MCPS was Stopped from Moving Seven Locks ES to another site. IG Exposed MCPS Fib about Cost Data.

In 2006, MCPS was stopped by the Montgomery County Council from moving Seven Locks Elementary School to another site after a scathing report was released by the Montgomery County Inspector General.  The IG found that MCPS had fibbed about construction costs.  

A few weeks after the IG's report was released the County Council defunded the project and Seven Locks Elementary School was not moved. 

The superintendent's plan had been to hand the existing site over to developers. 

Here's the timeline of what happened: 

FEBRUARY, 2006: Montgomery County Inspector General Thomas Dagley releases a 25-page report that faults MCPS for providing misleading and inflated cost data about renovating Seven Locks Elementary and failing to provide the board and council with information about two less costly options on the site. The report also states that MCPS misrepresented community sentiment in reports to the board and council. In response, Councilmember Howard Denis (R-1) says he’ll introduce a CIP amendment to halt plans to build on Kendale and instead build a new school on the current Seven Locks site...

https://www.connectionnewspapers.com/news/2006/feb/14/seven-locks-controversy-timeline/

The Montgomery County Council affirmed March 28 that it will not fund the construction of an elementary school on Kendale Road in Potomac — an outcome that was nearly inconceivable three months ago...

https://www.connectionnewspapers.com/news/2006/mar/28/if-not-kendale-then-what/

BOE Pat O'Neill Does Not Know 1/2 of School Site is Gone. ...good enough for her husband in 1960's...

Dear Mrs. O’Neill –

Your 17 August posting [click here] regarding BCC Middle School #2 demonstrates, once again, how out of touch you are with the issues, and the concerns of the neighborhood.

Image shows original school site compared to today.

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. 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.  

1. 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.

1. 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

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

Councilmember Sidney Katz, "This is not the problem that is really going to be the County Council solving it..."

Ewing Center School

On Thursday, January 15, 2015, over 100 citizens from all over Montgomery County met in Aspen Hill to discuss the Board of Education's surprise plan to demolish an existing school building and replace it with parking for 400 school buses.  What limited information the public knows about this plan can be found by following this link.

On January 29, 2015, the Montgomery County Council's Education Committee will vote on whether or not to strip the Ewing Center school building of its renovation funding.

If the Education Committee votes to strip this 600 seat building of funding, that will pave the way for the full Council's approval of this plan.

When the full Montgomery County Council votes to strip the Ewing Center School of its renovation funding they will be condemning this school building to death.  The Board of Education will then demolish the building and 600 seats of indoor classrooms will be lost to Montgomery County students forever. 

Yet, when Councilmember Sidney Katz spoke to citizens at this community meeting he gave the impression that the Council was powerless.

Let your Councilmembers know that they are not powerless. The Montgomery County Council has a vote in determining if the Ewing Center School will be demolished.

10,000 MCPS students sitting in classroom trailers will be watching how the Montgomery County Councilmembers vote on the resolution before the Council to strip the Ewing Center School of $16.6 million in renovation funds.  

Exclusive Video: BOE Committee Discussion of BOE Property: Future School Sites and Surplus Land

MONTGOMERY COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION
Policy Committee 
May 10, 2013
1:00 pm
Room 120

Discussion of “Guidelines for Leasing, Licensing, or Using MCPS Property 
that is Being Held as a Future School Site.” (Policy DNA, Management of
Board of Education Property) – Judy Bresler/James Song/Bruce Crispell
(2:25) 20 minutes

BOE Committee meetings are held off camera.  The Parents' Coalition videotaped this discussion and is making it available to the public.

Montgomery County Public Schools Real Property Inventory

Ever wonder what happened to all of those school sites Montgomery County Public Schools had in the 1980s?  Back in the day, our Board of Education decided that the school population was decreasing, and so it closed a bunch of schools. 

But what happened to the property?  Yes, school sites are supposed to be held in trust for the school system.  Many of the schools and school sites were turned over to the county, and some are now parks.  Think of your favorite park or soccer field - mine are  Glen Hills Park, Bucks Branch Park, and Falls Road Park.  These were all designated school sites.

Other sites have been turned over to the county and used for other purposes.  Examples?  The Dennis Avenue Health Clinic, Bauer Drive Community Center, Potomac Community Center, and the Dameron Drive facility for Holy Cross Hospital are a few examples.

Still a number of sites have been developed.  Do you know about Victory Senior Housing on Newbridge Road?  That's the former site for Bradley Middle School.  The assisted living facility in the 300 block of University?  That's the former site of North Four Corners ES.  Potomac HS in Avenel now has townhomes instead of kids.  And of course, the recently departed Peary HS is now the site of a parochial school.

If your community is looking for a school site, check out this list:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/72108510/MCPS-Real-Property-Report-2011

The interesting material starts on page B-1.  The date may be 2011, but it is really outdated - or is poorly maintained a better description?

For example, the 30 acre property for the MidCounty High School on the Crowne property isn't on the list.  Did our school system decline that offer?

Also, certain property is still listed as closed  - for example, Shriver ES, Loiederman MS, Newport Mill MS, Northwood HS, and Arcola ES are listed on page C-1 as closed school sites.

After you've checked out the sites, be sure to call the Board of Education and thank them for their careful stewardship of our school properties.  After all, our kids don't mind those portables and we really need more soccer fields, right?

Leggett Land Deals - 20 acre school site is just the start

On Friday, June 10, 2011 County Executive Ike Leggett was a guest on the The Politics Hour on the Kojo Nnamdi show on WAMU.  At the very end of the interview, Kojo Nnamdi asked Leggett a question about his take over of the 20 acre Brickyard Middle School site that Leggett took from the public school inventory of land.

The question had to do with the current tenant of the land, an organic farmer. Leggett responds that "we can place organic farm in a variety of places in Montgomery County."  What does County Executive Leggett mean by "we can place?"  What other land does Leggett have up his sleeve? If there is other land what about the land needs of public schools?  What other land deals is Leggett contemplating?

Ike Leggett on Kojo Nnamdi quote:

"We need more soccer fields and we need organic farm and I think we could get both. We can place organic farm in a variety of places in Montgomery County and I think we have some options that we would like to exercise to include that. So that's the plan that we are looking at now and I think we can achieve both."

MCCPTA 2004: "Will we have land available if we need it?"

On March 3, 2004, the Montgomery County Board of Education held a hearing on the surprise revelation that 3 parcels of public school land (over 31 acres in total) was about to be declared surplus and turned over to the county for non-school uses. That night over 300 parents and community members from all over Montgomery county showed up at the Board of Education for the public hearing.


Here is the statement given that evening of then MCCPTA President Michele Yu on behalf of that organization. 
MCCPTA2004

Board of Education Inventory of Available School Sites

The October 12, 2010, Board of Education meeting discussed MCPS enrollment and the upcoming classroom needs of MCPS. 


Board member Laura Berthiaume asked for the list of available school sites. The list of MCPS Real Estate Inventory is on the MCPS website and shows available school sites for expansion of current MCPS facilities.  [6/20/12  MCPS has removed this document from their website.  If you want to see the list of MCPS Real Estate holdings you will have to use our copy of the list at this link.]


What the Board of Education didn't discuss, and never has discussed, is how Superintendent Weast has taken at least one surplus school site and turned it into a cell phone tower compound. See image of cell towers next to this text. That is the Woodwards Road Elementary School site. That site is vacant land held in trust for the use of public school children. But Superintendent Weast has put a cell phone tower compound on the land instead of a school. 


If that school site is now needed for a school, who is going to kick the cell towers off the property? 

Wash Post: "...it is being done very hastily...we were blindsided."

Washington Post:  Opposition to school closing gets organized

..."We have a lot of concerns that if it is being consolidated, it is being done very hastily," said Sarah Defnet, who coordinates parent activity for the Poolesville area's four schools. "In a sense, we were blindsided."
Several parents wondered what use would be made of the property, which is in the county's agricultural reserve. School system spokesman Dana Tofig said there weren't any plans.


"We can't make plans for the building until the board takes action," Tofig wrote in an e-mail Thursday. "It could be used for another purpose in the district or it could be used by an external group."...

Welcome to Montgomery County, MCPS's new spokesperson Mr. Tofig!

A little bit of history: Back in 2003, Superintendent Jerry Weast already had plans for school sites that he wanted to remove from the Board inventory way before the Board of Education took action.  The sites were the Kendale Elementary School site, Brickyard Middle School site and a parcel at Tilden Middle School. The sites were to be used for housing. You can read all about those plans in a November 21, 2003 Gazette article. Four of the parcels discussed in this article as "surplus county property" were actually Board of Education dedicated school land. Two of the parcels had not even been disclosed to the public, and yet, Superintendent Weast was ready to hand them over to the county for housing with no public discussion. One of the parcels had been surplused in a closed Board of Education meeting without notice to the public.

Superintendent Weast doesn't repair roofs on the buildings that have children IN them, so repairing a roof is a big deal. What are the plans for the Monocacy Elementary school building after the children are gone?

Potomac Almanac Letter: Is This Involvement?

Is This Involvement?

By Janis Sartucci, Cluster coordinator, Churchill Cluster PTA Wednesday, July 14, 2004

The following letter to The Board of Education and Superintendent Jerry Weast is shared with the Almanac

On Tuesday, July 6, 2004, I testified with regard to Agenda Item 4.2.8 that to date there has been no PTA or community input with regard to the Site Selection, Feasibility Study (including Educational Specifications) and Architect Selection with respect to the construction of an elementary school on the Kendale Elementary School site. I stand by that statement and would be willing to sign a sworn affidavit to those facts if you so desire.

It is disheartening that the statements of four PTA and community members were so easily dismissed during that meeting.

Later that same day Mr. [Joe] Lavorgna [director, MCPS Department of Planning and Capital programs] and Mr. [Dick] Hawes [director MCPS Department of Facilities Management] made the following statements:

1. I asked Mr. Lavorgna if a feasibility study would be produced for the Kendale site, similar to the one prepared for the Potomac Elementary School addition. His answer was no.

2. When told that no PTA members were contacted with regard to the selection of an architect for the Kendale Elementary School site, Mr. Hawes said that the PTA vote on that matter was of no consequence, as the PTA was just one vote on a committee of seven.

In [Superintendent Jerry] Weast's recommendation of Feb. 23, 2004, he requested a feasibility study for the Kendale Elementary School site. I am not aware of any other school construction project that has been done without a feasibility study and community and PTA input. I trust you will supply me with the names and locations of the county schools that have been constructed without feasibility studies and community and PTA input.

I renew the request made in my testimony on July 6, 2004. I would ask that the Board of Education remand this issue back to MCPS staff for the formation of a committee as described in Policy FAA to consider and present back to the Board of Education a report on site selection. If the site is approved, I would request that the process proceed according to Board of Education policy and procedures.