rr. 2410,6

, , ,

-
 G-11

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').
I
RECITALS:
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,

334-37-3119, 334-26-7612,334-17-1428, 33548-9579, 334-18-3383, and 334-17-75t9 being

more particularly described on Exhibit "A" attached hereto and incorporated herein by

reference (the twelve (12) tracts of land, together with all improvements and fixtures thereon and

all rights, privileges, easements, benefits and agreements appurtenant thereto are hereinafter

collectively referred to as the "Property").

&.1.,1;4;15
B. Seller c&i,ree to sell the Property and Buyer desires to purchase the property in
4
accordance with the terms and conditions hereinafter set forth.

AGREEMENT:

*r,t:l ( NOw, THEREFORE, in consideration of the ,u* off/rhousand and no/t00 Dollars
Lli-lilF
fotfilooo o0) paid by Buyer (the "Deposit") to be paid in the fbrm of a check to Loudoun
Comrnercial Title, LLC (the "Escrow Agent"), to be held by Escrow Agent and disbursed by

Escrow Agent in accordance with the terms of the Escrow Agreement attached hereto as Erhibit
 G-12

"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

and continuing for 120 days (the "Study Period"), Buyer, at its sole cost and expense, shall

have complete access to the Property for the purpose of conducting such appraisals, soil borings,

soil analyses, engineering tests and studies, topographic tests, studies, and/or investigations with

respect to the Property as Buyer may deem necessary or appropriate in order to determine

whether the Property is suitable for Buyer's intended use; provided that Buyer shall repair any

damage to the Property caused in connection with such tests and studies. In the event that Buyer

determines, in its sole discretion, that the Property is not suitable for Buyer's intended use

thereof, the appraisal results are unsatisfactory, or for any other reason, then Buyer may

terminate this Contract by delivery of written notice thereof to Seller prior to the expiration of
the Study Period, and thereupon the parties hereto shall have no further rights or obligations one

to the other hereunder, and the Deposit shall be retumed to Buyer. To the extent permitted by

law Buyer shall indemnify and hold Seller harmless frorn and against all costs, expenses, and

liabilities incuned by Seller in connection with the tests and studies conducted by Buyer and
J
 G-13

SELLER:

Ay"il 7,Joa6
A

/*g r,' I ?/ '?a a 6 Ua"u t< /1,1'lL-

Receipt of Buyers's Deposit in the amount

($__ .J is hereby acknowledged this
day of ,2006.
t,

Date

t9
 G-14

COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA
COTJNTY OF to wlt:

jurisdiction aforesaid, do hereby certify

I, the undersigned Notary Public, in and for the
that as of COUNTy
SCHOOL BOARD OF LOUDOUN COUNTY, whose name is signed to the foregoing
instrument, appeared before me and personally acknowledged the same in my jurisdiction
aforesaid.

GIVEN under my hand and seal this _ day of 2006.

-
My commission expires:
Notary Puplic

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

[, the undersigned Notary Public, in and for the jurisdiction aforesaid, do hereby certify
that HERBERT J. MILLER, JR., whose name is signed to the foregoing instrument, appeared
before me and personally acknowledged the same in my jurisdiction aforesaid.
tu
GIVEN under my hand and seal rni, . V aay or *{ r t I, 2006.

My conrmissionexpires,
44 30, un?

COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGTNIA
COUNTY AF I r'tu,-clo "n*
-,to wit:

[, the undersigned Notary Public, in and for the jurisdiction aioresaid, do hereby certify
that CAREY K. MILLER, whose name is signed to the foregoing instrumenl appeared before
me and personally acknowledged the same in my jurisdiction aforesaid-
tu
GIVEN under my hand and seal tni" day of
-7
My commission expires: fi1r;l 3a, Zacl

20
 G-15

LOUDOUN COUNTY PUBLIC SCHOOLS

21000 Education Court

Ashburn, Virginia 20148
telephone: (57 1, 252-1259
facsimile: (571) 252-003
bchapman@loudoun.kl2,va,us
E, William Chapman, Esq.
Division Counsel

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

broker, Neal Miller.

Instead of marking up your "mark-ups", I thought the better course would be to set forth in letter

form the changes acceptable to Loudoun County Public Schools and if we agree, put it then in a clean

contract.

The changes you propose on page 2 ofthe contract are acceptable.

l. Purchase Price. Loudoun County Public Schools will agree to a purchase price

of four million four hundred thousand dollars. ($4,400,000).

2. study Period. Loudoun county Public schools will agree that the a"porit i! to be
increased. Further, Loudoun County Public Schools will agree that in the event closing

does not occur, ten thousand dollars ($10,000) of the deposit will be forfeited to Seller.

3 (c) This paragraph must remain as proposed.

4 (A) Loudoun county Public Schools will agree to the proposed closing date, provided it
has the option to extend closing for up to 120 days if it is caught/bogged down in the

approval process. Of course, Loudoun County Public Schools agrees to promptly initiate

and diligently pursue all such approvals.

 G-16

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
E. William Chapman
{:
formerly
represented Sal
Cangiano

cc: Sam Adamo

G-17
G-18
 ATTACHMENT H

School Site Selection and Acquisition

Proposed Reform

Proposals
Develop Criteria & Prepare &
Bidding Received and
Weighting Advertise RFP
Evaluated

Bids are received

Committee holds
and distributed.
public hearings to Landowners
Committee
develop and vet RFP is developed prepare
members
project-specific by Committee and proposals in
evaluate proposal
criteria* and advertised. response to the
components
weighting factors. RFP.
specific to their
area of expertise.
Public Input Site Review Committee:
•Staff from LCPS
Construction and Planning
Analysis and SB/BOS Public SB Review / BOS
Departments
Recommendation Input Session Site Selection Approval
•Staff from County Building
Joint SB/BOS & Development and
public input Planning Departments
session.
The Committee •Staff from other Agencies
Presentation of all SB
documents their BOS Review and such as VDOT,..etc..
proposals and Recommends
analysis and Approval
summary of site selection.
recommendations.
Committee
recommendations.
Public Input

*Criteria examples:
» Projected Student Population Location (proximate)
» Length of bus ride
» Proximate to other schools (clusters)
» Access (vehicular and pedestrian)
» Availability of Public Utilities
» Physical characteristics (size, topography, floodplain, wetlands, etc…
» Compatibility with surrounding land use
» Conformance with Plan Policies, Zoning
» Cost
» Willing seller