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