Council Staff Endorses Work Group Report; Denies Open Meetings Act Applies

The Montgomery County Council has released it's Work Group Report on Artificial Turf. The Report will be discussed by Council Committees on Monday, September 26, 2011 at 2 PM. The hearing will be televised on the Montgomery Cable Channel.


In the Committee Packet, Council staff felt the need to state that in their opinion the Work Group does not fall under the Maryland Open Meetings Act. That means that the public has no idea how many meetings the Work Group held, no idea of what the agenda of any meetings was, and has no access to any minutes of the Work Group. (Wasn't this the issue discussed by Montgomery County's former Inspector General in his letter in The Washington Post yesterday?)


Council staff concludes their summary of the Not an Open Meetings Act Work Group Report by stating:

Council staff believes that the Council has exercised a high degree of due diligence in these reviews. Council staff endorses the staff work group's findings.

Artificial Turf: What Work Group?

The Artificial Turf Report (A Review of Benefits and Issues Associated with Natural Grass and Artificial Turf Rectangular Stadium Fields) is supposedly the product of a 'Work Group' first mentioned by the County Council's Transportation, Infrastructure, Energy and Environment (T&E) Committee. The final report is dated September 14, 2011. However, apart from the work product of one draft and one final report, there is no evidence to show a work group ever met. I have been in email correspondence with members of the County Council, requesting any evidence at all to show this work group ever met, and if it did, how much did it cost the taxpayers to produce the draft report and now the final report. To date I have been told there are no notes, no minutes, no records at all that the work group ever met. If anyone has any evidence that this group ever met, and what they discussed in any meetings, please let me know either by emailing this blog or emailing me offline.

Thank you.

Paula Bienenfeld
Education Committee Chair, Montgomery County Civic Federation

"It is important to note..." that it is easy to put one over on the County Council

In the recently released Report from the Montgomery County Council titled, A Review of Benefits and Issues Associated with Natural Grass and Artificial Turf Rectangular Stadium Fields, the following statement is made on Page 71. 

"It is important to note that site preparation and stormwater management facilities are bid as part of the project's site work, which is bid separately from the purchase and installation of the artificial surface" - seriously?  Who wrote that? 


Certainly not someone who has seen the actual procurement documents that have been made public for the Richard Montgomery High School and Walter Johnson High School artificial turf installations.  Those documents show one vendor, no bids and the entire project listed on one proposal sheet - site work AND artificial turf. 
Note the "ASSUMPTIONS" listed: 1. Bidding services will not be required.

If MCPS now maintains that there were additional costs to install the artificial turf at these two high schools then it is time for them to release the additional documentation to support those procurements, name the vendors, and release the bids.

• MCPS Artificial turf procurement documents released January 25, 2010 pursuant to a Maryland Public Information Act request, and now contradicted in Report to be presented Monday, September 26, 2011 to the Montgomery County Council, are shown below.

Artificial Turf Purchase Orders for Montgomery County Schools

MCPS Director Contradicts Artificial Turf Procurement Documentation

The above statement is found on Page 73 of the recently released Report from the Montgomery County Council titled, A Review of Benefits and Issues Associated with Natural Grass and Artificial Turf Rectangular Stadium Fields.

In this statement, MCPS Director of Facilities is quoted as saying, "There is NO commitment for MCPS to purchase 3 AT [artificial turf] fields within a 3 year period. The cost is based on each individual project." 


But the MCPS Director of Facilities signed the letter authorizing the payment of the Volume Discount Price for the Walter Johnson High School artificial turf! Those documents have already been made public through a Maryland Public Information Act request and show the VOLUME DISCOUNT PRICE based on the purchase of 3 or more fields in 3 years.

Here is the VOLUME DISCOUNT PRICE that was stated in the Walter Johnson High School artificial turf proposal:

And here is the letter from MCPS Director of Facilities authorizing the payment based on the VOLUME DISCOUNT PRICE shown above. Without the VOLUME DISCOUNT PRICE, MCPS would have had to pay $1,122,169.84 for the Walter Johnson High School artificial turf football field. 

Artificial Turf Field at Richard Montgomery: Some Answers

All,
On November 1, 2010 Bob Astrove posted here about the 19 bags of crumb rubber he saw lined up at Richard Montgomery HS.  He posted the following questions:

1. Why did this relatively new [artificial turf] field require an additional 19 bags of infill (aka crumb rubber)?
2. Does the fact that the field had to have a replacement of 19 bags of infill mean that the equivalent of 19 bags has been washed into the Chesapeake Bay watershed over the last two years?
3. Did Montgomery County Public Schools pay for these 19 bags of infill? What was the cost?
4. Did Montgomery County Public Schools pay for the supplier to spread the contents of the bags using their equipment? How much did this cost?
5. How often will additional infill material be required at Richard Montgomery?

On November 15, 2010 or thereabouts I sent an email to the County Council requesting answers to those questions.  I received these answers today.  Here is the email response, thanks to Mr. Keith Levchenko, Senior Legislative Analyst with the County Council (below).

Paula Bienenfeld, Education Committee Chair, Montgomery County Civic Federation
----
Paula:
I asked MCPS staff to respond to your questions. They spoke with FieldTurf staff and the answers are below. I apologize for the delay in getting back to you.


1. How much did the 19 bags cost taxpayers?
- No Cost. FieldTurf added the infill under warranty.

2. How much crumb rubber was in the bags, by weight?
- Approximately 2,000 lbs per bag


3. How was the crumb rubber in the 19 bags applied to the field?
- A spreader and brush were used to apply the crumb rubber to the field.


4. Where did the crumb rubber go that was in the original field? Did it go into the storm drains?
- FieldTurf Response:

“The field settled because not enough infill was put in initially or had rubber removed due to plowing (this is 99.9% of the reason for low infill rates). Sometimes at installation due to a variety of reasons (weather, static electricity, operator error etc), not all infill is put into the field that is needed. Also snow plowing fields can lead to rubber removal if not done correctly.* We decided to just infill it to the proper level under warranty instead of inquiring about snow removal techniques. However, if it happens again, more then likely it will be the result of improper snow plowing. One of the major reasons that Montgomery County only installs Fieldturf is the pervious backing coupled with our patented infill. By not having holes in the backing to be pervious, and combined with its patented infill, the Fieldturf infill does not migrate from the field vertically or laterally like many of our competitors. No infill from a Fieldturf field is lost to the Storm Sewers.”

5. If so, is a permit required to allow 19 bags worth of used auto and truck tires to be dumped into the Chesapeake Bay, and does MCPS have this permit?
- No permit was required for adding the infill to the RM field. Also, see answer to #4 above.


Keith Levchenko
Senior Legislative Analyst
Montgomery County Council Staff

*According to MCPS staff, the RM field was not plowed last year

Artificial Turf: The Staff Report

Thanks to Keith Levchenko (brother of Council member Phil Andrews [D-District 3])and Essie McGuire for the staff report, below, dated June 29, 2010, for the T&E Committee meeting to take place tomorrow, July 1, at 2 pm at the County Council office building, 100 Maryland Avenue.  A stellar cast hand picked by these staff members and I assume, council members show without a doubt that artificial turf is safe and a great investment for Montgomery County.  Heat islands seen from space? No worries.  Lead? no worries.  Carcinogens, heavy metals, leaching into our groundwater and the Chesapeake Bay? No worries. This County Council has no worries about any of it.  Read the report yourself:

Artificial Turf Montgomery County Council Staff Report July 29 2010