Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"And I do feel the need to clarify that the above analysis is entirely neutral as to: 1) whether Option H should be pursued; or 2) whether closure procedures are or will be followed in this situation"

Fair enough.

There are many who feel H should Not be pursued and that one of the top schools in the county should Not disappear. Meaning it will no longer exist whether it is officially "closed" or not.

So MCPS may or may not not need to call this a closure under the vague definition, of such. Perhaps there should be a new category called "Disappearing a School"? This would allow MCPS avoid any "Closure" discussions and they could just make a school "Disappear"

FTLOG it would be moving to a new site, not disappearing!

PP that the other poster responded to- the school as people now know it is in fact disappearing under Option H. It is disingenuous to claim it isn't. The debate should be around whether that fundamental change is nevertheless in the best interest of the district as a whole.

They don't like the idea of undesirable demographic groups being zoned for the school. But rezoning isn't making a school disappear. Schools and boundaries change.

Who are “they”? Gaithersburg families don’t want Option H either.

As if they would prefer EFG? Under H at least the part of Gaithersburg near crown gets to go.

But the entire Crown was promised to them. What happens when there over capacity issues in a few years. Where will those kids go if Wootton is closed? Makes more sense to use excess capacity at Crown for holding school purposes, as that isn’t permanent. Keep Wootton where it is and remediate (usually 1-3% of a total tear down and renovation). MCPS can then take its time to do things right.

Are you offering to pay for the maintenance and operation of Wootton in the meantime? Or do you expect everyone else to effectively pay for your private school experience?

I think they expect everyone to continue on per usual at the school that has been established to be all but uninhabitable. Cool, bruh.

Remediate the Wootton building. And in your case, remedial reading comprehension class would help.

There is money for remediation.

There is no money.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As a separate legal issue, I'm curious about the development taxes in Crown. While school impact taxes can be used across the county, the same isn't true for UPP taxes. Those are much, much smaller, but they need to be used in that area to increase capacity. Does Crown have enough more teaching stations than Wootton to spend that money? Or will it need to be refunded to the developers?

It would be a lot cheaper to refund that amount than renovate and operate another school, so that would probably still be the right move. I just don't know how that would work.

By my read no refund is required regardless. The money was used to build Crown, which will under Option H given the addition of some population from GHS "that adds capacity designed to alleviate overutilization in the school service area from which the funds were collected." Alternatively, the Crown building itself constitutes "capital projects adding capacity at any school adjacent to the school for which the funds were collected."

It only adds capacity under option H to the extent it has more capacity than the current Wootton facility. The law is pretty clear it needs to be used to increase capacity, not merely for capital improvements.

I'm not sure that is true? It just needs to add more capacity than was in the school service area where the taxes were collected. Excess capacity in other areas isn't relevant to that determination.

Adding to my previous reply to this, note that these taxes were never intended to be used in the specific service area where they were collected. At the time they were collected, I think Crown was zoned for GHS. Crown HS became acceptable as an adjacent zone, as would Wootton.

If Crown is a new service area, then it obviously creates more capacity in that new, adjacent service area. But if Crown instead just services the Wootton service area, then what is the increase capacity?

Again, the UPP taxes aren't very much. If Crown HS technically has slightly more teaching stations than Wootton, then it probably doesn't matter. Those UPP taxes can be allocated to that portion of the construction.

Interesting. My take is that Crown is within the service area, not adjacent. It is, quite literally in the service area from where the taxes were collected. The original plan was to add another school within the service area (boundary) to alleviate overutilization by sending kids from GHS to the new facility. Under Option H it still does that, just not to the extent originally planned.

The service area is set when the taxes are collected. Crown isn't the collected service area-- GHS is. You obviously often can't spend the money in the service area itself, so the law allows the money to be spent to expand capacity in adjacent service areas. Creating an adjacent Crown service area would have done that, Option H doesn't do that. It instead has the money spent in the Wootton service area.

Right? Serious question. I think the law is pretty clear on this, but maybe I'm reading it wrong.

I’m thinking of this differently. The “service area” is the literal geographic boundary for where students wishing the new development are zoned at the time of development. I believe that was the GHS cluster boundary (at the time). Crown is within the geographic confines of that boundary (service area) and is adding capacity for students zoned in that original service area.

The alternative doesn’t make sense to me. If for example a new elementary school was being built to account for development, splitting the prior boundary 50/50, it would be creating a new school within the service area, not a new school in a newly formed adjacent service area.

Hope that makes sense.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"And I do feel the need to clarify that the above analysis is entirely neutral as to: 1) whether Option H should be pursued; or 2) whether closure procedures are or will be followed in this situation"

Fair enough.

There are many who feel H should Not be pursued and that one of the top schools in the county should Not disappear. Meaning it will no longer exist whether it is officially "closed" or not.

So MCPS may or may not not need to call this a closure under the vague definition, of such. Perhaps there should be a new category called "Disappearing a School"? This would allow MCPS avoid any "Closure" discussions and they could just make a school "Disappear"

FTLOG it would be moving to a new site, not disappearing!

PP that the other poster responded to- the school as people now know it is in fact disappearing under Option H. It is disingenuous to claim it isn't. The debate should be around whether that fundamental change is nevertheless in the best interest of the district as a whole.

They don't like the idea of undesirable demographic groups being zoned for the school. But rezoning isn't making a school disappear. Schools and boundaries change.

Who are “they”? Gaithersburg families don’t want Option H either.

As if they would prefer EFG? Under H at least the part of Gaithersburg near crown gets to go.

But the entire Crown was promised to them. What happens when there over capacity issues in a few years. Where will those kids go if Wootton is closed? Makes more sense to use excess capacity at Crown for holding school purposes, as that isn’t permanent. Keep Wootton where it is and remediate (usually 1-3% of a total tear down and renovation). MCPS can then take its time to do things right.

Are you offering to pay for the maintenance and operation of Wootton in the meantime? Or do you expect everyone else to effectively pay for your private school experience?

I think they expect everyone to continue on per usual at the school that has been established to be all but uninhabitable. Cool, bruh.

Remediate the Wootton building. And in your case, remedial reading comprehension class would help.

There is money for remediation.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As a separate legal issue, I'm curious about the development taxes in Crown. While school impact taxes can be used across the county, the same isn't true for UPP taxes. Those are much, much smaller, but they need to be used in that area to increase capacity. Does Crown have enough more teaching stations than Wootton to spend that money? Or will it need to be refunded to the developers?

It would be a lot cheaper to refund that amount than renovate and operate another school, so that would probably still be the right move. I just don't know how that would work.

By my read no refund is required regardless. The money was used to build Crown, which will under Option H given the addition of some population from GHS "that adds capacity designed to alleviate overutilization in the school service area from which the funds were collected." Alternatively, the Crown building itself constitutes "capital projects adding capacity at any school adjacent to the school for which the funds were collected."

It only adds capacity under option H to the extent it has more capacity than the current Wootton facility. The law is pretty clear it needs to be used to increase capacity, not merely for capital improvements.

I'm not sure that is true? It just needs to add more capacity than was in the school service area where the taxes were collected. Excess capacity in other areas isn't relevant to that determination.

Adding to my previous reply to this, note that these taxes were never intended to be used in the specific service area where they were collected. At the time they were collected, I think Crown was zoned for GHS. Crown HS became acceptable as an adjacent zone, as would Wootton.

If Crown is a new service area, then it obviously creates more capacity in that new, adjacent service area. But if Crown instead just services the Wootton service area, then what is the increase capacity?

Again, the UPP taxes aren't very much. If Crown HS technically has slightly more teaching stations than Wootton, then it probably doesn't matter. Those UPP taxes can be allocated to that portion of the construction.

Interesting. My take is that Crown is within the service area, not adjacent. It is, quite literally in the service area from where the taxes were collected. The original plan was to add another school within the service area (boundary) to alleviate overutilization by sending kids from GHS to the new facility. Under Option H it still does that, just not to the extent originally planned.

The service area is set when the taxes are collected. Crown isn't the collected service area-- GHS is. You obviously often can't spend the money in the service area itself, so the law allows the money to be spent to expand capacity in adjacent service areas. Creating an adjacent Crown service area would have done that, Option H doesn't do that. It instead has the money spent in the Wootton service area.

Right? Serious question. I think the law is pretty clear on this, but maybe I'm reading it wrong.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"And I do feel the need to clarify that the above analysis is entirely neutral as to: 1) whether Option H should be pursued; or 2) whether closure procedures are or will be followed in this situation"

Fair enough.

There are many who feel H should Not be pursued and that one of the top schools in the county should Not disappear. Meaning it will no longer exist whether it is officially "closed" or not.

So MCPS may or may not not need to call this a closure under the vague definition, of such. Perhaps there should be a new category called "Disappearing a School"? This would allow MCPS avoid any "Closure" discussions and they could just make a school "Disappear"

FTLOG it would be moving to a new site, not disappearing!

PP that the other poster responded to- the school as people now know it is in fact disappearing under Option H. It is disingenuous to claim it isn't. The debate should be around whether that fundamental change is nevertheless in the best interest of the district as a whole.

They don't like the idea of undesirable demographic groups being zoned for the school. But rezoning isn't making a school disappear. Schools and boundaries change.

Who are “they”? Gaithersburg families don’t want Option H either.

As if they would prefer EFG? Under H at least the part of Gaithersburg near crown gets to go.

But the entire Crown was promised to them. What happens when there over capacity issues in a few years. Where will those kids go if Wootton is closed? Makes more sense to use excess capacity at Crown for holding school purposes, as that isn’t permanent. Keep Wootton where it is and remediate (usually 1-3% of a total tear down and renovation). MCPS can then take its time to do things right.

Are you offering to pay for the maintenance and operation of Wootton in the meantime? Or do you expect everyone else to effectively pay for your private school experience?

I think they expect everyone to continue on per usual at the school that has been established to be all but uninhabitable. Cool, bruh.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"And I do feel the need to clarify that the above analysis is entirely neutral as to: 1) whether Option H should be pursued; or 2) whether closure procedures are or will be followed in this situation"

Fair enough.

There are many who feel H should Not be pursued and that one of the top schools in the county should Not disappear. Meaning it will no longer exist whether it is officially "closed" or not.

So MCPS may or may not not need to call this a closure under the vague definition, of such. Perhaps there should be a new category called "Disappearing a School"? This would allow MCPS avoid any "Closure" discussions and they could just make a school "Disappear"

FTLOG it would be moving to a new site, not disappearing!

PP that the other poster responded to- the school as people now know it is in fact disappearing under Option H. It is disingenuous to claim it isn't. The debate should be around whether that fundamental change is nevertheless in the best interest of the district as a whole.

They don't like the idea of undesirable demographic groups being zoned for the school. But rezoning isn't making a school disappear. Schools and boundaries change.

Who are “they”? Gaithersburg families don’t want Option H either.

As if they would prefer EFG? Under H at least the part of Gaithersburg near crown gets to go.

But the entire Crown was promised to them. What happens when there over capacity issues in a few years. Where will those kids go if Wootton is closed? Makes more sense to use excess capacity at Crown for holding school purposes, as that isn’t permanent. Keep Wootton where it is and remediate (usually 1-3% of a total tear down and renovation). MCPS can then take its time to do things right.

Are you offering to pay for the maintenance and operation of Wootton in the meantime? Or do you expect everyone else to effectively pay for your private school experience?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As a separate legal issue, I'm curious about the development taxes in Crown. While school impact taxes can be used across the county, the same isn't true for UPP taxes. Those are much, much smaller, but they need to be used in that area to increase capacity. Does Crown have enough more teaching stations than Wootton to spend that money? Or will it need to be refunded to the developers?

It would be a lot cheaper to refund that amount than renovate and operate another school, so that would probably still be the right move. I just don't know how that would work.

By my read no refund is required regardless. The money was used to build Crown, which will under Option H given the addition of some population from GHS "that adds capacity designed to alleviate overutilization in the school service area from which the funds were collected." Alternatively, the Crown building itself constitutes "capital projects adding capacity at any school adjacent to the school for which the funds were collected."

It only adds capacity under option H to the extent it has more capacity than the current Wootton facility. The law is pretty clear it needs to be used to increase capacity, not merely for capital improvements.

I'm not sure that is true? It just needs to add more capacity than was in the school service area where the taxes were collected. Excess capacity in other areas isn't relevant to that determination.

Adding to my previous reply to this, note that these taxes were never intended to be used in the specific service area where they were collected. At the time they were collected, I think Crown was zoned for GHS. Crown HS became acceptable as an adjacent zone, as would Wootton.

If Crown is a new service area, then it obviously creates more capacity in that new, adjacent service area. But if Crown instead just services the Wootton service area, then what is the increase capacity?

Again, the UPP taxes aren't very much. If Crown HS technically has slightly more teaching stations than Wootton, then it probably doesn't matter. Those UPP taxes can be allocated to that portion of the construction.

Interesting. My take is that Crown is within the service area, not adjacent. It is, quite literally in the service area from where the taxes were collected. The original plan was to add another school within the service area (boundary) to alleviate overutilization by sending kids from GHS to the new facility. Under Option H it still does that, just not to the extent originally planned.

Anonymous wrote:" don't agree "disappear" accurately describes the totality of the situation, but I see your point."

Calling it "closure" or "disappearance" does not resolve the argument. It would however reduce the number of posts in this thread considerably. Not you, but many are denying that this is either a closure or a disappearance. It is. If you kept the Wootton name and cluster as is, and performed a relocation only, that would be reasonable, albeit unattractive to many including me. Taking the name, adjusting the cluster, and performing a relocation all at the same time it is a "Disappearance"

I just consulted the MCPS records and the definition of "Disappearance" is that something no longer exists.

huh?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The fact that there is such ambiguity around the legality of Option H and strong community opposition, it is unlikely that MCPS will recommend it. MCPS has learned that significantly antagonizing the various communities isn’t in its nor local politicians’ best interests.

So many people want to be right on this thread that they’re blind to opposing viewpoints. Option H isn’t the only option and more community input and due diligence is warranted before any permanent changes are made. Dr. Taylor likely realizes this by now.

Pretty sure the opposition is just from a small group of people that live next to the current Wootton. Option H is otherwise in the best interest of the rest of the county. And a lot of people here seem to acknowledge that, even some of the people that don't like Option H because they think it will affect their property values.

Save Wootton and Crown High School – Say NO to option H. The petition already had over 5000 signatures.

I wonder what the other 1,057,061 MoCo residents think.

Well 5,000 are a lot of votes for local politicians within the Wootton area. You might not care, but they certainly do.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"And I do feel the need to clarify that the above analysis is entirely neutral as to: 1) whether Option H should be pursued; or 2) whether closure procedures are or will be followed in this situation"

Fair enough.

There are many who feel H should Not be pursued and that one of the top schools in the county should Not disappear. Meaning it will no longer exist whether it is officially "closed" or not.

So MCPS may or may not not need to call this a closure under the vague definition, of such. Perhaps there should be a new category called "Disappearing a School"? This would allow MCPS avoid any "Closure" discussions and they could just make a school "Disappear"

FTLOG it would be moving to a new site, not disappearing!

PP that the other poster responded to- the school as people now know it is in fact disappearing under Option H. It is disingenuous to claim it isn't. The debate should be around whether that fundamental change is nevertheless in the best interest of the district as a whole.

They don't like the idea of undesirable demographic groups being zoned for the school. But rezoning isn't making a school disappear. Schools and boundaries change.

Who are “they”? Gaithersburg families don’t want Option H either.

As if they would prefer EFG? Under H at least the part of Gaithersburg near crown gets to go.

But the entire Crown was promised to them. What happens when there over capacity issues in a few years. Where will those kids go if Wootton is closed? Makes more sense to use excess capacity at Crown for holding school purposes, as that isn’t permanent. Keep Wootton where it is and remediate (usually 1-3% of a total tear down and renovation). MCPS can then take its time to do things right.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The fact that there is such ambiguity around the legality of Option H and strong community opposition, it is unlikely that MCPS will recommend it. MCPS has learned that significantly antagonizing the various communities isn’t in its nor local politicians’ best interests.

So many people want to be right on this thread that they’re blind to opposing viewpoints. Option H isn’t the only option and more community input and due diligence is warranted before any permanent changes are made. Dr. Taylor likely realizes this by now.

Pretty sure the opposition is just from a small group of people that live next to the current Wootton. Option H is otherwise in the best interest of the rest of the county. And a lot of people here seem to acknowledge that, even some of the people that don't like Option H because they think it will affect their property values.

Save Wootton and Crown High School – Say NO to option H. The petition already had over 5000 signatures.

I wonder what the other 1,057,061 MoCo residents think.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"And I do feel the need to clarify that the above analysis is entirely neutral as to: 1) whether Option H should be pursued; or 2) whether closure procedures are or will be followed in this situation"

Fair enough.

There are many who feel H should Not be pursued and that one of the top schools in the county should Not disappear. Meaning it will no longer exist whether it is officially "closed" or not.

So MCPS may or may not not need to call this a closure under the vague definition, of such. Perhaps there should be a new category called "Disappearing a School"? This would allow MCPS avoid any "Closure" discussions and they could just make a school "Disappear"

FTLOG it would be moving to a new site, not disappearing!

PP that the other poster responded to- the school as people now know it is in fact disappearing under Option H. It is disingenuous to claim it isn't. The debate should be around whether that fundamental change is nevertheless in the best interest of the district as a whole.

They don't like the idea of undesirable demographic groups being zoned for the school. But rezoning isn't making a school disappear. Schools and boundaries change.

Who are “they”? Gaithersburg families don’t want Option H either.

As if they would prefer EFG? Under H at least the part of Gaithersburg near crown gets to go.

" don't agree "disappear" accurately describes the totality of the situation, but I see your point."

Calling it "closure" or "disappearance" does not resolve the argument. It would however reduce the number of posts in this thread considerably. Not you, but many are denying that this is either a closure or a disappearance. It is. If you kept the Wootton name and cluster as is, and performed a relocation only, that would be reasonable, albeit unattractive to many including me. Taking the name, adjusting the cluster, and performing a relocation all at the same time it is a "Disappearance"

I just consulted the MCPS records and the definition of "Disappearance" is that something no longer exists.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As a separate legal issue, I'm curious about the development taxes in Crown. While school impact taxes can be used across the county, the same isn't true for UPP taxes. Those are much, much smaller, but they need to be used in that area to increase capacity. Does Crown have enough more teaching stations than Wootton to spend that money? Or will it need to be refunded to the developers?

It would be a lot cheaper to refund that amount than renovate and operate another school, so that would probably still be the right move. I just don't know how that would work.

By my read no refund is required regardless. The money was used to build Crown, which will under Option H given the addition of some population from GHS "that adds capacity designed to alleviate overutilization in the school service area from which the funds were collected." Alternatively, the Crown building itself constitutes "capital projects adding capacity at any school adjacent to the school for which the funds were collected."

It only adds capacity under option H to the extent it has more capacity than the current Wootton facility. The law is pretty clear it needs to be used to increase capacity, not merely for capital improvements.

I'm not sure that is true? It just needs to add more capacity than was in the school service area where the taxes were collected. Excess capacity in other areas isn't relevant to that determination.

Adding to my previous reply to this, note that these taxes were never intended to be used in the specific service area where they were collected. At the time they were collected, I think Crown was zoned for GHS. Crown HS became acceptable as an adjacent zone, as would Wootton.

If Crown is a new service area, then it obviously creates more capacity in that new, adjacent service area. But if Crown instead just services the Wootton service area, then what is the increase capacity?

Again, the UPP taxes aren't very much. If Crown HS technically has slightly more teaching stations than Wootton, then it probably doesn't matter. Those UPP taxes can be allocated to that portion of the construction.

I guess Northwood and Woodward "disappeared" for awhile and now have "reappeared"? Abracadabra!