Where's the transparency Mayor?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Call me naive but it does make some sense that it is more expensive to do all/most of the renovation in the summer. I find some merit to trying to keep rush fees/overtime down by moving students off site. It would also reduce the cost of erecting so many trailer campuses.

I don't necessarily disagree, but only if it actually speeds up overall renovation. Seems ridiculous that Eaton would have to move off site for a multiphase renovation that is somehow going to take 5 years but only cost $15m? Frankly that seems like window dressing compared to what other schools are getting, plus an extremely elongated time frame for paltry renovations and a move to swing space? Makes no sense.

Agree that case is puzzling. But for Hyde, Marie Reed and the other more extensive renovations I think it probably makes sense.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Call me naive but it does make some sense that it is more expensive to do all/most of the renovation in the summer. I find some merit to trying to keep rush fees/overtime down by moving students off site. It would also reduce the cost of erecting so many trailer campuses.

I don't necessarily disagree, but only if it actually speeds up overall renovation. Seems ridiculous that Eaton would have to move off site for a multiphase renovation that is somehow going to take 5 years but only cost $15m? Frankly that seems like window dressing compared to what other schools are getting, plus an extremely elongated time frame for paltry renovations and a move to swing space? Makes no sense.

Agree that case is puzzling. But for Hyde, Marie Reed and the other more extensive renovations I think it probably makes sense.

If you look at the history of these budgets, many schools had low "placeholder" budgets when they were still years away. Then when you get to design phase, they adjust based on a "best guess", then when the builder is on board, they adjust again based on actual bidding costs to determine what will really needed. They you have to go fight to get what the city will call an "increase" even though the original number was pulled out of a la la land and had no bearing the actual project at hand. Trust me, there is no back up for the numbers assigned to any school that is not already actively under construction (and in some cases, not even for those under construction or completed -- ask the City Auditor).

Plus, then they get to act like they've done you a huge favor by "increasing" your budget went the original number was never really a budget in the first place. I doubt you can find a single project where the first number in the CIP bears any resemblance to the actual final construction cost - especially given market changes you inevitably will see from 2016 to 2022. And, just because you have a placeholder now, does not mean it will stay there. They will move money around when they want to or need to (see "adjustments" above).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Thank you.

I guess I didn't look hard enough.

As I suspected, it appears our school is one of the ones that got shafted. And although we will have been parents at the school for 12 years by the time my youngest finishes, the school will not be done by then, but my youngest will get to spend 5 years in a school under construction. What a joke. But what else is new, we're just collateral damage anyway.

Us too.

And it also looks like we could get the added fun of swinging to Meyer Elementary for 5 years. I mean, that's virtually my youngest's entire elementary career. We currently walk 4 blocks to school. A school 3 miles away? That sucks. I wonder if they would temporarily give us back our proximity preference for Hearst since our assigned school would then be greater than a half mile and we are less than a half mile from Hearst....

you would have to move into the boundary to be accepted at Hearst, it is filling up with IB kids.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My computer isn't liking those files. What's the word on Eaton?

Planning starts in FY 21. Construction starts FY 22. Construction complete in FY 26. Though the ranking document says planning in FY 22. Swing space potentially at Meyers, though no indication of how long that would be or if it would be the whole construction time or just part of the time. The renovations proposed seem minimal - only $15m total compared to all the other schools getting $30m and way on up.

Hey, Eaton, you just got Bowsered (which is a polite way of saying "fu---d").

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/dc-politics/2016/03/24/5a775a54-f1dd-11e5-89c3-a647fcce95e0_story.html

"Work on some schools would be accelerated under this plan, and work on others could be delayed. Officials declined to provide a list of affected schools."

I want to see the list of planned renovations and the order. And the poor 5 schools that are not included to be renovated.

And don't tell me to write to the Mayor's office. I've written several times about other things in the city and have never once received a response.

Between the giveaway to crony developer friends under the guise of helping the homeless, the Pepco-Exelon debacle and now the DCPS renovation bait and switch, I can't decide whether Mayor Bowser is more Mayor Blunder or Mayor B.arry.

[Anonymous]

I honestly do not understand the renovation plans for the schools. DC let its school buildings deteriorate over the years and now can not now even present a comprehensible plan.

[Anonymous]

Is Garrison included?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Is Garrison included?

No, not according to the information posted on this read on 3/25 at 8:55 AM

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is Garrison included?

No, not according to the information posted on this read on 3/25 at 8:55 AM

In the budget proper, Garrison still gets $20m for work next year, so no change there.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is Garrison included?

No, not according to the information posted on this read on 3/25 at 8:55 AM

In the budget proper, Garrison still gets $20m for work next year, so no change there.

Not clear what a "budget proper" is...?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is Garrison included?

No, not according to the information posted on this read on 3/25 at 8:55 AM

In the budget proper, Garrison still gets $20m for work next year, so no change there.

Not clear what a "budget proper" is...?

I'm guessing the actual budget proposed by the mayor, as opposed to the normal conjecture and bloviating that goes on here.

[Anonymous]

Bowser increasingly seems like Marion Barry in a skirt, but just not as clever.