Reply to Murch- Getting screwed again?

Forum Index » DC Public and Public Charter Schools

Reply to "Murch- Getting screwed again?"

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=jsteele][quote=Anonymous]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. 
[/quote]

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. 
[/quote]

DCPS COO Nathaniel Beers told the SIT on 2/11 that because DCPS had gotten ahead themselves and mishandled the swing space issue (see Lafayette uproar; premature UDC announcement), they would do what it took to rectify that and whatever extra cost was incurred would not come out of the Murch modernization budget. Ten minutes later they informed the SIT that, btw, they needed to trim costs by $10m on the actual project. Clever, eh? The SIT asked repeatedly how this could be happening four months before construction was to start, how did they not have their numbers correct, had they learned nothing after spending $$ on a feasibility study, etc. Beers just shrugged and said, "Frankly, some of those projections were straight out of La La Land." He said they would not be asking for more money, they would instead proceed to the "value engineer" their way out of this mess. They showed the SIT some rough ideas, which the SIT rejected outright. These went far beyond value engineering. They significantly reduced or altogether eliminated key programmatic and play spaces, they created awkward and unsafe service delivery issues, and/or they seemed to go against stipulations put forth by the Commission of Fine Arts and the Historic Board for Preservation -- which had already signed off on the original design months ago.

The community immediately rallied and, curiously, just as a win-win two-year deal was announced with UDC, DCPS issued a "clarification" that -- surprise!-- the cost of the project was actually $88m, meaning the project was underfunded buy $20m. A few days later, the DME announced that the project was getting $10m but that would go to cover swing space and "soft costs." Bottom line, the project is still $10m underfunded and DCPS plans to cut costs through design modifications. Their half-baked proposal last night was still highly problematic with even smaller square footage for the gym, cafeteria, and classrooms. It was also just weird, with the gym elevated on top of a parking lot (no rendering to see how that might actually look), a double curb cut on Reno, and the kitchen far from any service entrance. Not to mention that the SIT has been trying for months to get DCPS/DGS to focus on the interior spaces. It doesn't even appear that they have included enough classrooms per grade. Keep in mind that DCPS intends to send 730 kids here.

Last night the SIT again asked the DGS reps how, if they do this all the time, they could be off by 25% and just now figuring this out. The rep shrugged and said, "I don't know, we were just off." Yes, that's what we're dealing with. But keep those tax dollars rolling in, folks!  [/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics