Anonymous wrote:Shepherd's renovation is primarily doing three things.

1. Building a very large atrium in what was once an open-air courtyard. And I believe adding a new "welcome center" in that atrium.

2. Adding an elevator (something that was supposed to happen in a 2008 renovation? But... Didn't? Who knows why. I would think an elevator would be part of ADA compliance and already there since the ADA was passed in... When was that--1993?

3.) Moving the art and music rooms to the second floor. Because the art room had to have an in-room kiln, (you know, like all art rooms do), there was the additional cost of adding steel support beams to the existing 50s building.

Now, those are the choices that someone made, instead of putting in a cafeteria or a gulym or even underground parking. It seems to me that if we are going to talk about these renovations logically, it is fair to ask what the hell was being smoked during this decision-making plan.

I don't know as much about Murch's renovation, but I assume it has similar brilliant planning in it.

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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!

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.

Anonymous wrote:The UDC campus is already a mess right now between the student center and other construction. Even if they started building the Murch swing space today, just can't see how it would be ready by August. Have they even done traffic studies to see how the surrounding houses will be impacted by the additional traffic? Have to imagine the embassies are not thrilled with this, let alone the surrounding home owners.

Anonymous wrote:The UDC campus is already a mess right now between the student center and other construction. Even if they started building the Murch swing space today, just can't see how it would be ready by August. Have they even done traffic studies to see how the surrounding houses will be impacted by the additional traffic? Have to imagine the embassies are not thrilled with this, let alone the surrounding home owners.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The $20 mil shortfall is for Murch, not Ellington.

Exactly. There is no shortfall for Ellington, because DC keeps funding their 100% budget overruns, with a renovation cost now at $200 million and still climbing.

Anonymous wrote:The $20 mil shortfall is for Murch, not Ellington.

Anonymous wrote:Feel horrible for the Murch people. I know one family who entered OOB lottery this week for Hearst and Bancroft to cover their bases. With this news, I imagine others will do the same.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

NP. I have not read this whole thread and I'm probably jumping into a snake pit--but I don't think this is true? Shepherd Park/Colonial Village largely voted for Bowser--heck, she even lives here now--yet there are similar frustrations that the Shepherd Elementary community has had with cuts to their renovation project, including:

1) upgrade to full kitchen removed--it seems Shepherd is one of the only renovation projects in recent years in which a full kitchen will not be a part of the modernization. So kids will have to continue with "heat and eat" options.

2) renovations to gym/auditorium removed--as a result, there are acoustic problems that interfere with concerts and other activities. Also, the gym is too small to have home games, so all basketball games are "away" games (which is too bad since the boys' team has now made it to the citywide semi-finals).

3) underground parking was nixed (although I honestly am okay with this, as it seems this is not needed as much as the other parts of the project that were removed)

Despite these cuts, the budget has increased from $20 to 30 million. There was a petition campaign last year to get these items reinstated, but to no avail. There was even a meeting with DGS and Brandon Todd a few weeks ago (planned for months), and still, it seems no changes to the current situation will be made--so I don't think this is a question of political favoritism.

Of course, you can say that that Shepherd's renovations will only benefit 330 kids--however, the student population is growing, as they may be adding another PK class next year, and there are lots of new families moving in to the neighborhood. So the size of the school is sure to grow (although I certainly hope not too much).

My point is not to detract from the validity of the Murch community's argument. It sounds like the full scope of renovations at Murch sorely needs to be done. It's just to say that no school community seems spared from DGS's incompetence (except perhaps Ellington). Maybe we should all band together in some way, looking for renovation problems experienced by multiple schools--I dunno, perhaps that would get more recognition/traction. But then again, I haven't been in DC long, so perhaps too optimistic about how things work.

Anonymous wrote:

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.