e third and final work session on the superintendent's. Recommended FY 27 FY 22 Capital Improvements Program and Boundary studies. My name is Grace Rivera-Oven and I'm the president of the Board of Education and I represent district one. I will begin by
asking other board members to please introduce themselves for the record. I will start on my right. Good morning, Laura Stewart, and I'm representing district four. Good morning. Carla Silvestre, school board member at large. Good morning,
Julie Yang, district three. Good morning, Brenda Wolff, district five. Good morning, Rita Montoya, board member at large. Miss Zimmerman, good morning, Natalie Zimmerman. I represent district two. Do we have anybody else online at
this point? No. Okay. Thank you. Today's work session is the final opportunity for the superintendent to present detailed information on the recommended FY 27, FY 32, CIP
and boundary studies, and for the board to ask any questions and provide feedback. If a board member wishes to introduce an alternative to the superintendent's pending
recommendation, a motion and a second are required. Following discussion, five votes in favor of the motion are required to place it before the public for comment. Along with the
superintendent's recommendation, if an alternative is approved for consideration, members of the public will have the opportunity to provide comment on the alternative at a public
hearing. The board intends to take its final action at its March 26th business meeting. With that, I will turn it over to Doctor Taylor to start his
presentation and introduce his team. Thank you, Madam President. Members of the board. I'll keep my remarks brief before turning things over to Mr. Mahmood. Miss and Mr. Conolly to walk us through today's presentation. We have a lot to review. The genesis of
today's presentation is really to do a couple of things to talk about the elementary boundary study recommendation, as well as to resolve questions that were introduced during the public hearings, and to present
information related to those questions, as well as to to do an overview of our boundary recommendations and CIP recommendations. One of the things that I do want to highlight as part of that is, given some of the feedback that we've received from our County
executive to highlight some of the Nonrecommended reductions to the CIP that are also moving forward as a part of that process. This is an awful lot with a handful of discrete topics that need to be covered. But before we we jump into the boundary portion of it because
we're going to we're going to lead off with that. I want to point out that we're going to be highlighting a couple of options that have been discussed by members of the community and the board as part of the discussion today,
because we do feel like we have an obligation to leave no stone unturned and to talk through some of the pros and cons and why we have made our recommendation. I want to make it clear that we are not changing our recommendation at this time. And for for either
study. And and we'll certainly go through the details of what that looks like. So without further ado, team, take it away. Thank you, Doctor Taylor. Good morning. If you could go to the first slide. So as Doctor
Taylor mentioned, we do have a full agenda today. We're going to start out with the Woodward and Northwood summary of the recommendation and alternate boundary options and scenarios. And then we will move on to Crown and Damascus. Same thing
with the superintendent's recommendation. Some additional information, an alternate boundary options and scenarios. Then we would like to go through some of the follow up questions that we received during the public hearing as well from the as well as from the Board of Education members. And then we will go into the
details of the countywide elementary boundary study and any implications of potential closures and consolidation that could come out of that study. And then, as Doctor Taylor already mentioned, we do have to find some time to talk about nonrecommended reduction
scenarios and any CIP follow up questions. Next slide please. So before we talk, go back into the details of the boundary study. I wanted to remind everybody about our timeline. We started this back in December of 2024, when Flow
Analytics was approved by the Board of Education. And then, you know, we started going out to the public in the initial information sessions in April, the first round of options were released in May. And then in
over the summer, we collected feedback from the community and then additional options were released in September, and then some additional options from E through H were issued in November. And then we collected the feedback. And then Doctor
Taylor's recommendations on the table. Right now, that's what we're discussing. And we're in the public hearing and work sessions. If you could go to the next slide. So moving into the Woodward. And before we do
that, if you could go advance, one more slide, please. We wanted to talk a little bit about just reminding everybody about policy. FAA. So it's in the heart of every facility's work that we do, whether it's
the CIP or our boundary studies. And it essentially provides a framework for, for making equitable and fiscally responsible decisions, knowing that, you know, we are dealing with sometimes with uncertain
futures and considering instructional program priorities, physical condition of the schools, and the impact of either over or underutilized facilities on the educational programs. The next slide, please. So obviously, with that in mind, we do have board
factors, and there are pros and cons of every boundary option because some options are going to advance some factors more than others. So the the objective would be to try and find a balance whenever possible. And so when developing the recommendations,
the the policy dictates that the superintendent will provide a rationale that demonstrates demonstrates the extent to which it advances each of the factors. And then, you know, obviously each of the factors will be considered. But as we know, it's not possible to
reconcile each and every recommendation with each and every factor. So with that, we do obviously with the recommendation, try to create a diverse student body and then take into account the geographic proximity of communities to schools, as well as articulation, traffic and
transportation patterns, stability of school assignments, making sure that we're not moving students too often, and then facility utilization to try and strive for 80 to 100% efficient range over long term, whenever possible, as well as making fiscally responsible
decisions that minimize capital and operating costs whenever feasible. Next slide please. Can you just tell the public what FAA stands for? The acronym. It's just the acronym, and it's been asking me what it stands for. So can you just can
you clarify what. So it's actually not an acronym. It is the naming convention that goes with board policies. So the board policies are all structured according to a letter convention. And FAA is just the letter convention that this policy falls into within
that structure. Okay. Thank you. So many people have been asking me. Thank you. So. It is the sixth policy in your sixth
domain. And it is the first subdomain of the sixth policy in your sixth domain of policies. Okay. See, now it's very clear. Thank you. Sure. So
again, we talked about this at our last presentation as well. We did. I mean, we do get questions about why we're changes made at the last minute. And as we have been, you know, talking about this process starting about a year ago and last April, this is actually is
the process that we have been explaining that, you know, in the in the iterations that we have, we do collect feedback from the public and the superintendent uses that feedback to present an the recommendation to the board.
And obviously, while, you know, working on the superintendent's recommendation, as you know, flow analytics, our consultant was involved just like they were involved in, you know, creating all the previous options. And then we did also
get, you know, concerns from the community about not getting a chance to give any feedback or vote. So, so two things. First of all, the feedback we received over the past year did inform Doctor Taylor's
recommendation. And then and obviously there is we've had, you know, public hearings, three of them over the past few days to get additional feedback on the recommendation that the superintendent proposed. And
then just wanted to remind everybody that, you know, this is not a voting process. The feedback is to allow us to understand the challenges that the community sees with each of the recommendations. And it's not a voting process. The only voting that would happen is on
March 26th, when the board will take a decision on the recommendation. So with that, the hard truths about any boundary study, there are no perfect boundary solution and
there are no perfect boundary maps. So the boundary map options are created to advance policy factor. And so all of the factors will be impacted with each of the options. But in each option some factors
will have better or worse outcome depending on on each options very few communities. And we do understand that that very few communities and families want to see changes in their school assignments. However, some communities and
families will have to have change in school assignments for us to meet the objectives of the study, as well as board policy factors. And then every time we do make a change, each of the options, even a small change, would have a domino
effect in some other areas. And ultimately every recommended or approved boundary assignments will include trade offs. With that, I'm going to turn it over to Miss Whitaker. Good morning. I'm going to walk us through and remind everyone what is
included in the superintendent's recommendation for the reopening of Charles W Woodward High School and the expansion of Northwood. We have the summary slides here available. The more detailed slides are on our website for viewing. To the left we have
the high school map that shows the different reassignments, and to the right are the middle school assignments with their color. Just wanted to remind everyone what this recommendation achieves and what the goals are that are accomplished. In this
recommendation. The percent of resident Woodward High School students participating in farms and ML services will be at the average of the high schools in this study area. We also were able to minimize island assignments and emphasize geographic proximity. Schools
involved in recent boundary studies have minimal boundary reassignments. All middle and high schools in the boundary study will have facility utilization less than 100% and obtained input from multiple stakeholders using broad outreach of community
engagement. I want to share a few things of what staying the same and what's changing. And this is really specific to the elementary schools. You know, we've emphasized a lot of the middle school and high school. While the elementary boundaries are not changing, certainly their assignments are, but
wanted to emphasize what is actually staying. So there are 47 in this study. There are 47 elementary schools. 28 of those 47 have no reassignments to middle school and high school. Three of the elementaries have
a reassignment just to middle school. Only eight of the elementaries have a reassignment to high school only, and eight elementaries have a reassignment to middle school and high school. So on the next series of slides, as Doctor Taylor presented at the
beginning, we are not. The recommendation from the superintendent is not changing. What we do want to walk through are a few different scenarios that continue to come up throughout the public. They've come up in public testimony and email. I'm sure, as you all have been out in the community
and talking with members of the community and want to remind people why we didn't move forward with any of those options and why we are continuing to move forward with the superintendents recommendation as presented on February 5th. So we want to start with these series of
slides. On the left will always be the superintendents recommendation, and on the right will be three different options for this one. So this first one is an optional alternative. This is something we presented at the previous work session. This specifically looked at doing a split
articulation for Viers mill. So if you want to zoom in there, you'll see it changing from the light green color to the red. So it splits between Wheaton High School and Walter Johnson. The benefit change the next
slide. I know it's helpful to see the map. The benefit of this is it does bring the utilization and farms rate between Walter Johnson and Woodward High School closer together. However, the challenge of doing this is it adds yet another split articulation, which is something we were trying to
minimize in the overall recommendation. And the next one, again, the superintendent's recommendation stays on the left. This is the original option B, as presented back in October on the right, and just wanted to point out a
few of the changes and challenges and benefits. So in the original option B, Wheaton High School has a higher utilization at the 95.2% and a farms rate of above 60%, and
Kennedy has a utilization of 89%. And the paired elementary schools for Belpre and Strathmore have split articulation to middle school. The benefit of this brings the utilization of Walter Johnson and Woodward lower and closer
together. The reason that we did not move forward with this, again, is up in. The challenge is that the utilization and the farm's rate were both much, much higher for Wheaton, and we were trying to balance that out across all high schools in this
study. Okay. And we're going to present one more again, superintendents recommendation is on the left. This is the original option F presented back in October. I'll just pause for everyone to orient yourself. And then what? It's
changed in this one. Let me go back to that because it's helpful and I'll read the challenges and benefits on the next slide. You'll see here compared to the superintendents recommendation versus F, Garrett Park and Viers Mill change. And what this does is really create poor geography
and sort of elongated wrap around boundary. For Walter Johnson, however, it did bring a better utilization for Wheaton High School at 80%. Ultimately, the geographic proximity was important in the. Again, balancing all factors, but that weighed heavily on the
superintendent's recommendation, which is why we did not move forward with option F. Okay, we will move forward into the next boundary. Do we need to pause? Pause. Okay. We're going to
pause now because I think we're going to let my colleagues see if they have any questions. And can you no questions. Okay. I have a question for you. Can you go back to the slide where
you have the breakdown with the percentages for Wheaton? For option B? So Wheaton High School will have. A faster rate
of 60%. What is this like? I'm sorry. Yes you can. Thank you. I'll pull it up. I think it's 61%. Oh, so it's not it's within 60. Very close 6,062%. Okay. And John F Kennedy will
have almost a 90% utilization utilization. And what would the farm's. Percentage be? Hi. Yeah. So option B for Kennedy Farms
was 49.8% for Kennedy. 61.7. Sorry. Can you repeat that? Yes. So for the original option B Kennedy Farms was 49.8 and
Wheaton was 61.7. So they Walter Johnson will be 77.7. That I'm sorry, the 77.7 and
the 73 point 8RR what was in option B. Correct. Okay. Are you asking for what's in the recommendation. Yes. We can give that to you. Yes. So in
the recommendation Woodward is at 91.2 and 91.2 91.2. Yep. And Walter Johnson is 77.7. So aligns with B. What changes from B to the recommendation is the change in utilization at
Woodward, which would be again sorry. 91.291 91.2 and Wheaton two doesn't it. Yes. And it lowers Wheaton. So Wheaton drops to 86%. And again, that's really why we moved under the
recommendation under the under the recommendation. But under option B Wheaton goes up to 95.2. Correct. Right. Correct. And that's resident students. That's not even including people that might apply to the programs which are. And and with the highest and with the
highest frame rate. Okay. I just want to make sure I'm understanding. I will caveat that Wheaton and it's in our data table and it has an asterisk for every scenario for Wheaton, we did assume 500 students attend Wheaton High School for the Edison program, so that's included. So that
included program, correct. Okay. I love it. Yeah. Yes, yeah. Go ahead. So that when you say so, is that the same for every high school or does Wheaton was you already included the 500 seats
for the utilization. So the 95 utilization actually include the 500 seats. And that is not the case for any other high schools in this study. That is correct. In the Crown Damascus study, we did that same for
Poolesville and for Seneca. Okay. So let's focus on Woodward for this study. Yes, the 95% actually is have 500 program seats included. Why do we treat Wheaton differently with the program? Because of
because of Edison, because Edison. And that is typically how many students goes to Edison per year? 500. Correct. Okay, okay. And there's no other Edison school in Montgomery County. There's no
other Seneca. Yeah. This stems from the Wheaton Edison Partnership, where students from 19 different clusters can take certain programs at Edison, and then they just walk over and attend Wheaton as their comprehensive high school. So that's why the 500 place. And
same can be said for the remaining clusters for Seneca. Okay. Thank you for the clarification. Sorry, I didn't mean to. I was asking about. But that's a night kind of program. So that's not part of
your numbers. Okay, Miss Zimmerman? Do you have a question? Oh, sorry, I thought you. My apologies. I actually don't have my hand up. Just. Sorry. Thank you though. So I
just want to make sure that I have the farms rates correct. So. What does modified option B the superintendents
recommendation. What's the farms rates for Wheaton. Because you said what it would be if we went back with 61%. Yeah. For the superintendent's recommendation for Wheaton, it's below the 60% at 59.5%. So
it's 59.4 versus 0.2.2 versus 61.7. Okay. I just wanted to make sure I knew that difference. And. Sorry, can I just tag on to that? Can you
also tell me the utilization for Wheaton under the recommendation because it's not 95.2, right. No, it's 86 in the recommendation. Thank you. That's all for now. Yeah. Thank
you. I, I have a resolution to bring to the board. If there's no other questions before we move on to the the next topic. I know Miss Malu is online, but
her Wi-Fi is tricky, so I don't know if we have her logged on at this time. She's on, but she can't turn her camera on. Okay, great. Thank you. I'm going tort
of the boundary study process is the effort to create balanced schools that incorporate the four factors outlined in board policy F a a educational facilities planning, demographic characteristics of student population, geography, stability of school assignments
over time, and facility utilization. Families have expressed their interest in proximity to their school community to support family engagement for region three of the Woodward Northward Expansion Boundary study encompassing High Kennedy High School, Wheaton High School,
Woodward High School, and Walter Johnson High School. Option B should strive to provide this balance, whereas M.c.p.s has an interest in ensuring that wherever possible, schools are in proximity to families to and avoid split
articulations. Resolve that the superintendent of schools will develop an alternate alternate boundary map for the Woodward northward expansion that results in Wheaton Woods articulating to Wheaton High School. Georgian Forest, articulating to Kennedy High School and Harmony Hills,
articulating to Wheaton High School, and further resolved that the community from region three, Wheaton woods, Georgian Forest, Harmony Hills, Wheaton High School and Kennedy High Schools have an opportunity to
comment on this option. Doctor Taylor, I need to have a second. You need a second. I second that I was going to ask for it, but thank you. Let's do that
again. There is. Board member. Are we going to do it correctly if you don't mind, board member Carla Silvestre has made a motion to consider the alternative. Is there a second? I second that there is a motion
and a second, is there any discussion? Doctor? President Rivera-Oven, I just wanted to say that my intent in introducing this resolution is to hear from these communities that have outlined in the resolution. We've had a lot of community engagement, and I
would like to give them an opportunity to contact us either through the upcoming. If this is past a hearing, if not just the traditional way calling the board office, emailing, setting up meetings with us, I would just like to
give them a little more time to weigh in because it's a big decision. Thank you, Miss Wolff. You know, we have had four hearings, hundreds of testimonies, hundreds and
hundreds of emails, petitions and local and school community advocacy. You know, for this process, we have increased the number of hearings, we've increased the community outreach. We met with a wide
range of people, and everybody has had an opportunity to weigh in. We know that people are not in agreement. Every boundary hearing we do. And you have to forgive me. We know that people don't always agree with us, and they don't always agree with
the superintendent's recommendation. As we start out telling people originally, we know that some people are not going to be as happy. But I think at this point we know the pros and cons of the arguments from every community out there.
Thank you, Miss Montoya. Thank you. I'd just like to associate myself with my colleague Brenda Wolff's comments. We have heard from the various communities that are impacted by this recommendation, specific to the communities in the resolution as well. There has been
engagement by both M.C.P.S. by the board, by us as individuals. We've heard from, I've gotten messaging and various communications and engagements from individuals in the community, so I can appreciate the intent perhaps, but I do think that we have been
thorough in our engagement. Miss Stewart. I guess I have some questions about how this would actually affect the percentage of usage, etc. because when I'm looking at
original option B, I see, for instance, that Harmony Hills actually was split between Kennedy and Wheaton High School, but this says Harmony Hills would just go to Wheaton High School. And so now I don't know
if I have the how this would affect the utilization, the farm's rate. I'm a little fuzzy. I don't know if you all could help me with that. I don't think we are prepared to give
you exact utilizations at this time. I guess what I would point out, I think it's why Miss Silvestri included all three is. It's not as simple as just putting Wheaton Woods back at Wheaton. If you simply did that and didn't change other things, because I know we have looked at that. You would put Wheaton High School over 100%
utilization, which I believe is why you are pointing out more than just Wheaton Woods. You're bringing in two other elementaries, but the exact utilization of the rest of it, we would need time to go back and analyze that. I do see Jordan Forrest articulating to
Kennedy High School. I have some of that I can figure out because that was the original option, but it's just the Harmony Hills part. Maybe I can go back and look at Harmony Hills population. But anyway,
if you don't have it, I understand, but thank you, Miss Yang. I want the can we have the data on the original farm rate for Wheaton and Kennedy
High School? You showed what's the original like? The original plan B? Original with current boundaries or original option B
original option B. That was the 61.7 for Wheaton and the 49.8 for farms, right? What about for Kennedy? That was for the 49.8 for Kennedy 49 and 61 for Kennedy. Can you tell me what's
the current rate of farm rate at these schools? Yes. Kennedy. Currently it's 50.3%. Okay. And this is for resident students only. I will say that's important to note. So it doesn't necessarily mean current, right? Because we have
the DCC and other things. So people are moving around for programs. So when we say current, what is in our data table is based on resident students. Oh. So even though the school utilization give it to you in the C I P but that will be different than what we have been sharing. Again, we
have a current but that is for resident students. So that's what I'm reading off of because their school choice in the DCC, the students that attend the school versus those that are in the residential boundary may be different in terms of their farms rate as reported in the CIP document, as opposed to
what is in the residential boundary zone. Okay. Okay. So that we have utilization is included additional students. But in our farms rate it's only the resident student, correct? Correct. I'm also interested. I
was at a community meeting last Friday and. I, I got to hear about there were five parents from Wheaton Woods community and, and they were highlighting
for me that a lot of their communities are still, this is a very new information for them. And they haven't actively participated or even learn about the, the different options and its implications.
So I would like to see that we give that community further engagement opportunities. Do you have any questions? Just a point of clarification. This
resolution puts this option on the table along with the superintendents recommendation. So if I don't know the answers to our questions, we want to hear them today. But as you said, if you have information that you need to get back to us,
if this resolution passes all, all it does is put it on the table so that it can be considered as an option, and questions can continue to be answered as the process evolves. If that is the will of the board. For my point of clarification, given that we're
scheduled to take a vote. Let's see, today's the 12th. So in what, two weeks? This would effectively also delay the vote. Is that correct? Because I don't know that we can put together a whole nother hearing in time and get notice and all of that, or are we going to speed race to get that done
before the 26th? Is that the intent? Miss Silvestre, since it's your resolution, I'll let miss. I know I'm not asking about process. I'm asking for you. Is your intent to have a hearing before the 26th or to push the the the vote out and then have a hearing? I am not
interested in delaying the vote on the 26th. There's an opportunity for a hearing on March 17th, if that's correct, Miss Webb, and if everyone is available. Right, because this is the first time I'm hearing of that date, which is next week. So all of us would also need to be available. Correct?
Okay, thanks. We always strive for that. But I know it's not always possible. Yeah. Last minute, Miss Stewart. I also met with a couple of times with
Wheaton Woods parents, also the PTA leader there. And I think it's because they were expecting that they were just going to go to Wheaton. Like they just kind of checked out. They were like, okay, nothing's changing. It's fine. So then
was when this came out, no onew, there is a majority Spanish speakers there. And so I think there was a lot of people getting overwhelmed also with the amount of information
through email. And so the message was that really the majority of folks didn't find out until later, although I did not see a consensus of how they would react. So I just wanted to put that out there that
there did seem to be a level of not being aware until just maybe a week ago. To this. Also, I just received some numbers to help me on this alternative. And so. It looks like Wheaton
utilization would be 92.9% with alternative one. Or is this incorrect? If I can ask Miss Silvestri a clarifying question, I might be able to answer utilization. Now that I have your resolution in front of me, are you trying to change anything with Harmony Hills?
Because it says Harmony Hills articulating to Wheaton High School, but both the superintendent's recommendation and an option B, they're going to Wheaton High School. Okay, so thank you. I just want to clarify, are you requesting a different change? No no no no no no different changes. I just
I'm trying to understand I am not okay. Okay. So based on her resolve, then it's really option B just for Wheaton Woods and George and Forest. So you can use a utilization and farms and option B would be the numbers that you're asking for.
Okay. That's what I wanted to point out. I now understand what this alternative is. It was the previous alternative. There's option B. Okay. Thank you. I'm clear now. Thank you. I'd like to call for the vote.
Okay. There is no more discussion. All those in favor of for the resolution, please raise your hand. That will be Miss Stewart. Miss Sylvester,
miss Yang. Do we have Mr. Mr. on? No, she is not. She's not. Okay, so that would be. Three votes. Okay, so that doesn't
carry. All opposed? That would be Miss Montoya. Miss Wolff myself to find out. Miss Zimmerman, are you voting? I
abstain abstention. Okay. Thank you. Let's move on. To explain that you. That would be great.
Just for clarification, thank you, Miss Wolff, for the motion to carry. We need five votes. I want to make sure the public understands the motion didn't carry. Thank you. Okay, we're pulling up the slides. We will
move into the Crown Damascus. Summary of the superintendent's recommendation. We'll follow a very similar format to the last boundary. So I want to start with just a reminder of where we are with the recommendation for the relocation of Thomas S
Wooton High School and the expansion of Damascus High School. On the left are the recommended high school boundaries in this study area, and on the right are the middle school recommended boundaries. And again, a full detail of this and ability to zoom in and see all the elementary schools
are available on the website. I wanted to just remind everyone of what this recommendation achieves and accomplishes in terms of goals. We were able to consider diversity of student body population in all schools, minimize island assignments and
emphasize geographic proximity, and minimize split articulation to high school. It adds a secondary holding school to create core, create cost and time savings for future construction projects. All middle school and high schools. In the boundary study, scope will have a utilization less
than 100%, with the exception of Churchill High School, which will remain at its current utilization of 112% and obtained input from multiple stakeholders using broad outreach of community engagement. Before we jump in
to sharing similar to the last the other study and showing different options and the challenges and benefits. I did just want to remind the public that there are other prior examples of relocating schools. This is not the first time in M.C.P.S. history that we have done this, and we have shared
three different examples here. As a reminder, dating back to Blair High School that was originally located at what is currently Silver Spring International and Sligo Creek Elementary School. The site was relocated in 1998 to its current location and has not
moved since. Tilden Middle School was relocated on Tilden Lane from 1969 to 1991, when it moved to the Woodward High School site, it was referred to as the Tilden Holding from 1991 to 2018, as it was a holding
school for middle school projects. That building eventually was demolished and rebuilt and was relocated with Rock Terrace Schools since 2020, and then Burtonsville, which is currently under construction, will be relocating to a new school on a developed pad site again. Opened August of 2026
for us, and the existing building will be repurposed for other district priorities. Okay, I wanted to just highlight, you know, again, we haven't the elementary boundaries are not changing as a part of this
scope, but they are being impacted in terms of assignments and wanted to give an overview of what's staying the same and what's changing. So in this study, we have 59 elementary schools. 28 of the elementary schools have no reassignments to middle school or high school. 17 of the
elementary schools have a reassignment to middle school. Only five of the elementary schools have a reassignment to high school only, and nine of the elementary schools have a reassignment to both middle school and high school. Okay, so we're going to follow a
similar format to before. The superintendent's recommendation will always be on your left. And then a few different alternatives that have come up over the course of the last couple of weeks and public testimony and emails and community meetings, and just wanted to again, highlight the
recommendation is not changing. Just wanted to note some alternatives and other options that have been previously looked at and why we did not move forward with those. One alternative that we put in front of you last work session was specific to the middle
schools in region four, and we looked at moving Stone Mill and Potomac and flipping what middle school they go to. The challenge of this is it creates a poor geography, so it creates noncontiguous boundaries for
cabin. John. And that is why we did not include it in the superintendent's recommendation. The benefit of it is it does give at least two elementary schools articulating from middle school to high school together. So instead of just one elementary from Cabin John and one from Hoover, at least
two elementaries from each of those schools would articulate to either Churchill or to Wooten. Another option that has come up again over the last couple weeks is option D. I'll
just pause for you to orient yourself. And this option. It was when we were considering opening high school number 27 at Crown Farm site as a comprehensive high school. So that's what you're seeing as the difference. And then just
wanted to highlight a few things on this. It does create lower facility utilization in all the high schools because we have in the scenario, you have opened another comprehensive high school. It. However, it does not create that secondary
holding facility that we have talked about at length over the last several months. That is a need for us across many of our schools to help support the facility conditions and fiscally more future costs incurred for the current Thomas s Wootton High School facility
to be maintained as a comprehensive high school, and more future costs incurred for other secondary projects due to lack of the holding facility. We will in future slides after we get through these. We do have some operating costs of operating a 27th high school
and what that number will look like, as well as using the current Wooten as a holding school. So happy to get into those in the upcoming slides. Just for another comparison, the superintendent's recommendation is on the left.
This is option E and option E. High School number 27 at Crown Farm is used as a holding school. So this does lead to a slightly higher facility utilization in all the high
schools by not opening that 27th high school. However, as you've seen in the recommendation, all but Churchill fall within the 80 to 100%. This does create a secondary holding school for the district. It does not use a new facility for a comprehensive high school, and
fiscally, more future costs are incurred for current Thomas S Wooton High School facility to be maintained as a comprehensive high school. Ultimately, after we looked at that, you know, the recommendation was to move forward with using a brand new facility as a comprehensive
high school, thereby relocating Wooten to that and taking advantage of a new facility for a comprehensive, but still gaining a holding facility that is much needed to move forward with many of our capital improvement projects. And then
finally, this compares the superintendents recommendation on the left with option G and an option G. This is using high school number 27 at Crown Farm as a comprehensive high school, but with a much smaller
capacity of only 500 students and simultaneously using it as a holding school. So it's a small school. You can see it was just, I believe, Fields Road and Rosemont in this scenario that would go there and other schools would cycle in and out. This would be
combining resident students and holding school students in one facility is likely to leave the resident students without a strong sense of school, community and identity without holding school students present. The number of resident students is too small for a
comprehensive school. This does create a holding school capacity for the district. And then finally, just like we've shared in a few of the other ones, more future costs incurred for the current Wooten facility to be maintained as a comprehensive high school. I
will pause there for any questions. That me colleagues have. Any questions, miss Yang? Yeah, I, I appreciate the presentation and I appreciate
especially to talk through the middle school articulation. I understand we we really trying to look at continuous boundary maps and I, I support that, but also at the same time, I
understand, you know, the power of a cohort of students having, you know, a community in moving together during a transition
time. So currently Cabin John has about two elementary school students articulate to Churchill and two elementary school students articulate to
Wooten. Right. Regardless where the students are going to go to high school, I would very much like to see giving them a bigger cohort to do so. So.
That is my that is my my feedback. And. I have resolution to introduce after the comments. You have a comment, Miss Stewart. We can
move forward with the. And do we have a copy of the resolution? We're working on? Okay. Yeah, I just would like to see a copy and have a minute to read it. This is the first time hearing there would even be a resolution as to this
issue. Thanks. Thank you. Thank
you so much. Miss. Would you like to read the resolution? Thank you. Thank you so much. As a part of our boundary study process is the effort to create community stability and provide families with geographic
proximity. Whereas, M.C.P.S. has an interest in ensuring that whenever possible, to maintain assignment, stability and resolved that the superintendent of schools would develop an alternative boundary map for the Crown. Damascus
Damascus boundary study that results in Travilah and Stone Mill Elementary School, articulating to Cabin John Middle School and further resolved that impacted community. Have an opportunity to comment upon this option. Thank you. Board member Julie
Yang has made a motion to consider this alternative. Is there a second? I second the motion is the second by Miss Zimmerman. There's a motion. A second. Is there any discussion, Miss Wolff? At the last, I
believe it was board meeting. We indicated that if anyone wanted to bring any changes, they needed to submit them. Then we have heard from all of the community's considered the superintendent's recommendation.
And as I understand it, any changes to that now would require the addition of another hearing for the public. So therefore, I'm going to oppose this motion because I believe we've had every opportunity to
do that. Miss Silvester. Yeah, I wanted to clarify our last work session. Doctor Taylor proposed some I don't know what to call them. Proposal tweaks
to. Is this basically incorporating those recommendations? So we had an alternative that we introduced. This is I'll let Miss Whitaker respond to that. But what we did is we did introduce some alternatives that we had heard
in public comment, much similar to what we're doing today, which is, you know, this is what we've heard. So we're showcasing the pros and cons based on what people had talked about in public comments, so the board could opine on them. And if you could expound on why this is helpful, if we could
pull back up the middle school slides. And I will ask Miss Yang a clarifying question. Now that I have the resolution in front of me. You mentioned travel and stonemill travel, and the superintendent's recommendation is already articulating to cabin John, so there would be no change. You
are correct that we have Stonemill going to Hoover. So you are suggesting cabin John, but you do not mention Potomac. That was the on the right. What we had presented last week was showing Potomac. And so I the
way I read yours is that actually seven locks, Bel pre, Potomac, Travilah and Stonemill all five are going to cabin. John that. So I have to be totally transparent that what
he meant is that this will actually flipped this resolution need to be reworked again. Yeah, that's what I need to be completely flipped. The Travilah and Potomac so that Travilah and Stonemill can articulate to cabin John
together. That is a so that to create a bigger cohort for for the students in during transition time, this will also help Potomac Elementary School, which has a Chinese immersion
program and the articulation to Hoover will preserve that immersion program articulation. So can I clarify you're you're suggesting what's on the right, which is flipping Potomac and Stonemill from the superintendent's recommendation?
Yes, that is one of the proposal during last work session. Okay. So if that's what you want, then I would suggest we can we hold on to this and come back with a reworded revised version? So just to clarify, this is what you had proposed, Doctor Taylor.
No. So what we had introduced at the last work session, based on the feedback that we had received from public comment, was this optional alternative? And that is what I believe Miss Yang is trying to to introduce, I believe trying to introduce.
But we should revise the language to reflect it. Yes, yes. I have a question though.
If you. I know it was one of the alternatives that you introduced before, but if that was the intention, a hearing should have been scheduled then because it was a change to the proposal that was out in the public. So this seems to me to be a little bit out of order at
this point in time. Yes. Still, because we are not modifying our recommendation, still would require a majority of the board to elevate. I have a question
about the process with. Thank you. Would there be time for hearing if we took up this optional alternative? I just want to clarify that before the 26. We have the date of March
17th. If we need an additional hearing. Thank you. Miss. Okay,
so do we want to come back to this famous Silvestre has something to say. Yeah, I just wanted to ask Doctor Taylor again to kind of talk us through why this was recommended. What is this fix? It sounds like it's a worthwhile thing for us to try to tweak. So just wanted to
hear that before we get caught in the process. So every option for every boundary has pros and cons. This has some pros and this has some cons. Looking at the map. It is not contiguous, that's for sure. So it does
present some transportation challenges. It definitely presents some issues in terms of like where we have placed the middle schools. So geography, it is not geographically proximate at all,
where it does present some advantages is it does have the advantage of program articulation. It does have the advantage of stability of school assignment, even though it looks a little messy, it does work. I don't know if it
works as well as the recommendation. And, and, and certainly, you know, we're not making a recommendation to change our recommendation. But, you know, I think it is important that the board consider the things that are brought forward by the
community and that you be able to see them side by side and make your own assessment based on that information. No matter what you do with every single map choice, if you are going to be weighing pros and cons, and every single option has pros and every single option has
cons, we think we've captured the pros and cons for you. It really is your decision on what you think is going to be best. It's not. Wolff I have a question though. This is a middle school assignment, isn't
isn't there the potential for this to be impacted by the elementary school boundary study, correct? Yes, yes. I think that there is also a high probability that when you take a look, because there is some geographic messiness and you
have some island assignments, particularly the island assignments are problematic. And and certainly something that the board will really want to tackle in earnest doing your elementary study, because you have a significant number of island assignments,
particularly in this highly concentrated area. You can see on the maps right here, just looking anywhere where there's a number and you have the label key on the right. There are 12 schools just in the in the map right there that have island assignments that should should
be resolved. We've heard that consistently from parents. Well, that's one of my points because that was one of the goals of this study. So it seems to me that now you're defeating it. Yeah. I just want to associate myself with Miss Wolff's comments and make clear to the community, because in the way the title is set up, it says
optional alternative and then recommendation. But the photos are are opposite. So make sure that we're drawing our eyes. The resolution, my understanding is, is to keep the optional alternative, which is that far right picture, right. And I guess I just feel a little confused perhaps on a
philosophical standpoint because so often we're talking about, well, no, we want to keep people who are close together together, we want to walk, we want to do all of these things. And then here it seems like, well, except over here, we want to do something totally different because some, some members of the community want something different. And
so that's challenging for me as someone who has to make these decisions, because it seems very counterintuitive not to only the goals of these types of studies, but also just to the, the philosophies that we go by when we make these decisions. Right. And it seems like we're carving out kind of
a special exception here. And that's challenging for me to do when we're not giving those to other communities. And I would like to concur with with my, both of my colleagues being from district one. We have, you
know, similar situations, right? But I'm following what we were kind of given to, to do. And I just I feel very strongly that we cannot make exceptions for certain communities, because if we start doing that, then then we should be making exceptions
for other communities and the East County and then in the county and other areas. So for that, I, I think. Our staff and Doctor Taylor and all of us
have heard. Lengthly about these. So I that is also my my issue. Ms. Yang. One last clarifying question. How far between Hoover and cabin. John, what's the distance between
Hoover and Cabin. John middle school. I can ask staff to to pull that and get back to you in a few minutes. Yeah, I don't know. Google map. They are in walking distance for for just a
glimpse at this. The green flags represent our middle school assignments. The red flags represent our high school assignments. The blue flags represent our elementary school assignments. And what you have is a, as a couple of geographic geographic challenges, in the
middle of the map, you see Robert Frost and Julius West below. You see Hoover and Cabin John. And way up top you see the next regions, middle schools reflected in their
clustered very close together. So in in this case, looking at this particular region, we're not done any favors by the school placement. Having them as close to where they are. They are, they are within
walking distance. And, and so that that presents a lot of challenges, regardless of the map that you ascribe. And, and where this lands, these challenges are not going to go away. And, and they are going
to be present as long as those schools are located in those places. Exact question, 1.3 miles between the two. And I just want to emphasize it was brought up, you know, will this be able to be resolved in the
elementary boundary study? You know, certainly we hope to resolve many of the islands that are across the county. But given the proximity of really all four of those middle schools in this area further to the east, and so many elementaries are to the west,
it's complex. We have similar situation up in Gaithersburg, right, where we have two middle schools and one elementary boundary, one elementary. So the middle school placement across the board is not ideal for where many of our elementaries are. Thank you.
Miss Yang, would you read your resolution again, please? Thank you. A part of the boundary study process is the effort to create community stability and provide families with geographic proximity. Whereas, M.C.P.S. has an interest in
ensuring that wherever possible, to maintain assignment stability, resolve that the Superintendent of schools will develop an alternative boundary map for the Crown Domestic Boundary Study that results in Stone Mill Elementary School articulating to Cabin John
Middle School and Potomac Elementary School, articulating to Herbert Hoover Elementary School, and further resolved that the impacted community have an opportunity to comment upon these options. Okay, just a point of clarification. One
of the I didn't think we took into account geographic proximity as part of our. Did we or did. So it's something that you have heard from your community. No, I know, but I'm
saying but we did not. Okay. Yeah, that's I mean, okay, we just didn't call it geographic. It just says proximity. I think that's why. Okay. Yeah. All right. With that, I'd like to call for a vote. Okay. So there needs there needs to be an
opportunity for discussion once the once the resolution has been read. Do we need Mr. Zimmerman to second again because we had to have version, right? Because can we have Zimmerman. So there's a motion.
Is there a second? I second the motion. Okay. There's a motion a second. Is there any discussion? I'd like to call for a vote. If there is no discussion, I don't see any lights on. Okay. If there's no further discussion, all those in favor, please raise your
hand. That'll be me. Miss Zimmerman and Miss Yang. All those opposed, please raise your hand. Miss Silvester, myself, Miss Wolff and Miss Montoya. I. Abstentions. And
that would be Miss Stewart. Okay. Yes. So you need five votes for this to pass, and therefore there's no five votes
and the motion fails. Thank you. So we wanted to get started with some of the follow up questions and inquiries that we received during our hearing, as
well as from the board members. You could advance the slide. So and we're going to talk about our transportation policy, a student transportation as it applies to both non transported areas. And we will talk a
little bit about our response to some of the questions about our transportation costs that we received from the board members. Just a quick reminder for our policy E you know, M.C.P.S. is responsible for routing busses and maintain in
a manner that maximizes safety and efficiency. We're responsible for designing traffic control patterns for new and renovated schools prior to the completion of construction, M.C.P.S. will assess the safety of proposed traffic control patterns, taking into consideration safe
approaches by pedestrians, bicyclists and motorists. So the we're responsible for conducting safety evaluation for bus stops and recommended walking routes. Student. Our students are expected to walk in residential areas along and
across streets with or without sidewalks. Students are expected to walk along primary roadways with sidewalks or shoulders of sufficient width to allow walking off the main road, and middle and high school students are expected to cross allontrolled intersections with traffic
signals, lined crosswalks or other traffic control devices when they're available. If they're available. Sorry. Next one. So there were questions about that. We received about crossing multiple lanes. And
this was regarding the location at Crown Farm. So park policy E a middle and high school students are expected to cross all controlled intersections where traffic signals line crosswalks and other traffic control devices are available. There are a few examples where
our students do cross roads similar to Key West, including crossing 355 Wisconsin Avenue to get to B-cc Crossing, Randolph Road to get to John F Kennedy Route 29 or University
Boulevard to get to Blair, and then crossing 355 to get to Gaithersburg or our M and University Boulevard to get to Northwest Northwood High School, New Hampshire, for Springbrook and Randolph Road to get to
Wheaton High School. So, so to support walkability to the Crown Farm site. So Life Science Center, the trail route will extend along the school property, and the sidewalk along Omega Drive will be
widened to 12ft and existing sidewalk along Fields Road is currently eight feet wide, and then many of the roads surrounding the Crown Farm site have speed limits in the 25 to 30mph range. Oftentimes, what we see is once a school begins
operating, nearby roads may have their speed limits also reduced to improve safety for the increased pedestrian traffic. And as part of the county's Vision Zero initiative. And then we did hear some testimonies mentioning that walking to Crown could take
about an hour or more for some students. So at the farthest point within a two mile non-transportable area, the walk should take approximately 30 minutes at a normal pace and a slightly longer at a slow pace, but not exceeding 40 minutes. So, based on the
feedback and questions that we received from the board, we did do a cost analysis. So on average, each route cost our transportation department
$125,000 per year. This includes a set of assigned schools to create both a morning and an afternoon route. So the models that we're going to show are illustrative and a snapshot from some of the 31 middle schools that are impacted in the current
boundary studies. And then, you know, we will show existing costs as well as anticipated future routes and where they overlap for grandfathering impact. That's one of the questions that we received from the board at the last meeting. As we move into implementation,
we do expect the the savings to get some savings once the actual routes and bus stops are confirmed. So here's an example. What it would could cost us. And these are conservative
examples. We could be, you know, realizing savings as we get closer to actually routing the new, you know, new pickups for students. So currently for Woodland Elementary School. So
we picked different scenarios in this one for the recommended option, woodland will go from a straight articulation to articulation for a middle school and high school. The current middle school is Sligo
for Woodland and Albert Einstein. And then in the superintendent's recommendation, it would be Sims and Einstein and Silver Creek Middle School and BCC. So the current middle school assignment, regular bus
transportation. We have eight busses serving the Sligo Middle School route and which. Each route costing about $125,000. That's an existing cost of $1 million per year, which we would have to continue for the
grandfathering because we will be, you know, in year one, we will be grandfathering the eighth grade students. And then we anticipate for the Silver Creek Middle School and Sims, there will be five new routes. So there will be a cost of $625,000. So the first year
would cost roughly 1.6 million. But in year two, after the grandfathering of eighth graders and the cost will go down to 625,000 and will continue to be that amount or less. However, in option two,
if the both the seventh and eighth graders get grandfathered, the existing cost of Sligo Middle School $1 million will continue for an additional year. So. And then it will go down to $625,000 in year three. If you could go to
the next slide for Laytonsville Elementary School. So this is an example of a split articulation to straight articulation for middle and high school. Currently, Laytonsville goes to Baker Middle and Damascus and Gaithersburg Middle School and
two Gaithersburg Gaithersburg High School. In the superintendent's recommendation, all of Laytonsville will articulate to Holly Wells and then to Damascus High School. So current cost of. For Baker and Gaithersburg middle school
because the. You know that's the existing route we would have to keep for grandfathering a cost of $625,000 a year. So if we, if the board chose to only grandfather eighth grader, which is the recommendation,
the cost would. The first year's cost would be 1.6 million because we would have, you know, eight new routes for Halliwell's to. And then to Damascus High School, and then in year two and year three, and afterwards it will be $1
million. Obviously, the cost would extend for another year if the decision is to grandfather both seventh and eighth graders. And the last example that we have is for Brown Station Elementary School. This is an example of a straight articulation to
straight articulation. So current middle school and high school is Lakeland Parks and to Quince Orchard. And in the recommendation Brown station would move to Roberto Clemente Middle School and then to Northwest High School. Currently, there are six
existing routes from Lakeland for Lakelands Park Middle School, which at a cost of roughly seven $750,000. And then the. The proposed option would add three new routes at 375,000. So the first year the
cost would be roughly a little over $1 million and then would go down to 375. So we will be realizing a lot of savings in the in the transportation. However, if the grandfathering extends to seventh and eighth grade, then the additional cost
of $750,000 will add on to year. Number two, if you could go to the next slide, please. So again, what we talked about for the transportation cost during the transition, there will be challenges. There will be increased costs. In the beginning as we demonstrated.
And obviously we will have a our resources stretched thin. Both bus drivers as well as busses and then, you know, possible service impacturing grandfathering for longer ride
distances. But those will eventually, after the grandfathering is completed, as the transitional grades move through and the regional transportation model takes effect. So talking about the grandfathering real quick, the proposed grandfathering for
middle school implementation will take one year. So the recommendation is to grant only grandfathered the eighth graders to remain in their current school to finish out their middle school years, and grade 6 to 7 will be implemented in the 2728 school
year. So full implementation for middle schools will happen in the 2829 school year. So sixth and seventh graders whose assignments changing will need to attend their newly assigned school beginning that year, regardless of they have
siblings or not. And the only exceptions, we talked about it during the program presentation would be the students that are currently in regional programs, and then high school implementation would be recommendation is 11th and 12th
grades remain in their current high school, and then grades nine and you know, nine and ten will move to their new high school starting in 2728 and then full implementation from all grades nine through 12 in
the 2930 school year. There will be exceptions. We pointed out in the implementation plan that Cedar Grove and Laytonsville Elementary School areas will begin boundary implementations beginning in 2728 and. But other Clarksburg
school students will be delayed. Implementation until the additional capacity becomes available in 2031 32. So middle school grandfathering. We did hear quite a bit from the
community about, and we acknowledge the concerns about disruptions to middle schoolers to have to change of school assignments when the middle school years are already small, they're only there for three years. So the sizes of cohorts. So there was questions about sizes of cohorts. Sixth and
seventh grades proposed to change middle schools together. So Arcola, about 162 students to Sligo Middle School, Woodlynne would have 185 students to Silver Screen, Silver Creek Gibbs Elementary School, 176 students to Martin
Luther King Junior Middle and Southlake will have 194 students articulating to Forest Oaks Middle School. And then the proposal for only grandfathering eighth graders is, you know, we do have examples. It's typically
typical that, you know, when there's changes in the middle school articulation, that the recommendation is only grandfathering eighth graders. And it was that's what took place when we had the opening of Seneca Valley High School. Only the eighth graders remained in their existing
middle schools, and the changes took place for sixth and seventh graders. There are ways we can, you know, help alleviate the concerns that families have and to make sure that the students feel welcome in the new schools, including, you know, having common activities to help foster, you know, foster a sense of
community team building activities across grade level teams, students creating a new traditions together and outdoor educations for grades six to visit the the, their, you know,
schools they're articulating to, to move it over. Can I just point out one error that we have noticed the bullet for Woodland Elementary School. That is the number of students going to Sims, not to Silver Creek. Just wanted to correct that. We will get that corrected on an updated
document. You just eliminated my question. Thank you. Yes, I figured. I'll pass it on to Mr. Conolly now. All right. Good morning or afternoon or wherever we're at. So we heard from plenty of community members and board members alike.
You know, what does it cost to run a high school? And as someone that manages the capital budget, it's, you know, community members are always fascinated that it costs as much as it does to get a painting project at a high school. It cost over $1 million these days. So it's a
fascinating exercise just to dig deep into the numbers. So what you're seeing right now is the majority of the operating costs and the budget for the existing Wootton High School in FY 26. I will have one caveat at the end, but these are FY 26
numbers. So we broke it up by administrators. You know, our principal and our EPS, our lovely supporting service staff, whether it's the main office, paraprofessionals, security building service, etc. and then more obvious teachers,
textbooks, materials, other supplies, and then our utilities, our actual FY 25 utility numbers. So you can see we broke it up by electricity, natural gas, water and sewer and recycling services. So for
FY 26 it is budgeted with FY 20. Assuming FY 25 utilities, it costs $27.4 million to run the existing Thomas S Wooton High School. We took a deeper dive
because we've been asked, what does it cost to open a new school? And I think the easiest way I can rationalize this is if we were to have 4000 students and we opened up a new high school when we split them 2002 thousand, this is the new
2000 student. You're taking most of those teachers and you're moving them to the new building, but you are required to have resource teachers, media specialists and other administrators because those teachers, you know, will have, they'll they'll transfer. But
you're definitely adding new building services staff to take care of the building, new food, nutrition services, paraprofessionals. So this is the non enrollment based, meaning this is what you need
to open up a new building and have it staffed. And you can see that's 9.6 million. And this is an annual number. So this would be additive each year. And one other thing we were asked is well what does it
look like to operate a building, whether it's, you know, vacant or it's a holding school with a school in it. So this third chart. You can see on the left, this would be occupied with
another school. The column on the right would be vacant with some community use. And this is no different than we currently only have elementary holding schools. So to give an example, high school X, Y, and Z is receiving a major capital
project or a systemic project relocates to a high school holding school. You're going to take all those administrators supporting staff, teachers, textbooks and materials. You're going to transfer that to the holding school. So those are net neutral, right? They're traveling with from their home
school to the holding school transportation. What we did, we assumed the delta of the Northwood to Woodward. So the there are typically 16 busses for Northwood High School. When
they were back at their home site, we had to add an additional 17 busses to transport them to the Woodward site. So this is that Delta, this is that 17 bus count. And again these are averages 125,000 per route. Your building service supplies.
You're going to be net neutral. And we just assumed the utilities, the FY 25 utilities for Wootton when it's vacant with community use, you obviously don't need administrators, teachers, textbooks and materials or transportation. What we did do
is we assumed a 0.2 building service manager and a 0.2 security assistant. Right now, we do have rovers for building services and security assistance where they go and monitor. But this would be in
addition to that to relieve those current and existing positions. And that's with salaries and benefits for that supporting services line of 28,000. The building service supplies. We did a, you know, a ballpark number. The existing
one is about 17,000. So we did a third because you're obviously going to need to keep the building up and clean. And then utilities, what we did was we used Grosvenor when woodland was there. So when when Grosvenor was occupied, what
were those utilities. And then when woodland moved, what did it look like when it was vacant? So we applied that percentage to the FY 25 utilities of Wootton. So that gets you roughly 250,000. That number could go up. That number could go down. It's all going to
depend on how much that building is used. You know, various heating and cooling seasons. Those always vary. So these are just a snapshot. And for you to really contextualize what it what Wooten currently
costs to run as a comprehensive high school. If we added a new high school online and then also holding high school while it's vacant and when it has another school with it. I think this would be a good time to
pause. There was a lot. Yep. So, Miss Montoya, thank you. This is a lot of really great information because these are a lot of the questions we get asked. But I want to try to pose the question in a different way, in a way that I've heard it because this
doesn't it does go towards this, but the folks in the community might not quite be picking up the answer. Right. So one thing I hear is if we're going to put money into fixing the facility as a holding to the tune of up to $100 million, right? Because that's a number that we've kind
of said it shouldn't cost more than that. And that's the number the community is using now, even though it might be much less. Let's just take 100 million for argument's sake, if it takes 100 million to get that facility up to holding school status, how much? Even with that, under the
superintendent's recommendation, where students and faculty would move with some of the Gaithersburg folks into high school 27, which means no rebuild as a comprehensive high school for the current facility. But we're still going to put
some money into it for holding. How much overall does M.C.P.S. save by not having high school? 27 a rebuilt on the current site, right? That's because here's what I'm hearing from the community. Well, if you're going to put 100 million into
the facility, then we only need to raise another 100 million and let's just rebuild the school. So why are we doing that? But I don't that is not my understanding of the numbers and the cost. So I just want to be very, very clear because it hurts me actually, when I hear community members, because they work so hard on their testimonies and getting
information. But then there's one piece of information that is very clearly not correct. And I can understand then how they would think right along the path that they're thinking. So I just want to be very clear about what is being saved under the recommendation that could. Yeah, sure. Two big pots of
money that that are definitely a factor. And, you know, our objectives are about building utilization and making sure we're utilizing our existing facilities, or at least the facilities within our portfolio to the best of our ability. There is some cost savings in
the operating budget, and then there's some cost savings on the CIP, which allows us to do more and other projects. I'll start with the operating budget. The comparison here is the overhead associated with opening a new high school is
$9.6 million, estimated just to open a new facility, because again, you have to have administration, you have to have additional resource teachers. You have to have media center that's full of materials. So if you are expanding your portfolio, this
would be the annual cost that you would have to do. So not opening that is effectively a savings of $9.6 million plus the operating money, which is the 27.6, which ends up to be about $37 million. So on an operating budget, by not
operating an additional comprehensive high school, there's 37 million. So with the 29 being the annual. So so I would say now it's going to be 9.6 in terms of a savings for the future by not opening it so
that this is the net difference. So yes, you're right in total cost because we're also not operating an additional high school. So there's not an additional 29 million every year to operate an additional high school. Correct. Except that you're still going to operate your the same number. So you're if you're going if
you're still. Well, no, because we have 26 now, if we open up a. 27, then that's an additional 29 million every year. Correct. It would be an additional 9.6 in terms of overhead, because part of the issue is, is that the rest of the teachers, the
other 150 or so teachers are going to be proportional to the students that are enrolled. So the rest of the staffing beyond just this overhead, this is this is just just to open, get the door open, just to get the
door open. The rest of that is going to be proportional and taken from other places. So you're asking a really good question. Okay, so it's it is it's just going to come from somewhere else. It's going to come from somewhere else. Okay. By contrast, though, you know, it does cost us to, to have
buildings in our portfolio that we're not using. And it does cost us to have buildings in our portfolio that we use for holding schools, except that the cost difference is $9.6 million or. Next slide 275,000
250,000 or 540,000, depending on how we're utilizing that facility. So that's the operating budget no matter what. Having an additional facility in your portfolio costs you money to have the lights on, to keep it clean, to keep it secure, no matter what. It
costs you money. This has to be on still and things because of the temperature control and the pipes and moisture and how you're utilizing it makes a difference. So for example, when it says here occupied with another school, the reason that so much of the costs are net neutral is because that school
staff leaves the school that they were in to utilize this new school as a holding school. And so it's almost like they're a transplant and there's a jump in transportation costs. Of course there is, because the transportation that that that the students were normally
taking to get to their school, they may have been in a walk zone. You may have to expand transportation to account for that. All of those things get factored in. And then now the costs jump up, the utilities jump up as well because the building is being utilized. And
it is not a net difference because we're still going to have utilities going on at the facility that's being fixed or upgraded or what have you. While the students are utilizing the facility as a holding school. Okay, that's the operating budget. Now let's
talk about the capital budget, because this is over multiple years, and this is maybe the part that that generates a lot of confusion. You know, if we took a look at upfront costs and projects like for, say, the
current Wooton facility, yeah, we might be looking at somewhere in the neighborhood of 30 to $40 million in immediate upgraded needs, but we wouldn't do all of that all at one time. We would do that over a 6 to 10 year period of
time and try to tackle those projects one at a time. Could we use the Wooton facility immediately as a holding facility? Yes we could. Would we want to do some work to it? Yes, we would want to do some work to it. We would want to do
some work to it every year in pieces and in parts, just to to make some of those improvements. The substantive renovations and refurbishments that we're talking about in terms of like a capital project are much, much more expensive, much, much
more extensive and would involve really taking the building down to its masonry studs and, and doing a much more extensive systems work than what we would do to maintain it for a holding facility. So yes. And how much
does that cost? So, so can I chime in on that? Go ahead. On November 4th during the CIP work session, slide 46 and 47, which are still available for the public on board docs. We did this exact comparison between Damascus, Wooten and Magruder, and we provided cost
in there for Wooten. We did different scenarios of whether we did a renewal without a holding school. We showed an on site without a holding school and a renewal with a holding school. And certainly the costs vary. And we tried to show that with different years of completion to account for
different escalations, but looking at multiple scenarios and where they would open. And because currently Wooten is third on the list. When you look at Damascus, then Magruder and Wooten, the numbers we shared on slide 46 were
453,000,383 million and 297 million, again, depending on whether you're doing a renewal and you're swinging them on site with trailers or you're moving them off site, or you're doing a renewal versus replacement. So that's anywhere from 30 million to 100 million. We're comparing against these
capital numbers in terms to 300 to 383, I think was the highest one. We showed a 453 to 453, largely because that one's even further out, further out because of escalation timelines. And roughly 300 million is probably a very right. So so
the gap between the highest amount of investment for holding and even the lowest amount of investment for renovation or rebuilding is far more than $100 million. And I think that's the point that I want the community to understand here, just so that we're all operating with the
same numbers, right? This gap that needs to be quote unquote filled or that people are trying to say, well, you know, it's not that big, come on, we can do that. And I do understand, but it's, it's a much, much larger gap. And again, that money has to come
from the county council also. Right? It's not about that. We have it back here in the, you know, boardroom. And we're just not wanting to spend it. Right. It has to come from the county council. But theoretically it's sounding like if Wooten facility could be used as a holding now that if if the
county council were to give us that money, that it could be possible to move a school into Wooten as soon as the. The staff and students are relocated and if we had the money we could potentially do.
Magruder and Damascus rebuilds or whatever the right term is. I apologize simultaneously if we had the money. So it certainly introduces that as a possibility where before it was not. And so that that definitely positions us very
differently than we were even six months ago. It also positions us differently for Hvac projects. One of the biggest pain points that we experience with Hvac projects is that the working months for Hvac work are the summertime, when the students are not in
the building, which also limits our ability to do summer programing in in those facilities as well. And the staff that are working there in the summer are miserable because we have to shut everything down to, to, to do upgrades to the project. It also speeds up those projects
you've captured. Probably one of the most critical things that often gets overlooked in CIP work, and that's the cost of time, and that the escalation of time really amplifies our costs on a pretty dramatic level. Something that cost $40 million or $30 million
today could be $100 million in just a few years right. So if we had the money now and could really get in front of these projects like rebuilding a Magruder. It could actually cost less money for the county and us as well. Okay. Thank you for context. Damascus High School is in the requested CIP at 306 million for a
replacement project in today's dollars. So that's how those numbers crept up to the to the upper three hundreds, even probably close to 400. Mr. Wolff. I think you just said something that I really didn't
understand until just now when we talked about the possibility of turning Wooten into a holding school and needing $100 million renovation, I didn't realize that that would be spread out over years. I thought it was going to be 100
million right then and there, which I think is very important because when you talked about possibly renovating Magruder on site, it was 100 million more. And one of the questions I always get is, well, why don't you take that 100 million, add
it to the 100 million that you're going to put into Wooten and build us a new school. So that's a key point that I really didn't pick up on until just now. And all of it is a bunch of 100 million that we don't have. Just to be crystal
clear, monopoly money, Miss Stewart. So I just want to. Reiterate something about this so we could know folks have talked about operating Crown as
like a high bid method, right? So you would have 500 students in there. And then as we had renovations then at other high schools like Magruder, like Wooten, then they would move in.
And then as a holding school, they move out. But I like to live in reality and to get the money for Magruder first. Just that alone is probably going to
take many years, unless there's a huge jump in our funding. And then another group of years for Wooten. So I think I saw in the presentation, can you run a
high school with 500 kids while you're waiting for it to be holding school? Because that would be a lot of years with only 500 kids in the school. So simply put, no, not with the programing that would be
commensurate with other high schools that were offering. Part of the challenge is we're able to offer the portfolio of classes that we offer currently right now, because we capture economies of scale. And when you have just 125 students per
grade level, you're really talking about just a handful of sections. And if those students want to take different elective offerings, either one of two things is going to happen very quickly. Either the costs are going to shoot up and you're
going to have kids that are the only person in some classes, or you're not going to be able to run certain electives because there aren't enough students to enroll in those electives. And the offerings that would be available to those students
would be diminished to virtually nothing. So I get the sentiment. I appreciate the sentiment. Unfortunately, the sentiment doesn't line up with reality and how how operations actually work at a high school level and what you actually
have to do in terms of other opportunities that enrich the high school experience, things like social activities like dances and different events that schools have, those tend to be greatly diminished when the school population falls
under 1000. When you have interscholastic athletics and activities, those two tend to be diminished significantly when the student population runs under 1000. So in those lean years, when there isn't an extra school worth of kids in
the building, the the offerings and the ability for us to run those things, we would be stuck with a pretty difficult choice of either embracing exorbitant costs to run those things independently or to not run
them at, because we're not able to capture the economies of scale. So being that we have to live in reality, that doesn't seem a viable choice to me. So that leaves us with opening Crown as a full high
school, which means another $9 million a year in costs of operating another high school or. Relocating Wooten to the school. Those are our choices.
And my would you agree for choices? We could actually. Those are our practical limitations. Yes. Thank you is really limited to those options. Sylvester. Yes, I had heard that there's also a limitation in terms of opening a high
school. That small number of students. Is that in fact the case? I haven't heard that because, candidly, we have never had that problem in Montgomery County. That has not been one of our struggles, for sure. But I'll provide some additional context and give you
an example. Poolesville High School is or could be just based on the residents within the attendance zone, a very small school. And and there is a balance to be obtained when
you have a large geographic attendance zone, but a small student population. And so you're confronted with how you solve that problem. And one of the ways that you do that is by offering programing to draw students in. But really that tends to benefit the resident
students actually more than it benefits the program drawn in students because you're offering more classes that way. And then a follow up question to the previous question about the repair, the funding for repairs for Wooten, where is that in the CIP? I think that's
a question that has been brought up. I believe it's not in the current. Yeah. It's it's not going to work. It's not scoped in the CIP. And and again, some of this is tied to the sequence of events of how we have to scope all of this out. You know, one of the
things that that I've heard in the, the rumor mill of, of Montgomery County is you planned all of this all along? No, I'm sorry, we didn't. And certainly we would have different ideas of what our CIP would look like for sure, if this was a part of that
informed decision making. We presented a CIP for the board's consideration in October, and as part of that, it's a six year plan where the first two years of that plan are the most meaningful, because those are the those are the two years that receive the attention for
funding directly. And the subsequent years are really just that. They're a plan, they are a budget. And so when we come back in the CIP process for amendments next year and for the full CIP two years from now or a year and a half from
now, you should expect to see some of the systems work aligned, because having a better understanding of what your game plan is for facilities and how you intend to utilize them should be one of the inputs that informs the
CIP. And so until that's decided, it doesn't make a whole lot of sense for you to include it into the CIP without a clear pathway for you to understand what you want to do with it. Thank you. And another worst case scenario scenario or
best case scenario, depending on how you see it. So if if the board decides to go with the recommendation and move Wooten students to crown immediately or in the next cycle, and then
we start using the the building Wooten building as a holding school. The sequence of the upcoming projects, again, this is over a long period of time because there isn't a lot of money to do any of this right now. After the. The building's
is used as a holding school for the two schools. Worst case scenario, best case scenario, and we have the money we could and we have the money and the attendance. We could rebuild
Wooten and reopen it as a comprehensive high school. Yes, you have that capability because you have an additional high school facility in your portfolio. Like right now, your your options for expansion are pretty limited to, to building
something new, but having something that is in the queue, you have it. And so yes, nothing is permanent. You absolutely have the authority and the ability to move campuses where you see fit and to make other adjustments and new boundaries for to adjust
for growth. This is inevitably something you're going to have to do no matter what. I think that would be the best case scenario. We would love to be wrong about about projections of student enrollment. We we would we would love to. We don't think that we are. But we would love to be wrong. But
there's also a whole host of things beyond just school replacement or school renovations to use a holding facility for. Again, I'll elevate significant roofing projects, significant building envelope projects, significant Hvac projects. You could
utilize a holding school for a short period of time, and get a project done that would normally take us 2 or 3 years and get it done in a 4 to 6 month window and really accelerate your CIP if you had the funding to do so. And I think we will have the opportunity to do that in
between high school projects. But I just wanted to put that out there. I know I see you all Silvestre we're going to move on. So we just have we, we we're not even halfway through. If you have any more questions, we can ask staff. So you have a
question. Okay. Yeah, I have a question. I have a question and a comment going together with both of your comment and coupled with community's concern about future growth,
which I would love to see, we we grow as a company. That means we have economic vitality. I would love that. Is that a way that we can, as a board to examine boundary facility you
codify maybe how. Because part of this is we haven't done a boundary really looking for 20 years or something like that. Is there a way we can codify and examine boundaries at a more frequent interval and so
that we can. I brought this up. We can. Yeah. So I actually mentioned this last time, right, about developing a regular cadence, but I don't know that this is the space for us to talk about that. You should. I plan to bring it up at the policy committee. Terrific. Thank you. With that, we're
going to move on. Excellent. That was a good transition to the next slide. We've actually talked a lot about this. But maybe just to recap the conversation. You know we were asked for what was this? What would be the schedule of the holding school until that, you
know, a decision is made by the board in terms of the boundaries, we have not formally presented a holding school, but that is something we do as part of the CIP every year in the book in October. And when the superintendents. There is a chart in there that lists Grosvenor Ratner, it lists all of our. And it shows
based on the funding that we request, when those. And who would go in those facilities. So we would anticipate. That would be something we would include. If the current facility becomes a holding school, they would be added to the chart and the CIP, and we would start to show who we
would sequence in and out based on approved capital projects. I think that's the important part. Until we have the confirmed budget, and we have talked with that community as using it as a holding school, we are not going to just share. You know, we've given lots of examples of
how we think we can use it, but we can't just bring a specific schedule. We've talked at length about the whole question of when are we going to renovate the holding school. You know, we still like many of our holding schools, we feel we could use the facility as is and over time, make the improvements based on some of the ones that we shared last
week in the work session. And then we've also talked about the third one already. Does Wooten as a holding school save money and time? And certainly it does. I think Doctor Taylor brought up, you know, the Remobilization every time we do Springbrook or Shorewood or any of these big high schools for
for summers, that contractor has to mobilize and mobilize for four summers, which certainly adds costs and just overall time and money to these projects. Okay, we're going to shift gears to just a few other follow up questions that we have received. We've received
extensive outreach from Darnestown requesting to all go to pool middle school instead of what is currently in the recommendation, which is Kingsview Middle School. We did just want to share that. We looked at that. John Poole Middle School is one of our smallest middle schools. It is
incredibly. You see the capacity there for 78 in the superintendent's recommendation. You can see it's at 407. So there is room. But if we add all of darnestown to John Pool, that enrollment would be at 110% at 530. It is certainly
something we can look at down the road with a future capital project, but at this time, this is not something we would recommend based on the overall utilization and the size of John Pool. We also have the elementary coming up coming up.
So we have a section for you to take a look at that. Yes. And absolutely could be part of that consideration. Correct. There was another request to just do a cross comparison. So there's a number of slides. I'm certainly not going to read off these percentages, but I'll just walk you through what this
is. This starts with the Woodward Northwood High schools. It shows what their current facility utilization is based on. Residents, students, school year 2526. What's in the superintendent's recommendation? And then an alternate alternative. Looking at the
verse mill split articulation and just comparing those various utilizations, we did the same thing for middle school. There was no change at the middle school of any of the alternatives that were discussed. So this is really just comparing current facility utilization to the
superintendent's. We have done the same thing for the Crown and Damascus boundary, listing all of the high schools, their current facility utilization, the superintendent's recommendation, and then the alternative. And this alternative is referencing the
middle school one that was presented. So there was no change at the high school for that. You will see that change at the middle school. Great. And the last two slides for this section, we just wanted to
remind everyone, you know, we've presented this slide many times since we initially rolled out the CIP in October, really highlighting what has been the history of M.c.p.s enrollment since 1950. And we've talked about, you know, we've been
since 1983, mostly on this upward trajectory. That's for most of us here. That's all we've ever known, right, is this enrollment growth. And the data is starting to show us something different, particularly driven by the live birth rates. And while, you know, we know that development
continues to increase in various rates across the county, we are not seeing that same data with our enrollment right now. And really wanted to also point out that, you know, during this 1970 and mid 1980s, there was development growth
still happening in the county. Like we will probably see and continue to hope. To Mr. Yang's point, right? That is great for the county. That is a good thing for us to be experience. And while oftentimes development and enrollment do sort of continue on the same path, that's not always the
case. Again, just pointing out the 1970 to 1983 where we saw a significant decline in our enrollment, but that was not necessarily the case for the development. And again, this is not a new slide for you all either. We've previously presented this, but just highlighting, you know, where
we were at our Max in 2019, at our peak of enrollment at 165,000 students. And slowly, you know, certainly we saw the the rebound, like so many other areas across the country of the year after Covid. But since that, we have continuously seen
a decline. And based on every information that we have at this moment, driven a lot by the live birth rates that have been down since 2007, we project that this will continue for the foreseeable future. So if we are ready, we can continue on to remind you all
of what the scope proposed scope is for the county wide elementary boundary study, and the implications and potential closure and consolidation study that we intend to group together with no questions. I'm going to keep us moving. One
one question. Yeah. Sorry. Yes. Quickly. So these utilization numbers are very important. The one thing we haven't talked about is middle school future middle school programing, because we kind of had to put a
pause on that. And some folks look at these utilization and think about current programs in the middle schools. And will there be room for these current programs to continue while we're looking into middle school programing that will be
covered in part of our elementary boundary study scope conversation? Okay, so so when the when the schools open, will the middle school conversation happen before the new, you know,
FY 20, FY 28? So yes, we will have to have that conversation because of changes to mathematics at the state level as the building utilizations are projected right now running existing programing seems to be
okay, but making changes to programing is going to need to be considered as part of the elementary boundary study shift. Okay. Thank you. Excellent. Okay. I'm going to take us through some slides. We presented several of these to you all back on February 5th,
but just wanted to remind you what's in front of you for consideration. Resolution will come to you at the March 26th to consider the scope of work. So I want to start by talking about the need. You know, why do we feel that we need to move forward with a countywide
elementary boundary? And as part of that process, do consider school closures and consolidations at both the secondary and elementary level. We want to ensure that we are fiscally responsible and properly investing funds where needed by looking at factors such as facility condition
utilization and placement of relocatable classrooms. We want to address declining enrollment through board policy, FAA factors. We want to ensure that we are serving special education students closest to their home when possible. We also want to address we've talked about a lot about this today. Noncontiguous boundaries
and island assignments and specific to the elementary. We also want to revisit the paired school model and confirm that that's working and that that's something that should continue. We also wanted to start by talking about lessons learned. And this is just a quick
summary. I think we all staff, I'm sure you all the community, we have learned a lot by going through this current boundary, the two of them over the last almost 18 months. And there's certainly an advantage to that. Lots of room for improvement as we move through another one.
You know, we want to continue to tap into our family engagement team as a resource. They are out and about. They know our families really well and can be a huge asset to us. On the facilities team. As we really lead a lot of this work, we want to identify the most widely spoken languages in the
community and ensure that translation and interpretation services are provided. We want to work with the community project team to help identify means and methods of outreach to certain communities, you know, improve on what we've done, what else, what other opportunities do we have?
Number four, you know, in November, we did this across many of the different regions and all the regions. We did a multiformat opportunity with small group discussions and interactions, and we think that was a really successful format. We had members of the program team there from the facilities team, their staff that were
able to answer direct parent questions. We had maps up. So something similar to that we, you know, we've also learned over time that while we might have to do some type of large work group, that does not always seem to be as effective as we would hope. You know,
some people don't always feel comfortable speaking up while others do. And so we want to think, what is the right size of the workgroup, not suggesting we shouldn't have a workgroup and shouldn't use those resources, but what is the right size and cadence of meeting with different groups to make sure that all voices are heard and people are part
of that process? I really want to think through the cadence of the study should be spaced. Paste in such a way that the options presented do not feel rushed to anyone. And there's a fine line between this, right? We need to keep things moving and not drag it out for
families, but we also need to make sure we give them the opportunity to participate and share input to us. And then student input should be sought more deliberately, right? We focused a lot on the parents, but how else can we engage with our students who know, you know these schools and know our
teachers and staff quite well, especially when it comes to the secondary students? So let's talk about the overarching process for this. Certainly, we will follow the criteria and board policy. FAA and Kumar for
development of both the closure or consolidation study and the countywide elementary study. We will follow policy ABA, which is the community engagement and hold public meetings, public hearings. We will seek input from stakeholders and conduct broad outreach to communities, both the formal and informal,
virtually and in person. We will develop multiple boundary options in order to explore various solutions. I think this you could put this on the lessons learned too. How do we stress to the community that we will go through multiple rounds of options? You know, we heard that a lot from people that
participated in the options in June of this year, and then feel like they didn't understand there were going to be new options in October. That is a normal process. We will develop multiple rounds of options. And so really making sure that the process is clear with people that that will be a part, conduct surveys and utilize other means of
soliciting feedback and prepare the superintendent and board with as much data and information as possible to make the best and informed decisions. So we see this, and you'll see this in the timeline that we will remind you all of what
we've proposed. But we see this as sort of a two step process, starting with considering possible school closures and consolidations. And this would be for the elementary and middle schools. The board would make a decision on any of those, and then we would move in to
new boundaries for all elementary schools and any middle schools that were approved for closures and consolidations. So let's talk a little bit about the scope for the school closure and consolidation study that we see as the first step in this
process. We really want to make sure we start by developing an overarching criteria and metrics that would be used to determine the recommendations. We've already received this feedback from the community. We 100% agree we need to take considerations not just from
facility utilization but seat availability. And specifically, we heard it this week in public testimony. How are we calculating capacities. And so we want to come back to you as the board and to the community share how we currently calculate capacities. What does the state do? What do other
areas in Maryland do? Give you that full assessment and confirm if we need to change anything? That's a big part of this. Looking at facility conditions, the ability to expand on site, meaning additional construction and capacity at any of the existing sites, looking at the site and
program delivery limitations and the geography and ease of access, we also want to evaluate whether there's enough room for capacity available to adjacent and nearby schools. Right? That's a huge part. And where those are geographically placed. And then we mentioned, I mentioned earlier on the
slide looking, revisiting the paired school model at the elementary level to see if any unpairing study should be undertaken. And then for the boundary study. So this would be the second part. We want to make sure that we're balancing enrollment across the
elementary schools and any secondary that would become a part of this based on any closure or consolidation to optimize the use of our existing facilities, we want to make sure we're addressing noncontiguous boundaries and island assignments. We want to take a countywide look to see
where boundary adjustments are warranted based on approved closures and consolidations. Again, if any. That would be the first step at both the elementary and middle school level, and then review elementary school articulation patterns and program offerings in context of the program regions, and specifically
really targeting that middle school. Okay, so here are the proposed timelines in front of you. The first line is our recommendation to you all. We are proposing that we would start with the closure and
consolidation process. We would do that basically in school year 2627, and we have a more detailed breakdown in the upcoming slides, if that's helpful. But ultimately, the superintendent's recommendation would come to you in early April. We would go through the same work session and public
hearing process with a board action in May of 2027 that would then allow us to move into the next school year to do the boundary study process, and then give us, with your board action of May of 2028, with a 15 month implementation for
school year 2930. The other two options. The second option puts your action in March, which is more traditional. We're recommending moving that out to May just to give two additional months for community engagement and option development. But
still, between the recommendation and option two, it's still the same implementation implementation timeline. So I just wanted to point out the differences. And then option three does a much longer initial runway and start. So therefore it delays the
implementation by a year. So this would not be until school year 3031. And just to close out, this really walks you through sort of what we would anticipate every couple months to happen, you know, starting with presenting to you all the
scope, going through an RFP to solicit a company, awarding that, doing the data collection and development, you know, presenting initial options to the community with, again, an April recommendation from the superintendent to the board for that initial school closure
consolidation with the final approval in May of 2027. And then this sort of takes you into the next year, looking at the boundary where we would move into the boundary study process based on any closures and consolidations. With a May
of 2028 board action on that to be implemented in school year 2930. And the last slide is the same exact data, just graphically shown in a different way. If it's helpful to look at it in a calendar format. And with that, this might be a good time to pause
for questions before we move into the CIP non-recommended scenarios. Yeah, just a clarifying question because we heard feedback about for some, community relief doesn't come
soon enough because their schools are overcrowded at the moment. So what we are saying is right after this boundary study, after the summer break, we are starting the elementary school boundary study and consolidation right away.
Correct. That is what this our recommended timeline is that we would roll right into this this summer. We would do an RFP to solicit the team. Just noting that the first step would be that closure and consolidation and then the boundary studies. Okay, so to go with that line,
this high school or secondary boundary study, which is half of our students, you know, it's a little bit more than half seven grades and elementary school is six grades. So a little bit more than half. It's taking us 18 months. Why does
this one require 24 months? Really because of the school closure and consolidation. Right. We want to be sensitive to that. There's a lot of data that needs to be presented. You know we saw that this fall, right. And that the process did not feel that there was adequate time. And so we want
to be mindful of that. You know, there's a fine line of going too fast and too slow. We think the recommended timeline sort of strikes that balance of both, but we want to make sure we've given adequate time to any closure and consolidation consideration for next year. We need that information before we
move into the boundary. Actually drawing the boundary lines. There will be consideration because we need to we can't bring something to you that we don't think we can accommodate, certainly. And so there will be initial proposals, but that's the first step. I appreciate that comment because
you can't put the cart before the horse. We need to have a very good sense of structure or consideration, guardrails and parameters before we proceed. Thank you, Miss Stewart. Would
we expect that all the closure and consolidations would be implemented with the implementation goal here? Yes, they would be implemented at the same time as the boundaries,
not prior to. How about would there ever be? Could you see a possibility that could be implemented implemented, sorry, implemented. I knew that didn't sound right. Implemented after.
Could you see a situation that could happen? Not likely, because part of the issue is, is you're building boundaries under the assumption of certain consolidations and potential closures. So you you would want to do that in conjunction. It wouldn't make sense for you to
do that on a different timeline. Thank you, Miss Silvester. Just a comment. Just in the engagement for this process, try to think about how to do it at the schools because this
come to this meeting, it's just not it's not working. And also in language not translated, so much is lost in translation. So think about doing the sessions in language. Thank you. Thank
you. Let's keep going. Okay. I'm going to pass it over to Mr. Conolly to take us through the CIP Non-recommended scenarios. All right. So it seems like ages ago since caution th canary showed up on
a screen near you and we gave we gave an overview of where we're at in terms of our facilities and where we see ourselves heading. A lot of firsts this year with our CIP. I think we really laid it out in a different format.
Hopefully it was received in a more transparent way, both with tables, charts, and just extra data that we've never shown before. But again, a lot of firsts. So in October, Doctor Taylor brought out his
recommendation of $2.787 billion. It's the highest recommendation ever on M.C.P.S. history. And then in November, the board followed with that request. So your request went through in November. And from
November to mid January, that went to the county executive. And mid January, the county executive also recommended his largest MCPs CIP at $2.135 billion. We really appreciate
the county executive's, you know, largest recommendation ever. However, that left us $652 million short of your request. So on February 11th, we met with the EDM Culture
Committee, and that was when we were formally requested to do what we were asked almost every single year, last year, being the exception to the rule, and create some nonrecommended reductions that would align with the county executive's
recommendation. Again, this is not recommended by M.C.P.S. This is not recommended by the Board of Education. This is an exercise we must do in order to try to align your request to the county executive's recommendation. So some of the
highlights. That yellow column is the overall six year request. You can see the $652 million reduction. And we're going to highlight that FY 2029, the board's request was $518
million in FY 29, and the county executive's recommended CIP was 273 million with a delta of. It's a reduction of 245 million. There. The reason this is so important is this is
the first year of construction for our single largest project ever, Damascus High School. It's also the first year of construction for our single largest middle school project, Eastern Middle School. And it's also the majority of construction funding for alternative education programs. This is a very important year
for M.C.P.S. So just just putting that out there. So his overall six year was reduction of 652. It removed Sligo Middle School and Sligo Creek Elementary and reduced the scope of eastern. This was due to, in part, the suspension of the closure of Simms. It
removed turf installation. It removed the headquarters project at CSC. It did not reflect level of effort, inflation and. We'll get to that in a second. And it reduced our school security systems in FY 27. All right.
There he is. Without further ado, caution the canary. So based on our school system size, we presented this back in the fall that we should really be opening up some sort of major capital project, whether it's a renovation, a renewal or
replacement, we should be opening nine of those per year, six elementaries, two middle and one high school. We are opening two elementaries this upcoming fall, Burtonsville and Joanne Lilac. But for the first time in decades, we could
really dig in. But decades we don't have a project in design. Leilak and Burtonsville are the last. We have not been designing a school, so I want to put that in context. Main reason for that is we've been building a lot of high schools.
Poolesville, Woodward, Crown. So Northwood, that's the majority of our. So people were like, you, can you find another 300 million. Well, that's not really realistic in the world that we're living in right now. So it has consumed the majority
of our CIP the last few years. So we're going to go over these nonrecommended Nonrecommended being in bold reduction scenarios. There's there are two scenarios in front of you. For the public and both of these scenarios, we want to
show that these monies here, these expenditures, they can't go anywhere. These buildings are currently under construction. It shows you the amount 17.5 million for Burtonsville, but without adding a single project. Not an Hvac project, not a restroom project, not a asbestos
abatement, not any of our salaries in construction. The projects that we have coming online in the near future that are already under construction, take up almost 45% of the county executive's recommended CIP. I should also note that
the county executive's recommendation is above what can be approved in the spending affordability guidelines, so it's likely that we're not going to get that level of funding. So just throwing it out there, that's about 45% where we our hands are tied.
We're building these schools. They're going up. Some of them are opening up in in August. So for both scenarios, we suggested that we maintain the completion dates or the six year funding totals for the
following projects. Damascus High School, which in the six year was 284 million with a completion date of August of 2031. Eastern Middle School would remain on schedule and we reduced the scope and because of the capacity with $131
million. August of 2030 completion date, our alt ed programs were prioritizing that with the $31 million budget plan to open up in August of 2029. We also did not touch our Hvac replacements, tech mod roof replacements, school
security systems, our facility planning, which is important for us because that's how we plan on paying for the boundary study. The possible P three consultants, any feasibility studies, that's where those money's come from. And our materials management relocation, which is our warehouse and which we already have an
executed lease. So all these projects remain the same that they did in the board's request. All right. And both scenarios, the following major capital projects delays or removals occurred. So there were four
elementary schools that were recommended and requested to have a major capital project that was Piney Branch, Burning Tree, Cold Spring and Highland View. So Piney Branch and Burning Tree would be delayed by one year with a completion
date of August of 2032, and it would delay Cold Spring and Highland View by three years, with an estimated completion date of 2034. The reason for this? The priority is, simply put, is our CIP prioritization
framework, Piney Branch and Burning Tree in that framework were ranked higher in priority. So that is how we came up with these priorities. It also removed Sligo Creek Elementary Replacement and Sligo Middle School Major capital project, which aligned with the C's
recommendation. In both scenarios, we removed early childhood centers of 41.6 million. The holding school improvements. If we're not going to be able to move schools into these elementary school holding schools, make
sense to remove that, our transportation and regional support facilities delayed three years. Planning was supposed to start in FY 27. We've delayed it to FY 30, and the CSC project instead of the
conventional. Using geo bonds and any other local funding sources, we assumed a public private partnership, which Doctor Taylor brought up in October, and we assumed placeholder of $10 million a
year. We delayed it by one year, which reduced its six year total from 223 million to 30 million, with the majority of the funding coming in the out years. We are going to show the expenditure schedule in a little bit to show you what
that looks like. All right. More numbers. All right. The way you read this is the top line is the C's. The county executive's recommended C, I, P and this is what these nonrecommended reduction scenarios get us. So that
scenario A that we talked that we're going to talk about, it's $162,000 less than the county executive's recommended CIP. From there, you can see year by year expenditures. So in FY 27,
this Nonrecommended reduction is actually still 4 million, $4.3 million over the county executive's recommended CIP. Again, our exercise is to try to get it as close as possible. With construction. It's pretty difficult because you construct. When you construct, you can see
in FY 29, we're over by $78.6 million. Again, Damascus, eastern, Al and those are all first year construction. We are under in the out years, FY 3031 and 32, 47 million, 3 million,
almost 41 million. So you can see how these expenditure schedules line up. We felt it was very important to keep our county wide projects showing a 3 to 5% inflation, like you did in your in your request.
Traditionally, it's been a stagnant level of effort. If you ask for $10 million for PLA and FY 27, it would extend till FY 32. That is not reality. So what we did was we added 3 to 5% to reflect reality. Even
that it might go higher than that. And we're still not getting a level of effort in the CEO's recommendation. He did not do that. So we kept this for all of our county wide. You can see it Ada compliance, asbestos, which is building modifications and program
improvements, everything in that where it says notable changes, we kept that escalation cost. Scenario B is the same exact scenario that we just presented, except in FY 29,
we removed all of the county wide projects except for Hvac and a few others, but the majority of the projects that we have, the majority of the county wide projects would go
away. So yeah, so that's like 52 million. That is the 52 million that you're seeing in the the reduction. Yes. And this was purely an effort to do the exercise that we were asked. Again, we're asked every year. Last year actually was the
first year we never had to do it. But yes, you can, you can see a lot of these projects would be completely eliminated for one fiscal year. Can you just give me an example of one project that is no longer going to be there? That's. Yeah, sure.
So I can read that. Yeah, yeah, we'll call them out. So scenario A is on the left. Scenario B is on the right. Any of those tan. The tan color. Those were years that end projects that you had expenditures in. And they no
longer have an expenditure. Any number that's in red would be a difference, a different number than what we presented to the county executive originally. So this could be technical adjustments. It could be delaying, you know, a cold spring. It could be delaying a
Highland view or Piney Branch cold spring. It's that you can see the delay for the Transportation and Regional Services Center, the CSC project that that sort of comes in pretty hot and heavy, $10 million starting in FY 30. So these are the adjustments. So
you can see from scenario A to scenario B look at scenario B, focus on that middle column, the FY 2029. And look how much tan there is that those are all the projects that we're missing.
So we're missing our building modifications and program improvements. We're missing emergency replacement of major building components. Just throwing it out there. We have chillers and boilers that break down mid-year that we can't fund on the operating side. So we build in a little cushion
that goes away. Fire safety upgrades. Guess what? No fire panels. We're not replacing any fire panels. That year. Improved safe access, outdoor play space and athletic infrastructure. No relocatable, no restroom renovation projects
for FY 29. Again, this is a non-recommended. It's a little tricky because we actually came in $52 million under the C's, but this was purely to do our due diligence and do the exercise that we were asked to do. Again, we we've done it
every year except for last year. So these we're happy to answer any specific questions. Yeah. I have a question. On the early childhood centers. I see nothing but tan all the way across. So A and B. Yes, yes.
So my question is, is Burtonsville Elementary the current Burtonsville elementary that we were at one time thinking of as an early childhood center. So when they moved in, that building would just be sitting empty. Correct.
Okay. It's if you want to talk about the operating budget. Yes. So this is a significant burden because we know that there's the best, some of the best investments we can make in K-12 are actually in early childhood. It's tied to the blueprint for
sure. But our mandate is K-12. And so we have to to definitely take care of our K-12 space first as a as a priority, just because we are in such dire straits financially, we would
love to invest in in early childhood. The Burtonsville center is ideally situated for us to, to expand our early childhood footprint. We are just running out of money with the requirements of the blueprint though. How does that go along with the requirements
of. So the blueprint does have a portion of state funds that come to us, but they primarily come to us as operating dollars, not as capital dollars, zero capital dollars zero. So one example, though, I know everyone's tired of hearing
about enrollment decline, but specifically in the neck, we saw some enrollment decline for for schools that were intended to go to that burtonsville early childhood center, and they're actually able to accommodate 2 or 3 additional gen ed pre-K classes at their
home school. So we're actually accommodating roughly about the same amount. We're just not opening up that new facility, which it's pretty timely that we were showed that holding school chart earlier. You can see the overhead that it cost, but those students are actually being served closer to their
home. So we're actually very fortunate that happened this year, but not sure what the what the future holds on that. But I thought we were also, in addition to early childhood, looking at moving some sort of special needs programs into that building. Correct. We were going to do a split model. We were going to do. We were going
to open up with six gen ed pre-K and six prep classes. But those those classes are, you know, some of those are being absorbed, right, right down the street at Greencastle, to be perfectly honest. And you also removed money for the holding schools, which I understand why,
but I would encourage you to look into partnerships with some of our. City councils, particularly Rockville is interested in partnering because they're very concerned about any, any, any potential
holding school, because they're worried about having empty buildings in their city. So they want to work with us. And I would encourage you to look to Gaithersburg also. That's if we do end up voting to do it that way. Thank you, Miss
Montoya. Thank you. I have just kind of a general question about the way this works. So I heard you say that based on the count, the County Council's current spending affordability guidelines, which sometimes is the acronym S a G that the
county executive's recommendation for the CIP is still way over. So we're not getting that. So based on the county count, is that correct? It's not way over. It's it's over to up to 10% and it's ten
point the. So the council does have one additional opportunity to make an adjustment. However, the. The executive's budget is over. That said, spending affordability is for the entire
CIP and M.C.P.S. while it's a big part, is still only part. So, you know, the Council does have prioritization decisions to make within the spending affordability. Right? Okay. And so based on the current spending affordability guidelines, and we know that the county executive's recommendation is about 10%
over, I guess, do we have like a ballpark number that you wouldn't based on all the things we know, we're probably not going to get more than this under best case scenario. And so should we be thinking even more so about cutting because yeah, you kind of get where I'm
going. So the, the capital budget does work a little differently than the operating budget and the operating budget. Again, the board does have more discretion within the categories. The council does need to appropriate by project, which is one of the reasons they asked for this exercise.
But I do want to emphasize that this exercise that we were asked for does not change the board's request. We stand behind the board's request. So the council, as it gets closer to making actual funding decisions, will give us more information about their decisions on the projects. But
because in the capital budget the council appropriates by project, we will work with them as they begin to make those funding decisions. The board doesn't need to take further cutting decisions unless asked. Right. I guess what I'm asking is right. We said, okay, so the
difference between our request and the county executive's is 652 million, but then we're saying that's also about 10%, you know, more or less over what the council's spending affordability guidelines are. So then it seems like, well, when we're talking about
entertaining potential nonrecommended cuts, we're not just looking at 652 million. We're looking at most likely. Right. I'll give a very, very lay example. If the county executive recommended $6 billion for the entire county CIP and for whatever reason,
the spending affordability guidelines, whatever the case is, the full council only accepted 5 billion. All 5 billion could go to M.C.P.S. It's not feasible at all. So the number could go up just because the overall CIP for
every agency, HHS, transportation, parks, all everyone would just hate us. Yeah, pretty much just another. But there is flexibility with the full council to shift the overall amounts by year by project. It's a line item budget, and that's where the by
project becomes really important that fiscal year 29 is just really concerning to me. You know, we can all be, you know, somewhat okay, perhaps if we have to be about the next two years, but then in 29, we're just at a real stuck place. So I think two, I mean,
again, this so the CIP is a very massive jigsaw puzzle. It's, you know, 40 jigsaw puzzle every step forward, step back. Yeah. And in part because again, they. So the council asked for the, the school system's first stab at some priorities. And that's what we've put forward. That's to
help them inform their deliberations. But as Mr. Conolly said, they could make that kind of or something short of that allocation decision. And ultimately, the reason that we put scenario B forward was just to be responsive to what the executive put forward. The
council may have its own priorities for FY 29. They may not have the same priority. They may think FY 29 is just fine the way it is. So again, we were just trying to provide an illustration and really scenario B is intended also to illustrate what our priorities
are in terms of the projects that require continuity. So I think it, you know, appreciate how it looks. But also I think there just is there's a number of steps left to go. Thank you,
Miss Stewart. So I appreciate that. We talked about the private public partnership model for our headquarters. Will we also be looking at that
model for other projects? Because I think that could make a difference in some of our other projects that we had to remove from this budget. So I think, yes, yes, we do.
Although first step, we think we need to get through the elementary County-wide budget study and the school consolidation. As a first step, we want to make sure we are investing capital dollars, whether it's traditional geo bond process or the alternative delivery method. But yes, that
is something we will absolutely want to explore once we get through the study first, because reality is kind of hitting us in the face right now. And like you said, we don't even have a project in
design. We cannot continue with down this road. Right. And so I think having that P3 consultant and thinking about that moving forward, I think we're, we're we're there at this point in my
opinion. And so I look forward to that being presented to the board. Miss Silvester, you took my question, Miss Stewart. So I'm just going to ask a follow up there. So I also agree that we need to look at P3 because this is not sustainable in our.
Our school facilities are good for economic development in the county. People want to move to Montgomery County and have a nice building and not worry about Hvac. So this is an economic development imperative. So we have to explore other options. Could you tell us what are the advantages and
disadvantages of a P3 in high level terms? Because I know we were running out of time here. Yeah. Essentially what it does is it spreads out the payments. So instead of having to have $80 million and geo bonds available in the three years that we want to design and build elementary school that
would be spread over a 30 year payment, and often you're going to want to bundle multiple projects together. Or in the case of a CSC, we think that's a big enough site and project that that could be a standalone P3 project. But the other ones, it's really spreading out that
payment plan over a much longer period of time than how the bonds are currently. It's been described as a mortgage, correct? Right. So correct. It will cost you more in the end. It will it allows you to buy a house and live in it. Correct. Thank you. Thank you. We can
continue. That'd be great. Excellent. Homestretch. You're on the last section. This was asked again as a follow up to many of the public hearings and emails trying to go through as many of the follow up questions
specific to the CIP or, hey, you know, hardware is not working or hardware out of school or Hvac. And so we tried to capture those that we've heard over the last couple of public hearings. Want to just start with a reminder slide with Hvac costs over the last
seven years. And this is something similar to what we have shared throughout the CIP process. So the numbers show actual cost per square foot for an elementary school Hvac project that had similar scope in seven years, the price per
square foot increased by 143%, while funding levels only increased by 35%. We've talked a lot about that, right? We are just not keeping up in terms of the overall funding that we're receiving versus the construction escalation costs that we're seeing. Funding
levels should have been at 63 million in FY 25 to keep pace with inflation, and M.C.P.S. received 35 million. So in doing that, right, we're just cutting the number of overall projects that we can fund in any given fiscal year. So we did a comparison on our lovely
chalkboard that we like to provide. Looking at 2019 funding levels versus 2025, 26 million average cost per square foot, we could fund eight projects increased. You know,
we now receive again in FY 25, 35 million, the average cost per square foot has gone up, not quite tripled. And now we're looking at only five projects. So although the number has gone up, the funding level has gone up slightly overall because of the overall
cost per square foot. We have less Hvac projects in the queue. Okay, so one of the first questions we talked about, we received the question of how many school gymnasiums do not have air condition, just to make sure everyone's clear. The reason this comes up is
originally when we designed and constructed schools, we only put heating and cooling in the classrooms. That was not included in the gymnasium. So we've just provided that number for you as things have been designed since 2019, whether it's for a major capital
project or a standalone Hvac project. We are starting to add the AC, but this is going to take us time to get through these. This is not a problem that we are going to solve in the next six years of the CIP. It's really what I wanted to articulate here. And then
similar to the chalkboard exercise, just wanted to provide a real world example of a systemic project. So meaning this was a standalone Hvac project at Brookhaven. It was initially estimated to do that project at 168 million thousand,
sorry, in 2019. And when the actual project took place and construction was completed in 2020 for the gymnasium portion was 613. So that 168 was just for the gymnasium. To be clear, not the whole school. That would be a steal if we could do
that. So we went from 168 to 613, and that five year period. Can I just can I just can we just pause there for a second and take it all in? Because one of the things that I constantly hear from the community is, what did they do with our money?
Where does our money go? They get billions of dollars. They are half the budget of Montgomery County Public Schools. Who are they paying more money to? You know, can we just pause on that for a little bit and just digest it? So you're telling me that when we
did this tomato cost, because they're going to say, well, are they made of gold? Like, what kind of material did they use? Like, where did you get this from? I mean, it's is it specially made? Like, I just that is a huge difference. We, we actually get economies of
scale being such a large school system. I was talking to some other areas, they pay 150 to 190 a square foot where we're at $128. Yeah. Because we do so much work. So we're actually getting a better rate. So you're telling me this is even cheaper? Yes. So unfortunately,
yes. So I really would like us to just digest this slowly because if I was not part of the part of the board, if I was not so immersed in what we're doing and how we're making decisions, I will just say to
you, what the heck? Are you serious? Like, who is making these deals? Do you know what you're doing? You know who you know who's buying? I mean, so I think this is and Doctor Taylor helped me out here because when we look at this, this is just one example. So of the of the
different things that we had approved in 2019, right? We probably have other examples that would be similar to this. And this is for an elementary school, just to be clear. Yeah. Okay. So just very quickly, there are some economic factors
that are drastically influencing this, as well as school construction costs that are worth communicating. Changes in fiscal policy have definitely impacted the cost of capital in terms of debt service, for sure. One of the
more significant changes is the cost of materials and supplies. But the most expensive part of this is changes in the labor market that support this industry. So in in terms of just construction in general,
as well as Hvac repair, as well as other aspects, affordability has played a significant role in the labor market in terms of whether or not there is an adequate labor force to, to do
this work, and good old supply and demand comes into place where there is not an adequate supply in the labor force, and there is not an adequate supply in the raw materials because of tariffs or changes in our immigration policy federally,
that everything is going to cost more, and we actually predict that it is actually going to go up, not down. Thank you. All right. We can continue. Another another question we
received was talking about our Hvac position specific to our maintenance department. So not construction, but to maintenance, the men and women that make the repairs on a daily basis. So we have 42 positions within that team. That includes our supervisors, our assistant supervisors, and
our Hvac techs one and two. That also includes three positions that you all funded on the task force. In this fiscal year alone, we have posted that position three times. We sort of do it every couple months to try to, you know, gain new staff on that
team. We have 13 vacant positions right now, and over the three attempts we have hired two, noting that one was an internal promotion, which we always are grateful that we have that opportunity to promote. But that also doesn't really fill a vacancy. So it's a position that is a high priority for us. We will
continue to post it on a rolling basis, but just wanted to point that out as a request that was received. Hvac at Sherwood wanted to know what the current status is. That is in our current CIP in front of County Council. It's funded
over the four years of FY 27 to 32, with the hopes that that is approved and County Council in May. And then Newport Mill came up. We do agree with the testimony that was shared with the rattling. We have been battling that for the last couple months. We keep sending
the team out, they make the repairs, but that is a system that needs to be replaced and that is why it's in our CIP showing in FY 32. Edison High School. We. We are aware there is shelf space available on the upper level of that. This was
the same bullet that we shared with you all as a follow up back in November for one of your work sessions. It's about 9000ft that's available. And again, in today's dollars, we're estimating that that buildout would be 3 to 5 million. So something we can certainly consider as we
continue to look at utilization and need across the high schools. When IT folks wanted an update on the buildout of the shelf space at Potomac, we have a couple classrooms, two grouped, and then three on the other side. They were starting
to see an increase in enrollment, but based on the recent staffing allocations that have come out over the last couple weeks, we are not sure that we need to build that out quite yet. We are working closely with the administration to make sure we are staying on top of that, potentially for
school year 2728, but based on their current allocations, we believe they should be able to accommodate the students within and out without building out anything for school. Year 2627 Middle Hall came up a number of times. We did have a pretty significant pipe and plumbing
burst that happened in December that did impact a number of classrooms and the gymnasiums. I appreciate the team that was swift to respond, stop and repair the pipe burst, but given that it did take us a while to clean up, the students were displaced for about a week
and a half and then they returned in December. But the gym floor did need a complete replacement. New striping that did reopen to the school last week. Throughout this entire process, we have had our indoor air quality team out there performing any assessments and
remediation to make sure that the space was fully restored. What can be done to improve the field's road health room? The health room does not meet the space requirements we currently build out for new elementary
schools. This is clearly not uncommon when it's an older school, right? And we have not done a major capital project there. This would require a significant investment to relocate the main office and health suite to an adjacent location next to the main entrance. This project is
currently under programed and will be evaluated in a future year pending available funding. We were not aware of the Fields road statement that was made for the additional parking lights, so that is something we are still evaluating and have been happy to follow up with additional information. The
need to redesign the welcome center and front office space for QA was brought up. This is quite complex. We have looked at that. I would say there is not a perfect solution how you enter. And so we will continue to look at that and come up with a better solution. We
don't disagree that it's not perfect to how it is, but there's not a simple and easy solution at that one. Cabin. John Middle School. There are two that were brought up for this one, both roof leaks as well as the retaining wall. And you all asked a question, a
very good question about warranty. So I want to talk about two things related to the roof leak. We do typically have 20 year warranties on all of our roofs. That really is just for the material of the actual roofing material. In the case of Cabin John, we have
determined that the roof leaks and we do agree there are active roof leaks, and we've been working with the school administration this week to resolve them. We continued to be in that process, but they're actually tied to the roof drains based on our team's assessment and getting the the manufacturer out there, the
roof drains are something that are not included in the warranty. So this is something that we need to own our route. We do have roofers on staff. They were on site yesterday. Will probably not be there today due to the rain, but they will continue to make those repairs over the next week or two to resolve that. So that's
where the warranty does get complex. Some things are fully covered and it really and some things are not. The cabin. Also the retaining wall that leads up to the basketball courts. It is something we have been monitoring and assessing over the last couple months. We had
a third party engineer evaluate that for us at this time. They have identified a few repairs that they are recommending to make this summer. We have reopened the basketball courts. It is deemed safe for students to use. We do want to make a few repairs this summer by adding some expansion joints
and repairing the fence, but we do think that with those repairs it is safe to use again on the basketball courts. Do you want to take a few of these? Yeah, sure. All right. One of the questions we heard was why does Richard Montgomery High
School need relocatable or portables, bottom line programs? If you looked in the boundary study packets of information, they actually with resident students are under utilized by 95 students. So that that over
utilization really does come from the regional and countywide program that they have at the current Richard Montgomery High School. One of the one of the questions was, is there g to be a full high school wellness center at Woodward? There currently is a
high school wellness center at Woodward, which is serving the Northwood High School community, actually going to be leaving here in about two minutes to go to the joint HHS and Education and Culture Committee. And we're going to talk more about this on the future of what's services are going to be provided at Woodward. Similarly,
we're going to be talking about the Crown Farm site. They originally were going to build a full high school wellness center that has somatic services, positive youth development and other mental health services. Since we started construction, they actually pivoted. They have a
new term called Connections to Wellness, which is currently going through their budget process. But essentially, it's that Bridges to Wellness program that we rolled out or HHS rolled out in 2021, where we have at 19 high schools.
It's the same type of program, but they have additional therapy case management and PYD services included in that. So that is what's currently being designed right now. And yes, we're going to send JW off to
represent us over at council. A lot of meetings happening. One of the other questions was asked about can we operate Sims without using stairwell seven? You know, in the recommendation right now, Sims would be reducing students by about 300. We have looked at this. You
know, we've talked at length and I've spoken with the school administration there. I am not sure that we can just completely. What connects stairwell seven is the 1934 wing. It's a three story wing. The middle floor is actually shared by Sligo Creek and by Sims. I think just by. Overall,
the student reduction, the improved use and circulation on that stair will certainly change. What we'd like to do is take this opportunity. Should the recommendation go through of the boundary, to relook at that wing as a whole, where where do we want Sims to occupy versus Sligo Creek? Is there a
better way to allocate that that would improve the overall circulation of stairwell seven? So we will come back to you with that. I think this is a good opportunity to relook at that. That three floor of the 1934 building. How why are we not concerned about the
utilization by Woodward? We've talked at length about this, certainly in the last work session. And we believe that we have built in enough capacity to handle the new development that is in that area. Same question certainly was asked for the utilization. The Wooton
Farm at Wooton, at Farm Crown Farm site and sort of same response. You know, we've been looking and will continue to evaluate the pipeline data that is coming in, but we feel we have adequate capacity based on the projection, enrollment projections and the data
pipeline data that is available. All right. Almost there. Just a few more Clarksburg High School. Why can't all of Clarksburg, Clarksburg area go to Clarksburg High School? And specifically, we've got a lot of questions about Snowden Farm.
Currently, they have the split articulation between Damascus and Clarksburg. And in the recommendation, all of Snowden Farm would go to Damascus. So, you know, we just wanted to acknowledge that Clarksburg students, especially those in Snowden Farm Service area, are having to travel a little bit
further in this recommendation. Unfortunately, just the density and where Clarksburg High School and many of those elementaries that are right there, you know, adjacent in a more rural and the building make it extremely difficult to send all students living in that area to Clarksburg High
School. And we talked about in the last work session, taking advantage of the capital funds at Damascus to build more capacity versus adding additional capacity at the high school. Darnestown elementary has come up a number of times
about a sidewalk. This is when you're looking at the school and Google. It's a sidewalk requested along the north end of the building. I just want to emphasize we'll continue to look at this with the school, but at this time we do not
recommend this. There are adequate sidewalks around the entire facility, except for that it is not a path often traveled. There's a parking lot in the back that our staff use and after hours use, and there's an entrance there. There are sidewalks for students to egress safely during a fire drill or any
other emergency, and there's front parking for visitors that also have sidewalks to that. Adding a sidewalk there is challenging with the topography, and it actually crosses over where our dumpsters and recycling are. And so at this time, it's not an area that we would recommend one, because we
feel we have adequate sidewalk everywhere else. And I believe this is it. Why does Lex Manor show no enrollment change in farmland? Enrollment is projected to decrease. So even though there are 228 students
built into Manor's projections from development during the planning period, there's an overall decrease in student enrollment as a smaller cohorts move through the grades. So farmland. There are only 29 students building the projections from the development during the planning period. The size of the
kindergarten class is much smaller than the fifth grade, coupled with the very large third grade class, that will result in a natural decline in enrollment by 2829 school year. Even though the projection assumes a large kindergarten kindergartner. Then September
30th, 2025, it does not offset the difference between the upper grades and the final one that we do not have a slide for. But I received a question this morning, and this has come up a number of times, is just the assurance that when the Crown High School opens, that there
will be playing fields, a football field, all the appropriate athletic fields and an auditorium. I just want to assure everyone that, yes, and that is fully under construction as we speak. It's a full school. Thank you. The last example before that one
really is foretelling of what we're going to see as a trend in other areas of the county where the projection was higher. But then in reality, the enrollment is lower. So like Miss Stewart said, we're, we're, we're getting faced with some
harsh realities coming up, Miss Stewart, about utilization at Woodward. Is there currently room on site if we needed to add classrooms? Because I do remember that it was originally planned for to be bigger. Yes. So just like Crown, it was
built to the 2700 core. So it has the larger capacity for gymnasium, cafeteria. The addition can fit about six classrooms there. And yes, there's a planned location. Great. I have a kind of a
cleanup question before we leave. I received an email concerned that there's only going to be two and a half elementary schools at Sims, but it's my understanding that the
majority of woodland would actually go to Sims. Is that correct? Yes. The majority of woodland will go to Sims and it's like closer to 90%. Correct. Okay. And one very last question on the CIP that we didn't talk about the
playground and athletic surfaces. And I just wanted to ask if that ends up getting cut as a line item from county council, would we prioritize replacement fields, fields that
are at their end of their use are artificial turf fields. Are you asking if we. Because in the. What was in front of you all was both a combination of new artificial and replacement of existing. Are you asking of
those. Which one we would prioritize? Yes. If. If that line item gets cut from the county council. Yeah, I would say certainly we have to first prioritize any replacements to ensure that those are properly maintained. But, you know, we still stand by the recommendation that's in there.
Okay. Thank you. Okay. Not seeing any further questions. This will conclude today's work session. Thank you so much to staff for being here. We appreciate it. Board members, if you have any additional
questions or feedback, you know where your board chief of staff is and how to how to reach her. With that, I will ask for a motion to adjourn. So moved. Second. Okay. All those in favor? And that is unanimous.
Thank you so much and have a blessed day.