Update: Starr Recommends Middle School for Kensington Site
The project is expected to cost about $46.5 million.
Update, Saturday, 11:23 a.m.: Superintendent Joshua Starr's recommended layout for the middle school would have the same footprint as one of the preferred designs from the feasibility study, MCPS spokesman Dana Tofig said in an e-mail to Patch.
Starr and his staff decided to plan for 944 students to accomodate projected enrollment growth within the district, Tofig said, and the additional classrooms can be housed within the preferred layout.
The final feasibility study report, which would include schematics of the proposed school design, will be released soon, Tofig said.
Original post, Friday 6:30 p.m.: Superintendent Joshua Starr is recommending the new Bethesda-Chevy Chase cluster middle school be built on Rock Creek Hills Park, a proposal that has been controversial among neighbors.
In his capital improvements program recommendations released today, Starr asks that the $46.5 million school open in August 2017, with design and construction starting in 2014.
Over the summer, Montgomery County Public Schools conducted a feasibility study for the proposed school, which resulted in two preferred layouts being sent to Starr.
We asked MCPS for details on the layout Starr is recommending but have yet to hear back as of 6:30 p.m. on Friday.
It appears that Starr has picked neither of the study's preferred options, however, as he recommends a school sized to serve 944 students, and the study's layouts were designed for 836. The district had scaled back the size of its proposed designs in response to neighbors' complaints that a 944-student school would do away with too much green space in the area.
Next, the Board of Education will hold a work session on Starr's recommendations on Nov. 2 and host public hearings Nov. 10 and 14. The board will then vote on whether to approve the projects Nov. 17. The County Council has finally say on capital improvements and will likely decide on the projects in the spring, according to Bruce Crispell, MCPS's director of long-range planning.
MCPS has faced criticism at every step of this process, beginning with the selection of the Rock Creek Hills site. Community members have accused the schools of ignoring transparency and failing to engage neighbors, and the state's Open Meetings Act Compliance Board ruled that MCPS violated the act during the site-selection process.
Rock Creek Hills resident Jim Pekar began an e-mail campaign last week, asking people to write to Starr and ask him to recommend MCPS find another site for the new school.
In an interview with Patch, Pekar said the park site is incapable of housing a facility that could compare with Westland Middle School.
"If you look at the Board of Education's criteria for middle school site assessment, Rock Creek Hills Park fails the overwhelming majority of the criteria," he said. "It’s not surprising that any school to be built on the site will be inadequate."
The Rock Creek Hills Citizens Association voted this month to continue its opposition to the school, and members have said they plan to testify before the Board of Education when it takes up the issue.
This story has been updated.
Mr. Ed
7:49 am on Saturday, October 29, 2011
Thanks Dr. Starr for putting the interests of all of our children above those with their million dollar homes next to the park. I guess if they tell lies often enough someone will begin to believe them. Glad you did not drink the Kool aide.
The opponent's arguments have be totally discredited and the site has undergone more scrutiny than any site in memory.
The site is not supposed to be a clone of of Westland, just a qualtiy middle school which is what it will be.
YIMBY - 1, NIMBY-0
Janis
8:56 am on Saturday, October 29, 2011
More scrutiny? Hardy. Review of Capital Budget decisions by the public goes on all the time. It's a big county. Take a look.
Because this site was selected in a secret process it has actually gone through less review, not more. The purpose of Long Range Planning is to plan thoughtfully with all stakeholders involved, not in a secret process that eliminates the public.
Public school buildings in neighborhoods are major construction projects that can and do permanently alter neighborhoods. These are very expensive public projects funded by taxpayers from all over the state. Everyone has an interest in seeing that these projects are done right and in a fiscally responsible way.
Mr. Ed
8:04 pm on Saturday, October 29, 2011
janis - quit your lying - the proces was not secret, this selection has had mroe publicity than any o can remember - jeez three were at least 6 articles in the gazette alone. there were numerous hearings, both at the feasinbility study level, testimony before teh school board, testimony in front of Dr starr, numerous agencies weighing in, numerous out of cluster citizens like yours weighing in, television stories, radio stories, communmity meetings, list serve discussions, flyers posted, websires and blogs written, petition drives, and thousands of conversations. gimme a break. dont like the result so attack the process. typical.
shannon hamm
11:02 am on Saturday, October 29, 2011
The way MCPS has operated not only on this school's site selection, but many in recent history, shows that the school system operates in isolation to all other governing bodies in the county and state. To date, their hands have been slapped, but not tied. It is time to get the tough and make them responsible for wasting taxpayer dollars.
Mr. Ed
7:59 pm on Saturday, October 29, 2011
vote them out
Leslie Atkin
12:02 pm on Saturday, October 29, 2011
I'm not sure which children will be best served by the school location preference here. Many Rock Creek Hills residents object to this site because there isn't enough land to support the school. Is that not proof enough that the plan is flawed? There is not enough space for parking. There are many streets leading to the park from Stoneybrook and Beach that will be cut throughs for people bringing their kids and picking them up after school and in the evenings. We'll be losing TWO regulation-sized soccer fields that down-county schools depend upon. For those disappointed in how children are being served, look to school leaders who ignored the overcrowding issue as long as they could and then made rash decisions about where to quickly, quickly build a school! In an age where computer technology provides accurate data and helps us project, Montgomery County chose instead to go old school, with all of the accuracy and excellence you'd expect when people act like cavemen drawing plans on rock walls. Those in leadership knew this was coming and chose to do nothing. Now we have people scurrying around making decisions that our residents will live with for decades. Regarding the class issue (million dollar homes indeed), try not to be so intellectually lazy. Look at the facts. The Park is inadequate based on criteria set forth by Montgomery County school's planning personnel.
Mr. Ed
8:38 am on Sunday, October 30, 2011
Nymbism is not proof of inadequacy of the site
streets are public and they are the same ones used buy people using the park as well as the busses taking our kids to their schools
Soccer fields are a luxury, schools are a necessity
a year long process is a definded as rash?
what proof do you have that the planners were cavemen. they do not esist. Homo-sapiens are the domnant species now
there are numerous million dollar homes in RCH, including just across the street from the park -
the criteria are desired, not written in stone.
be posiitive leslie Define on, just one alternative location. I am open to hearing that
Mr. Ed
7:58 pm on Saturday, October 29, 2011
The park does not belong to the residents of rock creek hills. period.
the leadership that failed was then leadership of RCHCA which did not give a damn until it was in their back yard. this has been going on for a year now. that is what I call scrutiny. Janis - the process was open and the results were open - not one of you, not one gave any alternative sites within the cluster. the ones they looked at were the only ones large enought to accommodate the school. any other options would have required the county to exercise emminent domain and pay 1-5 million dollars an acre for land in the cluster. For example, MR P.'s land is vaued at over a million dollars and acre equivalent as are the houses on haverhill
great decision in the face of a misleading highly negative mean spirited campaign by a bunch of nimbyers who pretend to have the interests of our children at heart, but who in most cases do not have kid in the public shcools and don care if our kdis are bussed nearly to VA to go to school (westland is slightly more than a mile from the VA border) so accept the fact that your arguments were invalid and everyoone saw that.
Leslie Atkin
8:03 pm on Saturday, October 29, 2011
To clarify, KJH was built on the land where the Sunrise Retirement Community buildings now sit. The new school will be built NEXT to the retirement community. For those lost in KJH nostalgia, also remember that due to the lack of buildable acres, there will not be the same amount of athletic fields. It won't be the same footprint now proposed for Rock Creek Hills.
Mr. Ed
8:09 pm on Saturday, October 29, 2011
if you look at the photos, they build the retirement home on the baseball field.. I can live with out the same number of fields. if you need more, go across the street, less than a quarter mile away. if you folks were so worried about your property values of your million dollar homes you might be creative enough to fight for no net loss of parkland with mcnncp and lobby for the trade. the way you folks are handlingit, you end up with nothing.
Dave
8:03 pm on Saturday, October 29, 2011
The criteria argument is a specious one, as MCPS has noted many times that the criteria are desired attributes and not absolute minimums. One of many examples is the sidewalks criteria. Yes, sidewalks are desired, but as has been documented before there are many MCPS schools without them. Moreover, as everyone who lives here knows, there are are children walking all over the neighborhood to and from the bus every day. The school board challenged all of you opposed to the school to find another suitable sprawling piece of available land in the cluster. I haven't heard of a legitimate alternative to date. You say they are wasting taxpayers dollars. What's the alternative?
And I love the "we'll be losing two full soccer fields" argument. There are still going to be fields there, and are you really saying it is more important to have a pasture-quality field for the B-CC varsity girls soccer team to practice than a quality educational facility to actually educate children? Come on, that doesn't even pass the laugh test.
For all the doomsday scenarios put forward before the feasibility study, the two designs they came up with look fine to me.
Mr. Ed
8:09 pm on Saturday, October 29, 2011
Well said sir!
Janis
8:11 am on Monday, October 31, 2011
Mr. Talking Horse,
Thanks for the laugh.
Your comment has been forwarded to the Maryland Open Meetings Compliance Board. The OMA Board thinks that citizens understand the Open Meetings Act. Your comments show that they don't and more education IS needed! Thanks for making the case for more OMA education for Montgomery County! This exact issue was just discussed last week at the Open Meetings Board Annual meeting.
Here's the Open Meetings Compliance Board's Opinion on the BCC MS #2 site selection:
http://parentscoalitionmc.blogspot.com/2011/09/4th-open-meetings-act-violation-for.html
Now if you would like to have an adult conversation (non-talking horse variety) about site selections, then let's do that.
Alternative site? Lots of choices. Where have you been?
Here's one: MCPS already owns a 20 acre middle school site that is not being used for a school. The land can be used for a middle school, sold for another middle school site, or swapped with a developer for another middle school site.
Look at that! Alternatives! All it takes is an open, public discussion and the alternatives magically appear.
Sarah Jones
10:40 am on Monday, October 31, 2011
Janis, if there is the ideal alternative as you say, why is it not being moved on right now?
Janis
11:04 am on Monday, October 31, 2011
Good question. Ask the Board of Education.
Mr. Ed
10:57 am on Monday, October 31, 2011
janis - you know very well that the oma is advisory only and has no force of law. It is irrelevant bacause it is just an opinion - just like mine or yours. Bottom line is that this selection has been in the news, subject to numerous meetings at different levels etc etc., stress tested, etc. according to mont county land records there is not a 20 acre parcel available in the bcc cluster - or if there was it would cost 1-5 million an acre. Maybe we could tale it by emminent domain? Where is this parcel in the bcc cluster you speak of?
Janis
11:09 am on Monday, October 31, 2011
Mr. Talking Horse,
The Open Meetings Act is in fact a law.
http://www.oag.state.md.us/Opengov/Openmeetings/AppA.pdf
Violations can be taken to court and civil penalties exist.
The purpose of the Compliance Board is to avoid litigation. The hope is that adults will respect the law without the need for litigation. But if you prefer litigation, that is available.
Mr. Ed
11:24 am on Monday, October 31, 2011
"A member of a public body who willfully participates in a meeting of the body with
knowledge that the meeting is being held in violation of the provisions of this subtitle
is subject to a civil penalty not to exceed $100." key word being "knowingly" like I said - a toothless tiger
Janis - you brought up the 20 acre piece of land - where is it? or is it another one of your lies? please spread your misinformation somewhere else and quit agitating in our neighborhood. you are a destructive individual with no credibility in the real world.
Mr. Ed
11:26 am on Monday, October 31, 2011
from the gazette:
MCPS anticipated this ruling and has already changed its policy on closed-door meetings to avoid further violations, spokeswoman Lesli Maxwell told the Gazette.
The ruling does not recommend any punitive action, and the Open Meetings Compliance Board does not have the power to issue penalties or overturn rulings, the Gazette reported. ha ha i am right.
Janis
11:37 am on Monday, October 31, 2011
Mr. Talking Horse,
The Compliance Board is not a Circuit Court. Those are two different bodies with different powers under the Act.
Unfortunately, the Gazette article is only quoting a MCPS spokesperson (no longer working for MCPS) and is not reporting on facts in that statement. MCPS has, in fact, gone on to violate the Open Meetings Act after this decision was released.
Mr. Ed
11:39 am on Monday, October 31, 2011
and you point is? they have no power, period.
where is the 20 acres you speak of? calling your bluff. there is not one. caught in yet another mis-truth
Janis
11:50 am on Monday, October 31, 2011
Mr. Talking Horse,
Thanks so much for making an excellent argument for increased education on the Maryland Open Meetings Act. When the Act was originally passed, training was held all across the state. Clearly time for that to happen again as was discussed last week by the OMA Compliance Board.
Here's more from the Open Meetings Act:
(b) (1) If a public body fails to comply with § 10-505, § 10-506, § 10-507, § 10-508,
or § 10-509(c) of this subtitle any person may file with a circuit court that has venue a petition that asks the court to:
(i) determine the applicability of those sections;
(ii) require the public body to comply with those sections;
or
(iii) void the action of the public body.
Janis
11:42 am on Monday, October 31, 2011
For those that like to discuss facts, here is the link to the MCPS Real Property Inventory showing all of the land that has been entrusted to the Montgomery County Board of Education for the use of public school children.
The lists in this document show land with schools in use, land with schools that are rented out to others (and can be taken back), and land that is available for future use.
http://www.montgomeryschoolsmd.org/departments/facilities/REM/pdf/Real%20Property%20Report%202011.pdf
Lots of public school land in Montgomery County, lots of choices as to how to use this land.
Mr. Ed
11:50 am on Monday, October 31, 2011
thanks for proving my point - none in the bcc cluster except for rch and two significantly smaller sites. there are no 20 acre middle school sites availble in the bcc cluster, nor are there any 20 acre sites available for sale. caught in another lie, janis. how does it feel to be outwitted by a talking horse?
Janis
11:55 am on Monday, October 31, 2011
Who said the land had to be in the BCC Cluster to be relevant to this discussion? This is why public discussion is so very important. School land is used in many different ways to fulfill the needs of the public school system.
The assumptions made by this talking horse don't take in to account the many, many different options that are available to the Board of Education in making decisions on the use of school land.
Mr. Ed
11:53 am on Monday, October 31, 2011
there you go again janis - anothe lie - only a court can rule, not the board. Huge difference - a ruling by the board is still only an opinion - no force of law - and can easily be undone by a competent attorney in the courtroom. Game, set match!
Janis
12:06 pm on Monday, October 31, 2011
Here's one middle school property that can be reclaimed for use as a public school if needed. Taxpayers invested $9.8 million to renovate this building when it was turned over to the lessee.
Here's the lease for the property.
http://www.montgomerycountymd.gov/content/DGS/DREAMS/documents/leases/Closed_Schools/Linden_Ln_2010_Lease_27.6.06.pdf
Mr. Ed
12:15 pm on Monday, October 31, 2011
been down this road before - not in the cluster. under lease that would have to be broken at considerable cost - you a are beating a dead horse on this one.
Janis
12:09 pm on Monday, October 31, 2011
This link shows all of the public school property that is currently being leased out by Montgomery County:
http://www.montgomerycountymd.gov/mcgtmpl.asp?url=/content/DGS/DREAMS/revenueleases.asp
Mr. Ed
12:25 pm on Monday, October 31, 2011
good list - all leased - glad to see that they were leased to organizations benefiting the public good - at least they did not lease them to used car lots, prisons or nuclear waste dumps.
- hey wait a minute - I have an idea - lets throw out Round House theatre, the YMCA, the Jewish home for the aging and numerous day care centers. those bastards! of course none are in the cluster. nevermind.
Mr. Ed
12:11 pm on Monday, October 31, 2011
because we are not building the middle school in poolesville, but in an urban cluster. why would we not focus on this cluster? Are you proposing to send my kids outside of the cluster to go to middle school?
There is no land in the bcc cluster of that size owned by the county or for sale. check the land records