Parent Responds: MCPS is Bureaucratic at best, but almost insulting to our intelligence. #construction

To: Craig Rice <craig.rice@montgomerycountymd.gov>
Cc: Marc Elrich <marc.elrich@montgomerycountymd.gov>; Nancy Navarro <nancy.navarro@montgomerycountymd.gov>; "boe@mcpsmd.org" <boe@mcpsmd.org>; Joan Kleinman <joan.kleinman@mail.house.gov>
Sent: Monday, August 17, 2015 3:25 PM
Subject: BCC Middle School #2 - URGENT for Thursday BOE meeting

 

Dear Mr. Rice –

Thank you for your 23 July letter [click here] to Ms. O’Neill regarding BCC Middle School #2.  Since we last met in June, other Rock Creek Hills parents and I have had the opportunity to meet with Dr. Zuckerman three separate times.  He listened to our concerns, engaged his staff and visited the site personally.  Although he continuously indicated a commitment to listen and make change, his response(attached -click here) received last week was wholly disappointing.  Through a screen of lists of meetings, standards and codes, he basically ignored the concerns of both the community and other County officials.  Bureaucratic at best, but almost insulting to our intelligence.  Yes – we know there were many meetings.  But were they effective?  Did they actually address concerns raised, or simply document, nod and ignore?  Add green roofs and architecturally appropriate surfaces for retaining walls to your list of broken promises and missed opportunities to improve the project.

In the meantime, MCPS has received construction bids and has notified Maryland Department of the Environment that they intend to commence with the plans as they currently stand.  

This Thursday, “construction contracts” is a topic on the Board of Education meeting that would result in approval for this project to go forward.   Before that happens, however, I encourage you to question the status of the project and the resolution of all the issues at hand.   Two additional issues are of particular concern that I would like to highlight:  traffic safety, and budget authority and conformance.

Traffic Safety

Many traffic and safety issues are generated by an (total future) influx of 1,200 students to the area.  Although a traffic study was conducted, it only addressed the capacity of Connecticut Avenue and its intersections.  It did not examine other roads leading to, or immediately connecting to, the proposed site.  Attached [click here] is a graphic synopsis of the issues impacting the closest intersections.  To our knowledge, there is no similar circumstance in Montgomery County that has a school of this size served by a local road network that has:

• similar volume of extant commuter traffic (upon which the school traffic will be overlaid),
• winding and hilly roads that are narrower than required,
• insufficient queuing capability,
• intersections with limited site lines,
• bridges with limited load capacity, and sidewalks that are not to code
• non-existant neighborhood sidewalks. 

This is truly an “accident” waiting to happen, when frustrated parents and anxious kids try to navigate this labyrinth before the first bell.  Additionally, at the Feasibility Study presentation, it was noted (but not highlighted) that although parking is sufficient for the initial student load, it is not for the full future student capacity.  The same phenomenon will also occur with traffic…it may only be “bad” the day the school opens, but will become irreversible once the school is fully loaded.  Because none of these problems can be resolved by MCPS planners or budgets, they have stated that these are not their concern.  I contend that it is incumbent upon MCPS and its leadership as the proponents of the project to ensure that these issues are addressed, budgeted, funded and resolved within Montgomery County government and budgets.  Anything less than this should be considered to be turning a blind eye on safety, and perhaps negligence.

Budget Authority

Based upon analysis of bids received to date (see attached), it appears that the project is already dangerously close to, if not over,  its approved budget of $52.3M (CIP 2015-2020).  This assumes that only the lowest bids are awarded, as requested, which typically commits the owner to quality and cost issues during construction.  No construction awards have yet been made, more bids for components of the construction are yet to be received, and construction has not begun.  There is no place for cost to go but up.  Fundamentally, it appears that this project is destined to exceed its approved funding [click here], at the same time MCPS has bid options to build out (un-budgeted, unapproved) expansion space by constructing almost $2M in additional “shell” space with the base construction bid.  Constructing this space now, although tempting, is tantamount to committing to a future of increased traffic problems and pressure on school common spaces which remain inadequate for the full 1,200 student population.    

While I wholeheartedly agree with the intent of your letter, it is focused the future of MCPS school planning, using BCC MS #2 as example.  Without immediate action, Montgomery County is committing to build a school that even you describe as being “disappointing”, still having known and acknowledged deficiencies.  The concerns of both the community and the Planning staff still exist – they are not past tense.  They have not been resolved. 

Rather than this being known as the last school planned, designed and built with a process that is neither collegial nor constructive, it should be seen as the turning point in legacy thinking, with deficiencies corrected in a collaborative fashion.  Does Montgomery County want to be known for knowingly spending more than $52M for a school that its own staff considers to be "disappointing"?  Is this the new “standard” for our County?

Prior to awarding construction, and heading down an irreversible path, MCPS should be made responsible to:  

1. investigate, find solutions and manage execution of traffic issues, both on and “off-site”,
2. provide a true budget lay down of total project costs to the County, including construction contingency for this project, roads and traffic improvements, land acquisition (to replace lost park space), and all “soft costs” indirectly associated with project completion,
3. justify additional cost, and gain CIP approval, for additional unbudgeted “shell space”, 
4. provide an accurate construction timeline (the project is already 2 months behind approved schedule, and not yet awarded) and
5. explain the short and long term (25 year aggregate) impact of any schedule delay.    

Although it is late in the game, there is still time to make a difference.  I hope that you have the ability to make a difference for our students, your taxpayers and the reputation of our County.

 

Thank you for your consideration,

Rick

Richard L. Bond, AIA