Dear Mrs. O’Neill –
At a July Board of Education meeting, you fundamentally
stated that since a middle school at this site was good enough for your husband
in the 1960’s, it should be good enough for the kids of today and the next 25
years. That statement tells me that,
as the elected leader of the Board of Education, you have not done basic
research into this contentious issue that has been so controversial for the past
five years. I would conjecture that if
you took your husband there today, he would no longer recognize the site which
is now almost half of what it was before MCPS sold a significant (and the most
buildable) portion to allow construction of a nursing home. If you took him there during morning rush
hour, he would probably be alarmed at the volume of traffic today, as compared
with the 1960s.
But, more importantly, your posting demonstrates that
you are also unaware of the issues that concerned citizens have discussed with
Dr. Zuckerman and MCPS staff over the past two months. You stated that “some who live near the new
school don’t want it in their neighborhood”.
Although that may be true of some, the discussions revolved around, and must
continue to revolve around, traffic and safety, as they impact not only all Rock
Creek Hills residents, but also those who must transit Rock Creek Hills to
access the school – including children who will walk to school…the same route
your husband took. Planning to bring
more than 500 family vehicles and over 20 buses, onto hilly, winding two lane
roads over the course of one hour, without having even performed a traffic
study of those roads is recipe for disaster.
There was never a discussion of a new site, but only the issues and shortcomings,
and potential solutions, for those of the current site and project design.
Unfortunately, in spite of what we thought were good faith discussions
with MCPS, they elected to reject basically all of the safety concerns, both on
and off site, which were brought to their attention by other County officials
and neighbors.
The issues of the past are now passed.
Do some still feel that the site
selection process was biased towards speed of execution and the needs of
special interest groups, versus ensuring that the site was most appropriate to
provide the greatest amount of program requirements for the least cost? Yes.
Do some still feel that the MCPS
relaxed its own high standards and criteria to make the current site work? Yes.
Do some still feel that the design
process was flawed, even with “significant community involvement”, and failed
to properly document and address issues brought to the attention of the
designers? Yes.
Do some still feel that a disproportionate
percentage of project cost will go to making a bad site work, versus making a
good site work better to provide the most educational value? Yes.
So – what are the remaining issues, given the inability of
MCPS planners and leadership to demonstrate courage to admit that this site was
the wrong choice?
1. Traffic management, pedestrian safety, safety of
children while on site.
It is clear by your statement that
the Board of Education intends to award a project, in spite of these latent
defects that will not manifest themselves until it is far too late to make meaningful,
cost effective change. The
responsibility to resolve them will be shifted by MCPS to other County
agencies, at additional, yet to be budgeted cost.
2. School capacity.
Your statement does not reveal the
intent of MCPS to also receive approval for the construction of future shell space
from the BOE, which would be tantamount to de facto approval for future school
expansion. This space has neither been
approved in the MCPS Capital Investment Program, nor does it follow the MCPS rule
that does not additional construction before a facility reaches, and exceeds,
maximum student capacity. Additionally,
no funds have been budgeted for this construction, and as such, must be taken
from projects at other schools that would have to be further delayed. So –
rather than resolving immediate requirements in current our overcrowded system,
MCPS and BOE will speculate with construction funds regarding the requirements
of the future. Making this decision also
assures that maximum student load will lead to increased impact to traffic and
safety.
3. Budget.
MCPS seeks approval to award
construction, based upon current bids, but it does not provide fiscal context
for that approval. In full disclosure, a complete project budget with all
associated taxpayer costs, compared with the Capital Investment Plan approved amount
$52.3M should be provided, to ensure that additional funds will not be required
in the future.
So – given that the site is not
the issue as you imply, I believe that you, as Chairman of the Board of
Education, should issue a statement regarding your intent regarding these remaining
issues.
I look forward to your public response
in advance of the Board of Education meeting.
Richard Bond
