Meeting Record
750 E. Pratt Street
Suite 1100
Baltimore MD 21202
410 837 7311
410 837 6530 fax
www.hcm2.com
Project No:
Prepared by: Attendee Sharon Agranov M. Samiul Alam Melanie Lemay Bacon Beth Blevins Scott Bredow Victor Brito Robin Bruckner Gemma Button Patrick Button Jamie Castle Karen Castle Andrea Massaro Cavanaugh Bini Chacko John Clifford Mary DePasquale Cobb Jenni Coopersmith Jennifer Costello Debbie Deosaran Sharon Deutch ARCHITECTURE
LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE
PLANNING
INTERIOR DESIGN
Date:
Project:
Andrew Dunn Cheri Dunn Angela Edwards Judy Exler Ramez Fahmy Sherifa Fahmy Sumaya Fahmy Kathy Finan Butch Fleischer Charles L. Frederick Angel Garcia 3/30/2011 Farquhar Middle School
Modernization 211004 Jeff Hagan Organization
FMS
Brooke Grove
Brooke Grove
Phone
301‐260‐9303
301‐774‐3905
email
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
Future FMS Parent Brooke Groove
Sherwood Sherwood Brooke Grove Brooke Grove Brooke Groove
301‐260‐0556
[email protected] 301‐570‐8248
301‐774‐0264
301‐774‐0264
301‐570‐4566
301‐570‐4566
301‐774‐4788
[email protected] [email protected] [email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
301‐570‐3614
301‐260‐1018
301‐570‐0448
[email protected] [email protected]
[email protected]
240‐678‐8397
301‐385‐8179
301‐570‐3714
[email protected] [email protected]
[email protected] [email protected] FMS
FMS & SES
Sherwood & FMS Sherwood Cloverly
Cloverly & FMS
Brooke Grove & FMS Brooke Grove
Brooke Grove Cloverly
Brooke Grove
Brooke Grove
Brooke Grove Parent/Teacher
FMS Teacher
FMS
Brooke Grove
Assist. Director Dept. of Transportation 301‐785‐3947
301‐706‐1033
301.421.5927
301‐570‐9006
301‐529‐1676
240‐535‐4554
240‐593‐8169
301‐233‐6899
301‐929‐9248
[email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected]
[email protected] [email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
Charles.frederick@montgomerycountymd.
gov [email protected]
Melissa Gatlin Walter Geddes Lori Goodwin Missy Gover Mary Gross Jeff Hagan Dr. Ursula A Hermann Kristin Hewitt Wail Higazi
Michael Hildebrand Kimberly Ianniciello Dawn Jacob Shabeen Jafri Eric & Ann Johnson Adrienne Karamihas Nancy Keener Felicia Kimmel Troy Kimmel Rich Konzmann Laura Lampshire Ellen Lemberger Jeff Levine Linda Lindstrom Patty Liszewski Mary Lunden Kristin McGervey Sean McGervey Jennifer & Ken McKneely Heather Milke Todd & Elizabeth Miller Joann Mirgon Beth Montgomery Kristy Montgomery Ray Marhamati Teresa & Mark Mooney Diane Morris Randolph Mussotte Bryan Natoli Shelly Niverth Stacy Noland Stephanie Noland MEETING RECORD Stonegate/ FMS
FMS Teacher
Sherwood
Brooke Groove
Brooke Groove
HCM
Community Superintendant FMS
Parent
Cloverly
SES Parent
FMS
Cloverly
MCPS
Brooke Grove
Brooke Grove
Parent
Brooke Grove/ FMS Brooke Grove
Teacher, FMS
Teacher, FMS
Brooke Grove SES & FMS
Brooke Grove
Brooke Groove
Sherwood
301‐476‐8097
410‐370‐2829
301‐802‐3308
301‐774‐9881
301‐774‐8345
301‐758‐9803
301‐421‐1340
240.314.1035
301‐774‐9070
301‐260‐7551
301‐260‐7551
301‐570‐6815
301‐570‐1042
[email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected]
[email protected] [email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected] [email protected]
[email protected] 301‐717‐0677
240.426.8359
301.924.3100
301‐570‐6979
301‐774‐2055
301‐570‐2809
301‐570‐2809
301‐260‐0181
Brooke Groove
Brooke Groove
301‐774‐8218
301‐570‐4556
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected] [email protected] [email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected] [email protected] [email protected] Sherwood Elem PTA President Sherwood
Cloverly/ FMS
MCPS
Cloverly
301‐980‐6546
[email protected] 301‐570‐9124
301‐774‐7747
240.314.1010
301‐421‐4370
[email protected]
[email protected] [email protected]
[email protected] 240.484.4995
[email protected]
[email protected]
301‐260‐0705
301‐570‐0938
[email protected] [email protected] 301‐570‐3645
301‐570‐3645
[email protected] [email protected] Principal, FMS
Transportation Cluster Manager Brooke Groove
Brooke Groove/ FMS Brooke Grove
Brooke Grove
301‐438‐6556
301‐260‐1933
301‐924‐4162
301‐260‐1935
410.837.7311
[email protected] [email protected] [email protected]
[email protected] [email protected]
[email protected] [email protected]
Page 2 of 10 Stephanie Pack Rachel Packer Joe Pasternak Michele Nebel Peake Lori Post Cheryl Potyk Susan Ramsay Michael Ronan Anne Rood
Heven Shueh Susan Smith‐Bauk James Song Kerri St. Laurent Deborah & Chris Stenger Brandi Tippery Patricia Via Brant & Dana West Melanie Whelan Ric Wugalter CC: Claudette Ardizzone Anne Baldini Steve Bonnhag Karen Brunson Jim Determan Rick Eisenacher Joe Griffin Jennifer Hallmark Michelle Hintz Patrick Hintz Karen Holt Jihyun Jung Gail Kahan Andrea Keller Haifa Krakaur Conae Lee Joy Leven Pauline Loveland Brian Lowe
Ed McCarthy Debbie Metrey Kendra Newman Judith Setkin Porzel Sarah Qureshi MEETING RECORD Cloverly
Brooke Grove
Brooke Grove
Sherwood
Brooke Grove/ FMS Brooke Grove
Brooke Grove
Brooke Grove
Brooke Grove
Cloverly & FMS
FMS
Director Dept of Facilities Management Brooke Grove
Sherwood
Sherwood
Stonegate/ FMS
Sherwood
Parent
Brooke Grove
FMS Parent
Teacher, FMS
Parent
Parent HCM
Teacher
PTA, FMS
Parent
FMS Parent
Parent
Parent
Parent
Parent
Parent FMS Parent
FMS Parent
Parent
FMS Staff
Parent
FMS Parent
Parent
Parent
FMS Parent
FMS Parent
301‐421‐0219
301‐260‐0070
301‐570‐6979
301‐774‐7739
301‐924‐3080
[email protected]
[email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] 301‐260‐2993
301‐412‐1742
301‐651‐5409
301‐570‐3251
301‐384‐6360
301‐570‐1034
[email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected]
[email protected]
301‐774‐0032
301‐260‐1762
[email protected]
[email protected]
301‐526‐7156
301‐438‐3219
301‐260‐8753
301‐260‐0723
301‐570‐8099
[email protected] [email protected]
[email protected] [email protected]
[email protected] 301.924.3100
301‐570‐6269
301‐598‐1801
410.837.7311
301.924.3116
240.832.1190
301‐421‐4305
301.421.1704
301‐421‐1704
301‐438‐8453
301‐448‐9106
301‐774‐2999
301‐774‐7630
301.598.3139
301‐570‐5368
301‐260‐8840
301‐570‐3917
301‐908‐5765
301.476.7775
[email protected] [email protected]
[email protected] [email protected]
[email protected] [email protected]
[email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected]
[email protected] [email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected] [email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected] [email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected] [email protected] [email protected]
Page 3 of 10 Suzanne Redman Parent
301‐570‐9092
[email protected]
Lisa Rodriguez Teacher, FMS
301.924.3100
[email protected]
Muriel Senderling FMS Parent
301.774.9573
[email protected]
Michael Shpur MCPS
[email protected]
Casey Smith HCM
410.837.7311
[email protected] Tom Spies HCM
[email protected] Heather Steffan FMS Parent
301.774.8262
[email protected]
Jillian Storms MSDE
[email protected]
Robert Tarloff Parent/Teacher 301‐590‐0629
[email protected]
No Item 1 Diane Morris, Principal, Farquhar Middle School (FMS) gave an introduction to the meeting. 2 Ms. Edwards presented some remarks: happy about the planned modernization; concerned about students being sent to the Tilden Holding Center. Ms. Edwards called MCPS and was told students would be sent to the Tilden Holding Center. Main concern is the long bus ride and the ramifications associated with the commute (safety, academic achievement, student quality of life). Stated that she is looking for answers from MCPS regarding these concerns. Wants to know any and all options. Would like to know what is the preferred option of MCPS. The parents welcome the modernization, but feel the bus ride is not the price to pay for the modernization. Wants to work together to find a solution that is best for the students of FMS. 3 Mr. Song presented an overview of the agenda and introduced MCPS staff present at the meeting. He noted that communication is important and wants to know the expectations of the community. He commended the parents for being proactive and noted that there is time to develop a compromise solution and address all of the issues. He also provided an overview of the modernization process and noted that it will be 4‐1/2 to 5 years from start to finish until the project is completed. 4 Mr. Song noted that this process is not new to the FMS community. Other communities have similar concerns and go through this process every year. 5 The Schedule is as follows‐ Feasibility Study completion June 2011; Planning/ Design July 2011 – June 2013*; Construction July 2013 ‐ August 2015*. *Note this is pending funding approvals. Funds have been approved for the Feasibility Study. No funds have been approved for design or construction. Need advocacy from the community to help push project through for construction funding when it gets to that stage. MCPS is comfortable that planning dollars will be approved as of July 1, 2011, but it has not been approved yet. Construction funding is yet to be determined. 6 Mr. Song presented an overview of the modernization process. The feasibility study will be completed first, followed by architectural appointment (approval by BOE of architect to continue the design). Planning will then begin‐ starting with Schematic Design which will develop the selected option. This is followed by the design development phase which provides more detail to the construction drawings. The next phase is the construction document phase where the drawings are prepared for bidding and construction. The design of the building will be developed and reviewed with the committee and the community during each of these phases. Bidding and contract approval is followed by construction. Upon construction completion the building is occupied and the punchlist/ warranty period begins. Contractors will make repairs during non‐school hours. BOE will inspect the project for acceptance. At the completion of the project, the building will be rededicated. 7 An explanation of the purpose of the feasibility Study was reviewed next. The study is MEETING RECORD Page 4 of 10 8 9 10 11 12 13 conducted to evaluate all of the existing conditions (utilities, topography, trees, etc.), examine what is possible and what is not possible. Explore possible alternatives; develop conceptual site and floor plans; conduct preliminary constructability reviews (i.e. is buildable from a construction standpoint); develop cost models, budget, timeline; and provide recommendations. The 5 schemes developed to date were reviewed. Option A‐ Replacement building at rear of the site while the existing building remains occupied at the front of the site. Option B‐ Demolish existing building and rebuild a new building in its current location. Option C‐ Renovate existing building while building is occupied and add on to the building to meet the program requirements while utilizing portable classrooms during construction. Option D‐ Replacement building at front of site in phases while building is occupied and portable classrooms are utilized during construction. Option E‐ Replacement building at front of site while keeping the existing gym addition (gym will be modernized). Some of the schemes may not be feasible. The following modernization approaches were reviewed:
Option 1: Students relocate to Tilden holding center. Option 2: Students remain on site during modernization Option 3: Place relocatable classrooms on adjacent land. Option 4: Relocate students to Broome during modernization process. (Broome is a publicly owned building that is currently used as offices. Travel is about half the distance than to Tilden). Option 5: Relocate students to Fairland Holding Center (used for elementary school modernizations). Fairland is available during the time FMS is planned for modernization. MCPS is willing to explore any other suggested options. Question‐ Funding changes everything‐ how confident is MCPS that funding will be approved for this project? Answer‐ MCPS is confident about approval of funding for planning process, though nothing has been approved yet, so no guarantee. Construction funding will be requested in approximately 2 years, no guarantee that it will be approved. If planning process is completed and construction is not funded as scheduled, the process does not start over. The construction documents are held until funding becomes available and the process continues. Question‐ When are cost models developed?
Answer‐ A preliminary budget has been included in the Capital Improvements Program (CIP). The feasibility study will develop a conceptual cost model based on the options that is more refined than what is in the CIP now. Cost estimates are updated throughout each phase as the design is developed. The last estimate based on completed construction documents is utilized for the construction funding request. Question‐ What is the preferred option of MCPS?
Answer‐ There isn’t one yet, the Feasibility Study process will determine the best option. However since schemes C & D both involve phasing the construction while the building is occupied they will require much extended time which is prohibitive, therefore MCPS doesn’t
see them as viable options. Question‐ What does MCPS consider a holding center, what are the basic capabilities?
Answer‐ Tilden was a middle school and is able to accommodate the standard middle school program. Fairland is sized for an elementary school program. The holding center needs to be able to support the middle school program to minimize disruption to the MEETING RECORD Page 5 of 10 educational program. 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Question‐ Could the old Paint Branch High School building be used as a holding center?
Answer‐ Unfortunately no. A replacement building is under construction and the old building must be demolished once the new building is completed in order to complete the project and provide the remainder of the amenities that are currently not available for that school. Question‐ Could a middle school closer to Tilden move to Tilden and move FMS to that school? Answer‐ Can’t answer immediately, but it is unlikely such a move could be made. Question‐Explain your role in choosing the options?
Answer‐ Mr. Song explained that he oversees the Division of Construction and that he reports to the Board of Education and the Superintendent and must make sure the program is met, the project is on time and on budget, and makes the best recommendation for the community. Question‐Who is looking out for the students?
Answer‐Everybody has the student’s best interests in mind. Question‐Is there only one middle school holding center?
Answer‐Yes. Cabin John MS is currently at Tilden. Hoover MS is next in line, followed by FMS. Hoover MS is awaiting approval of construction funding. Question‐Who comprises the Facility Advisory Committee and makes the decision on the preferred option? Answer‐The committee is comprised of everyone who attends the FAC meetings. The Board of Education ultimately makes the final decision. Multiple options can be considered. The preferred option by the committee is included as the first of three options in the report for the Board of Education to consider. Pros and cons of Option 1 (Relocate to Tilden) were reviewed. Pros include: no compromise to the program, Tilden has fields for use, no compromise to safety/ security from construction activity and heavy equipment on site, no noise issues, no impact to schedule and budget (phased on site is a longer more costly process), no impact to parking/ site access. Cons include: relocation to the holding center, transportation and commute time issues. Parent Comment: Feel that an additional con needs to be the impact the relocation has on students. Parent Comment: Teacher at Paint Branch and have not had any issues with remaining on site during construction project the last 2 years. Pros and cons of Option 2 (On Site Modernization) were reviewed. Pros include: remain on site, minimize transportation and commute issues. Cons include: longer duration of construction process, more costly, noise impact, no after school activities at the site, impact on parking/ site access/ traffic, safety and security concerns, no opportunity for geothermal (geothermal field is located below play fields which will not be available until after the building is completed. System must be installed during construction process to adequately condition the building during the construction process), no fields available during construction. Construction traffic will be crossing through the site. Question‐Is geothermal issue of Option 2 unique to this property‐ it is being done at Paint Branch? Answer‐ The geothermal field is placed below the play fields. Paint Branch has more land available than Farquhar. Space is limited when building a new building on site while the existing building is occupied. Geothermal plays a vital role in the LEED process (LEED silver required on this project) however, it is one mechanical system, there are other systems MEETING RECORD Page 6 of 10 that can be evaluated. 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 Pros and cons of relocation to adjacent land using relocatables were reviewed. Pros include: remain on site, minimize transportation and commute issues. Cons include: longer duration of construction, more costly, noise impact, no after school activities on site, impact on parking/ site access/ traffic, safety/ security concerns, no access to play fields during construction, approximately $5 million to place relocatable classrooms, impact on programs‐ no special labs such as science and tech labs, no gymnasium available in relocatable classrooms. Also, uncertainty of available land for the relocatable classrooms. MCPS does not feel this option is feasible. Pros and cons of relocation to Broome were reviewed. Pros: less distance. Cons: not currently available, not current used as a school. There is a plan to conduct a study to determine if Broome can be converted to a future holding center, however this has not been approved by the County Council. It is at least a 5 year process before it could be ready to use as a holding center. It currently serves office functions and would have to be renovated. Based on current funding scenarios, the soonest it would be available to use as a holding school is 2020. MCPS does not feel this option is feasible. Pros and cons of relocation to Fairland Holding Center were reviewed. Pros: No noise issues, closer than Tilden Holding Center. Cons: Students must relocate, impact on academic programs‐ school is used as an elementary school holding center and is not designed to accommodate the middle school program and is smaller than required size to serve the FMS enrollment. (designed for capacity of 510‐ FMS enrollment is 650. Site is undersized with limited site amenities. All major spaces are undersized for the middle school program. No special labs, no gymnasium, music rooms, art rooms, technology education labs and computer labs. MCPS does not feel this option is feasible. Question‐ Can geothermal be done after the new building is completed and the old building is demolished? Answer‐ No, the sequence doesn’t work that way. The new building needs to have conditioned spaces in order to install finishes, cabinets, furniture, paint, etc. The geothermal system requires a long time sequence to construct and could not be installed until the existing building is demolished. There would not be enough time to complete this work while maintaining the existing occupied building. Question‐ A parent noted that she was a geologist by training and works for a geotechnical
engineer and asked if the geothermal wells could go in the various open spaces around the building. Answer‐ Unfortunately, no. There are 300‐ 400 geothermal wells that need to be connected together and this requires a large area of land to construct. Question‐ Are there other energy alternatives such as wind or solar that hare being considered that would negate the need for geothermal? Answer‐ MCPS is looking into alternative power and has 8 schools with solar, however it is not enough to support an entire school. Geothermal is one of 4 systems that are evaluated. Geothermal is very efficient and can pay back within 7 years and lower operating costs, but there are other mechanical systems that will be considered. Parent Comment: Cons of the relocation options needs to include safety associated with busing (time, safety, and inconvenience). MCPS noted that safety is always a concern. On site safety with construction activity and students nearby is a major concern for MCPS. Parent Comment: 3rd FAC meeting is coming up and feel behind in the process. Emotions are high and feel that options are closing down. MCPS stated that there is some float in the schedule, so if more meetings are required, MEETING RECORD Page 7 of 10 that is OK. 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 Ms. Morris stated that she would take emails/ pictures for any options that the group has. No ideas are bad ideas. These will be forwarded to MCPS for review and comment. It was suggested that parents communicate with the PTA of Francis Scott Key who went through an hour commute during their modernization process and see what their experiences were. Parent Comment: A parent noted that their student had an hour commute in the morning and 1.5 hour commute in the afternoon in the 5th grade. It was difficult but they listened to books on tape and found ways to make the best of a difficult situation. Need collaboration. Question‐Has the open farmland that is next to the school property been explored for purchase? Answer‐ Not yet, but MCPS will look into this. The land is privately owned and may not be available for sale. Question‐ Can parent’s review the engineer’s report regarding geothermal? Answer‐ Yes, it will be part of the feasibility study report. A hole will be drilled on site this summer to determine the thermal conductivity of the soil which will help determine how many wells are needed and how deep they will be. This is all part of the analysis that is part of the feasibility study. The option of geothermal will be kept open until all the data is gathered and the report is finalized. Question‐ Where would after school activities take place if it is an on site modernization and
where if students go to Tilden? Answer‐ If stay in Olney‐ then find space at local schools or other nearby locations, but can not be on the Farquhar site. If at Tilden, activities would likely be at Tilden. Question‐ Parent has had a child go through Farquhar and is concerned teachers will leave the school if it is temporarily relocated to Tilden? Answer‐ Cannot plan around this issue, teachers move around. Hope not to lose anyone. Question‐ 17.5 miles‐ one hour each way to Tilden‐ parents have fears‐ will there be supervision on the buses, what happens if students get sick on the bus, can school time be adjusted? Answer‐ School time can be adjusted to a later start. Some previous schools have done this, others have not made a change. Question‐ Explain why Paint Branch was able to remain on site, so why not here?
Answer‐ Paint Branch is over 46 acres, so there was room to allow students to remain. The FMS site is too small (20 acres). It was suggested that the last class at Francis Scott Key be surveyed to determine what issues they had with the relocation. Parent Comment‐ Need to explore if fields at nearby schools are available for use by FMS. The I.C.B. coordinates use of fields, etc. Question‐ Can property be taken by eminent domain to build a new school? Answer‐ This is a complicated process, MCPS cannot just take property. Land would need to be purchased. Parent Comment‐ Need to work harder to make Option A work. Many parents feel that over an hour commute is not a feasible option. Question‐ What are the after school activity bus options?
Answer‐ It depends on funding. Transportation to and from school in the morning and afternoon is provided. School activity busses are funded separately. Do not know at this time if budget will support activity busses. MEETING RECORD Page 8 of 10 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 Question‐ Has the rising cost of gas been factored?
Answer‐ This is definitely a con. This will be budgeted accordingly. Also note that costs of purchasing land and/ or relocatable classrooms has not been budgeted. A cost benefit analysis can be performed between transportation costs and land acquisition. Question‐ Can land be leased for temporary parking?
Answer‐ This is not a major issue. Physically being able to fit all of the pieces is the major issue. Question‐ One hour on a bus is not a good situation for the kids. They are hormonal, etc. Is there a possibility of monitors on busses‐ someone respectable like a police officer? Cameras? Answer‐ These are good ideas. About half of the bus fleet has cameras. Monitors on the busses would have to be budgeted for. Cannot promise cameras or attendants, but can provide cost information to be used to lobby for these. MCPS Transportation did a series of dry runs at typical school start and end times. From the farthest pick‐up location, it was approximately 50 minutes to Tilden, with picking up students it would be between 1 hour and 1 hour and 10 minutes. Question‐ How does decision of choosing the preferred option work? Answer‐ The FAC comes to a consensus of a preferred option. Mr. Song will send a memo to the Board of Education with the recommendation noting the pros and cons. BOE is the decision making body and will ultimately decide what option is pursued. Question‐ Is there any consideration for parents who don’t work in the community and will now be further away from their children in the event of an emergency? Answer‐ Understand this concern, but cannot address every parent situation. This process will impact everyone across the board for the 2 years this project is construction, but it is ultimately for the betterment of the community as a whole. Parent Comment‐ Taking children out of the community is not what’s best for the community. What can be done to keep them here? We need to exhaust every possible option to keep kids here. Question‐ Concerned that the cons of the parents have not been heard. Feel that the concerns of the parents are not being weighted the same. Answer‐ We are not dismissing you. Similar communities have gone through the same process. It was agreed that pros and cons of the options that anyone feels should be included should be forwarded to Ms. Morris and they will be incorporated. Next Meeting: Meeting #3: 4‐6‐11 3:15 pm These meeting notes were prepared by Hord Coplan Macht, Inc for the purpose of recording the information covered during this meeting. Should anyone object to any statement or interpretation contained herein, please inform Hord Coplan Macht, Inc. within seven days or the meeting notes shall stand as written. MEETING RECORD Page 9 of 10 Submitted by, HORD COPLAN MACHT, Inc. Jeffrey R. Hagan Project Manager MEETING RECORD Page 10 of 10