Anonymous
12/18/2015 10:07
Subject: Murch meeting tonight on swing space
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:What gave you the impression that DGS/Kenny reads these threads?
First thing the DGS guy said at the meeting was that they held the meeting at Lafayette first because the rumor of Lafayette being considered as the swing site had spread like wildfire, starting first on DCUM. He expressly mentioned DCUM.
Funny. Well, Hi Kenny!!!
Anonymous
12/18/2015 10:05
Subject: Murch meeting tonight on swing space
Anonymous wrote:What gave you the impression that DGS/Kenny reads these threads?
First thing the DGS guy said at the meeting was that they held the meeting at Lafayette first because the rumor of Lafayette being considered as the swing site had spread like wildfire, starting first on DCUM. He expressly mentioned DCUM.
Anonymous
12/18/2015 10:05
Subject: Re:Murch meeting tonight on swing space
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Regardless of what option is chosen, I hope Mary Cheh and the ward 4 person whose name I can't remember holds DCPS's feet to the fire. It is unacceptable that after months and months of conversation, the decision is made in a hurried way without having appropriate data.
I agree, but...never going to happen. Cheh has always been milquetoast, and Brandon Todd struck me as not much better. Once the Lafayette option is eliminated, this all goes away.
If the UDC option turns out not to be viable merely because the secret service wasn't consulted until too late, the Murch community should be furious.
Anonymous
12/18/2015 10:02
Subject: Re:Murch meeting tonight on swing space
Anonymous wrote:Regardless of what option is chosen, I hope Mary Cheh and the ward 4 person whose name I can't remember holds DCPS's feet to the fire. It is unacceptable that after months and months of conversation, the decision is made in a hurried way without having appropriate data.
I agree, but...never going to happen. Cheh has always been milquetoast, and Brandon Todd struck me as not much better. Once the Lafayette option is eliminated, this all goes away.
Anonymous
12/18/2015 10:01
Subject: Re:Murch meeting tonight on swing space
Anonymous wrote:Regardless of what option is chosen, I hope Mary Cheh and the ward 4 person whose name I can't remember holds DCPS's feet to the fire. It is unacceptable that after months and months of conversation, the decision is made in a hurried way without having appropriate data.
Brandon Todd. Agreed. This whole thing is a sh*tshow. Someone on the previous thread indicated that up until recently, DGS got to call the shots on things, but now DCPS does -- and that this is a turf battle with schools in the middle. I'd love it if there was more info on this.
Anonymous
12/18/2015 10:01
Subject: Re:Murch meeting tonight on swing space
Here's the breakdown by cost:
Swing Completely on site: 2.5 M. Pros, we are all together, cheap, close to XDay, Cons: very, very close to construction - lots of moving around over the 2.5 year timeline; very limited play space; they haven't even really started to talk to NPS about using vacant lot across Reno. Drop off would be Ellicot with construction entrances on Davenport and Reno.
Swing partly on site; Pre-K and K at Capitol Memorial Church: 3.5 M. Pros...not sure there are any! Okay - good place space. Cons: school is split - especially hard for resource teachers and specialists; classrooms would have to be packed up on weekends! This one seemed the least likely.
Swing at Lafayette: 4.5 M - I think. Pros - already setup, large enough, DCPS controls; Cons - traffic and all those kids at recess and Lafayette families have to wait two more years which we at Murch know is a huge pain, also lots of Murch families walk and/or don't have cars and then hop on metro - will complicate commutes. We also had Lafayette parents (two) not asking questions but taking their turn to ask questions and turning around to lecture the group on why this wouldn't work which really struct the wrong tone. The meeting ran very long and the Murch parents simply wanted their chance to ask questions and give input to DGS. We all understood why Lafayette didn't want this but hearing traffic as an argument was kind of laughable if you ever see Davenport during drop-off with all the folks dropping at Murch and then going on to Deal. We get a lot of cross park traffic headed simply to Deal/Wilson as well.
Swing at UDC: 6M. Pros: large enough for Murch, away from construction - close to Metro; playspace for PreK/K and for bigger. Set off from rest of UDC. Cons: might be secret service issues with all the embassies around - travel to XDay.
There was definite crowd approval for the UDC option. Which of course they presented last. Mary Cheh got up and spoke at the end and said that she thought we should be asking for UDC or relooking at doing 2 level trailers on the Forest Hills baseball field to fit us all there.
Also a fair amount of frustration was expressed that they didn't have the answers to 75% of the questions and they were planning to do a traffic study over winter break and give us an answer on January 12th! There should be a link up on the Murch website at some point today to the presentation and with info on how to comment.
Swing Completely on site: 2.5 M. Pros, we are all together, cheap, close to XDay, Cons: very, very close to construction - lots of moving around over the 2.5 year timeline; very limited play space; they haven't even really started to talk to NPS about using vacant lot across Reno. Drop off would be Ellicot with construction entrances on Davenport and Reno.
Swing partly on site; Pre-K and K at Capitol Memorial Church: 3.5 M. Pros...not sure there are any! Okay - good place space. Cons: school is split - especially hard for resource teachers and specialists; classrooms would have to be packed up on weekends! This one seemed the least likely.
Swing at Lafayette: 4.5 M - I think. Pros - already setup, large enough, DCPS controls; Cons - traffic and all those kids at recess and Lafayette families have to wait two more years which we at Murch know is a huge pain, also lots of Murch families walk and/or don't have cars and then hop on metro - will complicate commutes. We also had Lafayette parents (two) not asking questions but taking their turn to ask questions and turning around to lecture the group on why this wouldn't work which really struct the wrong tone. The meeting ran very long and the Murch parents simply wanted their chance to ask questions and give input to DGS. We all understood why Lafayette didn't want this but hearing traffic as an argument was kind of laughable if you ever see Davenport during drop-off with all the folks dropping at Murch and then going on to Deal. We get a lot of cross park traffic headed simply to Deal/Wilson as well.
Swing at UDC: 6M. Pros: large enough for Murch, away from construction - close to Metro; playspace for PreK/K and for bigger. Set off from rest of UDC. Cons: might be secret service issues with all the embassies around - travel to XDay.
There was definite crowd approval for the UDC option. Which of course they presented last. Mary Cheh got up and spoke at the end and said that she thought we should be asking for UDC or relooking at doing 2 level trailers on the Forest Hills baseball field to fit us all there.
Also a fair amount of frustration was expressed that they didn't have the answers to 75% of the questions and they were planning to do a traffic study over winter break and give us an answer on January 12th! There should be a link up on the Murch website at some point today to the presentation and with info on how to comment.
Anonymous
12/18/2015 09:58
Subject: Re:Murch meeting tonight on swing space
Regardless of what option is chosen, I hope Mary Cheh and the ward 4 person whose name I can't remember holds DCPS's feet to the fire. It is unacceptable that after months and months of conversation, the decision is made in a hurried way without having appropriate data.
Anonymous
12/18/2015 09:57
Subject: Re:Murch meeting tonight on swing space
Anonymous wrote:I stayed for the whole meeting. Though there were 4 options presented I think that 2 are viable Lafayette and UDC. But all the proposals were riddled with issues.
Option 1 lengthens the duration of the construction by 6 months and has the kids remaining on site for the entire process. This has 4 phases during all of them the kids will use facilities that will be with in the construction zone. The Murch property is far too small to make this safe. There is talk about play space across Reno Road but not worked out with NPS, which seems unlikely given the history. (I think the proposed cost of this was 2.5 million)
Option 2 has the community split between on site (Gr 1-5) with PK and K being housed at a church in forest hills (combination in the church and in trailers on the ball field.) The caveat being that any space within the church would have to be dismantled on Fridays and reassembled on Monday. Several issues that arise with this option, of which the breaking down of classrooms seem most glaring but also specials teachers having to be dual site (also special education, reading specialists, counselors, etc.) The play space would be great for PK and K but again the NPS proposed play area across Reno road being the case for onsite being an critical unknown. (I think the proposed cost of this was 2.5 million)
Option 3 Lafayette. Obviously this hinges on their renovation being completed on time. This would mean a lot of people would drive, and my understanding is that traffic at Lafayette is comparable to what the traffic is at Murch. Terrible. DCPS said that bussing from Murch to Lafayette would be provided. 1300 elementary kids sharing one space, play space sharing, parking all things that could be problematic. The Lafayette community is up in arms over this obviously. DGS had told them out right that this was not an option, DCPS apparently forced them to investigate feasibility. (I think the proposed cost of this was 4.5 million)
Option 4 UDC Building a trailer community on an open field on Van Ness. This was only being investigated since after Thanksgiving. So details seem less concrete and the slides providing information less well, informational… This option seemed to be the best received of all the options. Keeping the community in one congruent space for the duration of the build. There were parking concerns, and it seemed like more details needed to be worked out, secret service, drop off etc. This is the option that DGS is recommending for the swing space. (I think the proposed cost of this was 6 million)
There seems to be a lot of information to be processed and traffic studies to be completed. I don’t see how a comprehensive traffic study can be completed before the decision are made being that schools are out beginning today through January 4. The verdict will be out January 12th with DCPS having the final say. What will be the deciding factor…$$$, safety, community input, we will just have to wait and see…
THanks for this summary--really helpful.
I hate the idea of teachers' having to breakdown classrooms each week, but $3.5M difference between that and UDC...that's a lot. Probably some big trade-offs against renovation outcomes.
Is the extra six months on site for option 1 and 2? And is that six months on top of the 24 projected? Or is it 18 months if the kids aren't on-site?
Anonymous
12/18/2015 09:52
Subject: Murch meeting tonight on swing space
What gave you the impression that DGS/Kenny reads these threads?
Anonymous
12/18/2015 09:51
Subject: Murch meeting tonight on swing space
Anonymous wrote:It was clear that DCPS makes the final decision. DGS ran through the four options with the DCPS person also contributing.
DGS supported UDC (as do my husband and I) They are clearly running as close to the deadline as possible with the announcement coming on January 12 for the location. If they choose a location and it falls through for some reason (Dept. of State says no to UDC because of proximity to Embassies or Lafayette runs into the fall) there are no contingency plans.
Some of the site option visits didn't happen until after Thanksgiving. The Lafayette traffic study started yesterday so at least they will have 2 days of school being in session. They have not started the Murch traffic study for swinging on site.
Swinging on site seems really, really bad. It looked like a matter of feet between the trailers and active construction zone.
MCN is the builder, they have done a lot of other DCPS renovations.
There will be a survey on the Murch website where you can voice an opinion.
Mary Cheh came to the whole meeting and said she prefers UDC or Chesapeke/Church option. I intend to call her office today and ask her if she will weigh in with DCPS on this preference.
And last, but not least, DGS reads DCUM at least they have read the other thread on this subject.
Wow. Ok, what can we all do to make this work. If it's a matter of cost, surely we can pressure DCPS to cough up the $$. (#$178millionDukeElliington) Are any Murch community members trying to organize to force DCPS' hand on this? How can we all help?
Anonymous
12/18/2015 09:44
Subject: Murch meeting tonight on swing space
It was clear that DCPS makes the final decision. DGS ran through the four options with the DCPS person also contributing.
DGS supported UDC (as do my husband and I) They are clearly running as close to the deadline as possible with the announcement coming on January 12 for the location. If they choose a location and it falls through for some reason (Dept. of State says no to UDC because of proximity to Embassies or Lafayette runs into the fall) there are no contingency plans.
Some of the site option visits didn't happen until after Thanksgiving. The Lafayette traffic study started yesterday so at least they will have 2 days of school being in session. They have not started the Murch traffic study for swinging on site.
Swinging on site seems really, really bad. It looked like a matter of feet between the trailers and active construction zone.
MCN is the builder, they have done a lot of other DCPS renovations.
There will be a survey on the Murch website where you can voice an opinion.
Mary Cheh came to the whole meeting and said she prefers UDC or Chesapeke/Church option. I intend to call her office today and ask her if she will weigh in with DCPS on this preference.
And last, but not least, DGS reads DCUM at least they have read the other thread on this subject.
DGS supported UDC (as do my husband and I) They are clearly running as close to the deadline as possible with the announcement coming on January 12 for the location. If they choose a location and it falls through for some reason (Dept. of State says no to UDC because of proximity to Embassies or Lafayette runs into the fall) there are no contingency plans.
Some of the site option visits didn't happen until after Thanksgiving. The Lafayette traffic study started yesterday so at least they will have 2 days of school being in session. They have not started the Murch traffic study for swinging on site.
Swinging on site seems really, really bad. It looked like a matter of feet between the trailers and active construction zone.
MCN is the builder, they have done a lot of other DCPS renovations.
There will be a survey on the Murch website where you can voice an opinion.
Mary Cheh came to the whole meeting and said she prefers UDC or Chesapeke/Church option. I intend to call her office today and ask her if she will weigh in with DCPS on this preference.
And last, but not least, DGS reads DCUM at least they have read the other thread on this subject.
Anonymous
12/18/2015 09:42
Subject: Re:Murch meeting tonight on swing space
I stayed for the whole meeting. Though there were 4 options presented I think that 2 are viable Lafayette and UDC. But all the proposals were riddled with issues.
Option 1 lengthens the duration of the construction by 6 months and has the kids remaining on site for the entire process. This has 4 phases during all of them the kids will use facilities that will be with in the construction zone. The Murch property is far too small to make this safe. There is talk about play space across Reno Road but not worked out with NPS, which seems unlikely given the history. (I think the proposed cost of this was 2.5 million)
Option 2 has the community split between on site (Gr 1-5) with PK and K being housed at a church in forest hills (combination in the church and in trailers on the ball field.) The caveat being that any space within the church would have to be dismantled on Fridays and reassembled on Monday. Several issues that arise with this option, of which the breaking down of classrooms seem most glaring but also specials teachers having to be dual site (also special education, reading specialists, counselors, etc.) The play space would be great for PK and K but again the NPS proposed play area across Reno road being the case for onsite being an critical unknown. (I think the proposed cost of this was 2.5 million)
Option 3 Lafayette. Obviously this hinges on their renovation being completed on time. This would mean a lot of people would drive, and my understanding is that traffic at Lafayette is comparable to what the traffic is at Murch. Terrible. DCPS said that bussing from Murch to Lafayette would be provided. 1300 elementary kids sharing one space, play space sharing, parking all things that could be problematic. The Lafayette community is up in arms over this obviously. DGS had told them out right that this was not an option, DCPS apparently forced them to investigate feasibility. (I think the proposed cost of this was 4.5 million)
Option 4 UDC Building a trailer community on an open field on Van Ness. This was only being investigated since after Thanksgiving. So details seem less concrete and the slides providing information less well, informational… This option seemed to be the best received of all the options. Keeping the community in one congruent space for the duration of the build. There were parking concerns, and it seemed like more details needed to be worked out, secret service, drop off etc. This is the option that DGS is recommending for the swing space. (I think the proposed cost of this was 6 million)
There seems to be a lot of information to be processed and traffic studies to be completed. I don’t see how a comprehensive traffic study can be completed before the decision are made being that schools are out beginning today through January 4. The verdict will be out January 12th with DCPS having the final say. What will be the deciding factor…$$$, safety, community input, we will just have to wait and see…
Option 1 lengthens the duration of the construction by 6 months and has the kids remaining on site for the entire process. This has 4 phases during all of them the kids will use facilities that will be with in the construction zone. The Murch property is far too small to make this safe. There is talk about play space across Reno Road but not worked out with NPS, which seems unlikely given the history. (I think the proposed cost of this was 2.5 million)
Option 2 has the community split between on site (Gr 1-5) with PK and K being housed at a church in forest hills (combination in the church and in trailers on the ball field.) The caveat being that any space within the church would have to be dismantled on Fridays and reassembled on Monday. Several issues that arise with this option, of which the breaking down of classrooms seem most glaring but also specials teachers having to be dual site (also special education, reading specialists, counselors, etc.) The play space would be great for PK and K but again the NPS proposed play area across Reno road being the case for onsite being an critical unknown. (I think the proposed cost of this was 2.5 million)
Option 3 Lafayette. Obviously this hinges on their renovation being completed on time. This would mean a lot of people would drive, and my understanding is that traffic at Lafayette is comparable to what the traffic is at Murch. Terrible. DCPS said that bussing from Murch to Lafayette would be provided. 1300 elementary kids sharing one space, play space sharing, parking all things that could be problematic. The Lafayette community is up in arms over this obviously. DGS had told them out right that this was not an option, DCPS apparently forced them to investigate feasibility. (I think the proposed cost of this was 4.5 million)
Option 4 UDC Building a trailer community on an open field on Van Ness. This was only being investigated since after Thanksgiving. So details seem less concrete and the slides providing information less well, informational… This option seemed to be the best received of all the options. Keeping the community in one congruent space for the duration of the build. There were parking concerns, and it seemed like more details needed to be worked out, secret service, drop off etc. This is the option that DGS is recommending for the swing space. (I think the proposed cost of this was 6 million)
There seems to be a lot of information to be processed and traffic studies to be completed. I don’t see how a comprehensive traffic study can be completed before the decision are made being that schools are out beginning today through January 4. The verdict will be out January 12th with DCPS having the final say. What will be the deciding factor…$$$, safety, community input, we will just have to wait and see…
Anonymous
12/18/2015 09:34
Subject: Murch meeting tonight on swing space
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Thanks, 22:26. Can someone give a little more detail?
DGS said its first choice would be to swing at UDC and they would put up a trailer city on one field and use another field as play space. When one parent said that seemed the most reasonable proposal there was a large round of applause. However, that option is more expensive than staying onsite or using Lafayette and it is my understanding that DCPS makes the final decision. The only other option discussed was putting pre-k and K at the neighboring church, but that is only 8 classes so really the same as staying on-site for the other 80% of the school. Re the traffic studies they said they are starting now but they would continue into January after school starts back up again.
Thanks! How does the onsite/church plan compare, cost-wise? Is it more expensive, or is the primary drawback the need to split the school?
Both of those things plus the church uses the classrooms on weekends so the teachers using the church classrooms would have to take down the classroom every Friday and set it up again every Monday for 2 years (!!!). Pretty much no one thought that was OK.
Yikes, no.
Anonymous
12/18/2015 07:49
Subject: Murch meeting tonight on swing space
Sounds like both communities should get behind the UDC option...
Anonymous
12/18/2015 07:46
Subject: Murch meeting tonight on swing space
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Thanks, 22:26. Can someone give a little more detail?
DGS said its first choice would be to swing at UDC and they would put up a trailer city on one field and use another field as play space. When one parent said that seemed the most reasonable proposal there was a large round of applause. However, that option is more expensive than staying onsite or using Lafayette and it is my understanding that DCPS makes the final decision. The only other option discussed was putting pre-k and K at the neighboring church, but that is only 8 classes so really the same as staying on-site for the other 80% of the school. Re the traffic studies they said they are starting now but they would continue into January after school starts back up again.
Thanks! How does the onsite/church plan compare, cost-wise? Is it more expensive, or is the primary drawback the need to split the school?
Both of those things plus the church uses the classrooms on weekends so the teachers using the church classrooms would have to take down the classroom every Friday and set it up again every Monday for 2 years (!!!). Pretty much no one thought that was OK.