Murch- Getting screwed again?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I hope someone will post about the community meeting here. I want to hear how DGS and DCPS explain themselves when they compare the nickel and diming they are doing to Murch when compared the the blank checks they've been writing for other renovation projects.

Uh, local politics? Pure and simple.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I hope someone will post about the community meeting here. I want to hear how DGS and DCPS explain themselves when they compare the nickel and diming they are doing to Murch when compared the the blank checks they've been writing for other renovation projects.

It's surreal, but it is what it is. DCPS loves to play Robin Hood 2.0: steal from wealthy taxpayers to pay for huge projects in areas that vote for the Mayor.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I hope someone will post about the community meeting here. I want to hear how DGS and DCPS explain themselves when they compare the nickel and diming they are doing to Murch when compared the the blank checks they've been writing for other renovation projects.

DGS didn't come to the community part of the meeting. They met with SIT and left.

[Anonymous]

Any summary?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Great. $10 million less for the rest of us, and now you all are going to go after more.

What about Ellington? Does this mean they will need to cancel the private saunas and hot tubs? For the dancers, you know.

It's also a joke that they are spending $200 million and rising to keep Ellington in its present location. For that money, they could have built a completely modern new performing arts school, more centrally situated in DC to be more convenient to more students, nearer to Metro and ideally located near a performing arts facility. Think, for example of the SW Waterfront District. And NW could probably use another general high school, so it makes sense as several council members have proposed, that the current Ellington building be repurposed as Western High School (which it was). But no, the Ellington community has a bee in its bonnet about staying in Burleith (which they call Georgetown, and consider staying there as a "prestige" thing), and think there's some nefarious racial agenda to move the school to a better location.

NIMBY much?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Great. $10 million less for the rest of us, and now you all are going to go after more.

What about Ellington? Does this mean they will need to cancel the private saunas and hot tubs? For the dancers, you know.

It's also a joke that they are spending $200 million and rising to keep Ellington in its present location. For that money, they could have built a completely modern new performing arts school, more centrally situated in DC to be more convenient to more students, nearer to Metro and ideally located near a performing arts facility. Think, for example of the SW Waterfront District. And NW could probably use another general high school, so it makes sense as several council members have proposed, that the current Ellington building be repurposed as Western High School (which it was). But no, the Ellington community has a bee in its bonnet about staying in Burleith (which they call Georgetown, and consider staying there as a "prestige" thing), and think there's some nefarious racial agenda to move the school to a better location.

NIMBY much?

Right, because the only reason one could be in favor of moving Ellington would be because one didn't like having blacks in one's "back yard."

Race-bait much?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Any summary?

Sure:

DCPS told the SIT two weeks ago that swing space costs wouldn't come out of the renovation budget...but also that the project is underbudgeted by $10M. So we rallied (thank you to all of the DCUM friends who helped!) and got the budget increased by $10M...only to be told that, actually, we do have to pay for swing space out of the renovation budget. Oops! So the additional $10M will pay for that and some other incidentals, and we're still $10M short.

Why are we underbudgeted? Two reasons: First, because going underground--which is necessary because of the size of Murch's site--is expensive, which everyone knew on day one, and which the Murch SIT discussed with DGS in the early stages of the planning to ensure the budget would accommodate it. Second, because apparently the contractor selection process doesn't actually involve bids. That's right: DGS selects a contractor without asking them to price the project. And guess what? When the contractor priced the project, they said that building underground is expensive--more than the assigned budget.

(We also learned that Lafayette's one-year renovation was budgeted at $78M, and Marie Reed's one-year renovation was budgeted at $61M. Murch's two-year renovation? $68M.)

So the guy from DCPS showed the current edition of the revised plans, aiming to accommodate the reduced budget. They are, to put it mildly, ridiculous. They include features that HAVE ALREADY BEEN REJECTED BY THE HISTORICAL PRESERVATION COMMISSION. So, these plans are total fiction. Not only that, they include TWO surface parking lots and still no space that can accommodate the whole school.

It's a mess, honestly. If we can't rally to get another $10M, I don't see how this project starts in June.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Any summary?

Sure:

DCPS told the SIT two weeks ago that swing space costs wouldn't come out of the renovation budget...but also that the project is underbudgeted by $10M. So we rallied (thank you to all of the DCUM friends who helped!) and got the budget increased by $10M...only to be told that, actually, we do have to pay for swing space out of the renovation budget. Oops! So the additional $10M will pay for that and some other incidentals, and we're still $10M short.

Why are we underbudgeted? Two reasons: First, because going underground--which is necessary because of the size of Murch's site--is expensive, which everyone knew on day one, and which the Murch SIT discussed with DGS in the early stages of the planning to ensure the budget would accommodate it. Second, because apparently the contractor selection process doesn't actually involve bids. That's right: DGS selects a contractor without asking them to price the project. And guess what? When the contractor priced the project, they said that building underground is expensive--more than the assigned budget.

(We also learned that Lafayette's one-year renovation was budgeted at $78M, and Marie Reed's one-year renovation was budgeted at $61M. Murch's two-year renovation? $68M.)

So the guy from DCPS showed the current edition of the revised plans, aiming to accommodate the reduced budget. They are, to put it mildly, ridiculous. They include features that HAVE ALREADY BEEN REJECTED BY THE HISTORICAL PRESERVATION COMMISSION. So, these plans are total fiction. Not only that, they include TWO surface parking lots and still no space that can accommodate the whole school.

It's a mess, honestly. If we can't rally to get another $10M, I don't see how this project starts in June.

It feels as if DGS is also desperate to NOT have this project move forward. Why else would they continue to come up with things to stop it? "Sorry, $10 overbudget? What's that? You got the $10 million? Oh, well then your swing some costs have to come out of that afterall." There is a lot of dishonesty going on here. How can they come up with alternative plans that include elements that won't past muster with the Historic Preservation Commission!?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Any summary?

Sure:

DCPS told the SIT two weeks ago that swing space costs wouldn't come out of the renovation budget...but also that the project is underbudgeted by $10M. So we rallied (thank you to all of the DCUM friends who helped!) and got the budget increased by $10M...only to be told that, actually, we do have to pay for swing space out of the renovation budget. Oops! So the additional $10M will pay for that and some other incidentals, and we're still $10M short.

Why are we underbudgeted? Two reasons: First, because going underground--which is necessary because of the size of Murch's site--is expensive, which everyone knew on day one, and which the Murch SIT discussed with DGS in the early stages of the planning to ensure the budget would accommodate it. Second, because apparently the contractor selection process doesn't actually involve bids. That's right: DGS selects a contractor without asking them to price the project. And guess what? When the contractor priced the project, they said that building underground is expensive--more than the assigned budget.

(We also learned that Lafayette's one-year renovation was budgeted at $78M, and Marie Reed's one-year renovation was budgeted at $61M. Murch's two-year renovation? $68M.)

So the guy from DCPS showed the current edition of the revised plans, aiming to accommodate the reduced budget. They are, to put it mildly, ridiculous. They include features that HAVE ALREADY BEEN REJECTED BY THE HISTORICAL PRESERVATION COMMISSION. So, these plans are total fiction. Not only that, they include TWO surface parking lots and still no space that can accommodate the whole school.

It's a mess, honestly. If we can't rally to get another $10M, I don't see how this project starts in June.

And what was with the gym built a half story above the parking lot? That just didn't make any sense to me.
And, while I am glad the swing space seems to have been worked out, it seems questionable whether there will be outdoor play space. I think it's still the best we can get so I am not complaining, but it's not great for an elementary school plan.

I'll be writing more letters today to ask (again) for full funding, but I am so exhausted with all of this. I just don't see how this project isn't seriously delayed.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:DCPS told the SIT two weeks ago that swing space costs wouldn't come out of the renovation budget...but also that the project is underbudgeted by $10M. So we rallied (thank you to all of the DCUM friends who helped!) and got the budget increased by $10M...only to be told that, actually, we do have to pay for swing space out of the renovation budget. Oops! So the additional $10M will pay for that and some other incidentals, and we're still $10M short.

Was there any explanation about why you were wrongly told that the swing space costs wouldn't come out of the renovation budget? That seems like a pretty big detail to get wrong. If that is the level of incompetence with which you are dealing, I'm afraid the chance of success of this project is not high. The frustration level within the Murch community must be off the charts.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:DCPS told the SIT two weeks ago that swing space costs wouldn't come out of the renovation budget...but also that the project is underbudgeted by $10M. So we rallied (thank you to all of the DCUM friends who helped!) and got the budget increased by $10M...only to be told that, actually, we do have to pay for swing space out of the renovation budget. Oops! So the additional $10M will pay for that and some other incidentals, and we're still $10M short.

Was there any explanation about why you were wrongly told that the swing space costs wouldn't come out of the renovation budget? That seems like a pretty big detail to get wrong. If that is the level of incompetence with which you are dealing, I'm afraid the chance of success of this project is not high. The frustration level within the Murch community must be off the charts.

Nope. Lots of head-hanging, shrugging, and "yeah, I know"-ing from the DCPS guy; DGS didn't bother to show up at the community meeting. Guess Kenny is over it.

I suspect DCPS/DGS assumed we'd never get the $10M added, so they were resigned to eating the swing space costs. But when that $10M showed up, they reneged.

The incompetence and disregard for the community--and kids--is mind-blowing.

(I'll also note that Mary Cheh didn't show up. She sent one of her people, instead. So we can tell how important this is to her.)

[Anonymous]

Jesus.

OK Murch people-- give us marching orders to help you!!! What are the next steps here?

[Anonymous]

In defense of Mary Cheh, this mtg was scheduled not long ago and Wednesdays are a regular teaching night for her so it may have been hard for her to move her schedule.

Would have been nice for the DGS rep to stay for the mtg as so many of the questions the community has are ones DGS should answer.

[Anonymous]

I'm not a litigious person, but I don't understand why after so many years of this that Murch hasn't filed some sort of suit. There must be several accomplished attorneys who are parents who could help advise? It is mind numbing what's going on here.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:In defense of Mary Cheh, this mtg was scheduled not long ago and Wednesdays are a regular teaching night for her so it may have been hard for her to move her schedule.

Would have been nice for the DGS rep to stay for the mtg as so many of the questions the community has are ones DGS should answer.

Good to know. Next election, I'll make sure to vote for the person who's going to put representing her constituents first.