Anonymous wrote:Past voting record of 2 council member clearly shows that they don't care about kids education. One council member cares about kids education. Mayor's past voting record shows that she cares about kids and their education.

All these testimonies are waste of time. Just 3-4 years ago, same drama happened to change the limit to 120% from 110%. Same set of people are asking to relax it more. They don't care of kids. Action speaks louder than words.

If you want to see stop of this madness then simply organize your neighborhoods during voting time.

They probably hate puppies and kittens, too.

Either that, or they understand that situations are complicated, and different people can have different ideas about what's best to do, in good faith.

Past voting record of 2 council member clearly shows that they don't care about kids education. One council member cares about kids education. Mayor's past voting record shows that she cares about kids and their education.

All these testimonies are waste of time. Just 3-4 years ago, same drama happened to change the limit to 120% from 110%. Same set of people are asking to relax it more. They don't care of kids. Action speaks louder than words.

If you want to see stop of this madness then simply organize your neighborhoods during voting time.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

It is clear that citizens are overwhelmingly opposed to increasing maximum enrollment from 120% to 150% of design capacity. A few would support waivers or exemptions. By contrast, the Chamber of Commerce spoke in favor of the amendment, thereby favoring overcrowding of schools up to 150%. Few developers testified and none of them spoke in favor of allowing maximum enrollment at 150% of design capacity. The BF Saul Company spoke in favor of an exemption.

No, it's not. It's clear that the people who showed up at the meeting are opposed. But you should never, ever conclude that the opinions of people who show up and speak at a public meeting are representative of the opinions of people in general.

It's the same situation with people who bothered to write to city.

Now this is not a representative of entire city, but it captures the views of citizens who bothered to speak on this topic.

Anonymous wrote:

It is clear that citizens are overwhelmingly opposed to increasing maximum enrollment from 120% to 150% of design capacity. A few would support waivers or exemptions. By contrast, the Chamber of Commerce spoke in favor of the amendment, thereby favoring overcrowding of schools up to 150%. Few developers testified and none of them spoke in favor of allowing maximum enrollment at 150% of design capacity. The BF Saul Company spoke in favor of an exemption.

No, it's not. It's clear that the people who showed up at the meeting are opposed. But you should never, ever conclude that the opinions of people who show up and speak at a public meeting are representative of the opinions of people in general.

TOTAL SPEAKERS – At the public hearing on January 22, 2019, a total of 62 people spoke, of whom 59 speakers provided a position – for or against – amending the Adequate Public Facilities Standards (APFS) to allow maximum school enrollment to reach 150% of design capacity and/or allowing waivers or exemptions to the APFS.

---------------------

The following tally pertains to those who expressed a position. Composition of Speakers:

Citizens – nearly all of the speakers who expressed a position were citizens (i.e. 93%). Citizens included Presidents of Neighborhood Associations, PTA leaders, County educators, parents and private citizens.

Developers and Business Leaders – were few (i.e. 7%). Developers and business leaders included representatives of large corporations and members of the Chamber of Commerce.

--------------------

POSITION OF SPEAKERS – For or Against- Over Enrollment to 150% of Design Capacity.

Citizens were against allowing school over-enrollment to reach 150% of design capacity by an overwhelming majority (76%).

Developers/Business Representatives – The Rockville Chamber of Commerce strongly supported allowing school enrollment to reach 150% of capacity. The representatives of development corporations did not take a position on maximum enrollment.

POSITION OF SPEAKERS – For or Against-Waivers and/or Exemptions to the APFS
Citizens – few citizens addressed waivers and/or exemptions (11%). Waivers and/or exemptions were supported by those who did.

Developers – representatives of the BF Saul Company supported an exemption.

--------------


It is clear that citizens are overwhelmingly opposed to increasing maximum enrollment from 120% to 150% of design capacity. A few would support waivers or exemptions. By contrast, the Chamber of Commerce spoke in favor of the amendment, thereby favoring overcrowding of schools up to 150%. Few developers testified and none of them spoke in favor of allowing maximum enrollment at 150% of design capacity. The BF Saul Company spoke in favor of an exemption.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Correct, that's why ...

We should wait for actual funding in CIP before start saying there is a plan.

We should wait for actual funding for construction before saying school is getting constructed.

Yup, and we should wait for actual buildings to get built before saying that they will contribute to enrollment at Richard Montgomery. Right?

Rockville pike has all big plans to develop. MCPS has all big plans for new schools. No one should care about them till actual approval takes place.

If RM is at 120% then there should be no approval for new houses till there is approval for new school. Moratorium exist for exactly for this reason.

Anonymous wrote:

Correct, that's why ...

We should wait for actual funding in CIP before start saying there is a plan.

We should wait for actual funding for construction before saying school is getting constructed.

Yup, and we should wait for actual buildings to get built before saying that they will contribute to enrollment at Richard Montgomery. Right?

Magnet should be taken out of RM immediately to alleviate over crowding. Easiest and most practical solution.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

From your text,

"2019 appropriation for planning was recommended ..."

"2020 appropriation is recommended for planning..."

It was recommended for 2019

It was recommended for 2020.

There is no guarantee that it will be approved.

Let's stick to facts here.

There are no guarantees of anything in the future. For all we know, the County Council will zero out the MCPS capital budget in FY 2020.

But they probably won't.

Correct, that's why ...


We should wait for actual funding in CIP before start saying there is a plan.

We should wait for actual funding for construction before saying school is getting constructed.

Anonymous wrote:

From your text,

"2019 appropriation for planning was recommended ..."

"2020 appropriation is recommended for planning..."

It was recommended for 2019

It was recommended for 2020.

There is no guarantee that it will be approved.

Let's stick to facts here.

There are no guarantees of anything in the future. For all we know, the County Council will zero out the MCPS capital budget in FY 2020.

But they probably won't.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Posters have to absolutely clueless or probably developers to talk about a high school which won't be started for the next 10 years for the problem we are facing right now.

Only solution is to redraw boundary right now to spread the over crowding. Instead of keeping 100 and 120%, schools should have 110% each.

I really don't understand why people - or a person - keep saying that. It's supposed to start this calendar year.

MCPS plans the next 6 years of spending in CIP. CIP was approved in Nov. Crown study is not in CIP. The next CIP will be in Nov.

It can't start this calendar year.

Richard Montgomery High School
Capital Project: Projections indicate enrollment at Richard
Montgomery High School will exceed capacity by 200 seats or
more by the end of the six-year planning period. An FY 2016
appropriation was approved for facility planning to determine
the feasibility, scope, and cost for a classroom addition. In lieu
of the addition, the approved CIP includes expenditures in
the six-year period to open a new high school on the Crown
Farm site to address overutilization in the mid-county region.
Although an FY 2019 appropriation for planning was recommended by the Board of Education for this new school, the
County Council delayed the funds by one year to begin in
FY 2020. An FY 2020 appropriation is recommended for planning to begin the architectural design for the project. Once the
planning is complete, a recommendation will be included in
the next full CIP regarding the phasing and completion date
for the opening of this new high school.

http://gis.mcpsmd.org/cipmasterpdfs/CIP20_Chap4_RM.pdf

From your text,

"2019 appropriation for planning was recommended ..."

"2020 appropriation is recommended for planning..."

It was recommended for 2019

It was recommended for 2020.

There is no guarantee that it will be approved.

Let's stick to facts here.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Posters have to absolutely clueless or probably developers to talk about a high school which won't be started for the next 10 years for the problem we are facing right now.

Only solution is to redraw boundary right now to spread the over crowding. Instead of keeping 100 and 120%, schools should have 110% each.

I really don't understand why people - or a person - keep saying that. It's supposed to start this calendar year.

MCPS plans the next 6 years of spending in CIP. CIP was approved in Nov. Crown study is not in CIP. The next CIP will be in Nov.

It can't start this calendar year.

Richard Montgomery High School
Capital Project: Projections indicate enrollment at Richard
Montgomery High School will exceed capacity by 200 seats or
more by the end of the six-year planning period. An FY 2016
appropriation was approved for facility planning to determine
the feasibility, scope, and cost for a classroom addition. In lieu
of the addition, the approved CIP includes expenditures in
the six-year period to open a new high school on the Crown
Farm site to address overutilization in the mid-county region.
Although an FY 2019 appropriation for planning was recommended by the Board of Education for this new school, the
County Council delayed the funds by one year to begin in
FY 2020. An FY 2020 appropriation is recommended for planning to begin the architectural design for the project. Once the
planning is complete, a recommendation will be included in
the next full CIP regarding the phasing and completion date
for the opening of this new high school.

http://gis.mcpsmd.org/cipmasterpdfs/CIP20_Chap4_RM.pdf

Anonymous wrote:Crown funding was deferred in the current CIP. It remains to be seen if it is included for the next one.

Crown is a minimum of 6 years out, and even then, no plan has been announced exactly how it will help any of the clusters it is "supposed" to help out, which I think are Giathersburg, QO, Wootton, and RM.

Crown funding was deferred in the CIP from fiscal year 2019 (this year) to fiscal year 2020 (the year that starts in July). There isn't any funding for it in the fiscal year 2020 CIP (yet) because there isn't any funding for ANYTHING in the fiscal year 2020 CIP yet. The County Council hasn't voted on it yet.

Also, the CIP explicitly says which clusters are related to the high school at Crown: Richard Montgomery, Wootton, Gaithersburg, Quince Orchard.

From reading DCUM, one might almost conclude that some people don't even want a new high school at Crown.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Posters have to absolutely clueless or probably developers to talk about a high school which won't be started for the next 10 years for the problem we are facing right now.

Only solution is to redraw boundary right now to spread the over crowding. Instead of keeping 100 and 120%, schools should have 110% each.

I really don't understand why people - or a person - keep saying that. It's supposed to start this calendar year.

MCPS plans the next 6 years of spending in CIP. CIP was approved in Nov. Crown study is not in CIP. The next CIP will be in Nov.

It can't start this calendar year.

Crown funding was deferred in the current CIP. It remains to be seen if it is included for the next one.

Crown is a minimum of 6 years out, and even then, no plan has been announced exactly how it will help any of the clusters it is "supposed" to help out, which I think are Giathersburg, QO, Wootton, and RM.