When it rains it pours.
Following a three-month lull in activity surrounding plans to build a new school on Kendale Road in Potomac and possibly surplus Seven Locks Elementary school site, community members and county officials faced one another three times in three days last week over the issue.
The issue has resurged against the backdrop of the County Council’s busy budget season — in which councilmembers have wrangled over property tax rates and changes to County Executive Doug Duncan’s $3.5 billion spending proposal. The council must also consider amendments to the County’s six-year Capital Improvements Plan, including a $12.26 million initial appropriation for the Kendale School.
The council took testimony May 3 from 30 PTA cluster representatives and other community members on CIP amendments for Montgomery County Public Schools.
The more than three-hour hearing consisted almost entirely of cluster representatives advocating for needed capital projects in their areas — field lighting, restroom improvements, lead abatement, and most frequently, additions, modernizations, and new schools to relieve overcrowding.
It ended with Seven Locks parents and Save Seven Locks Coalition members — who held the last slots of the evening — advocating against CIP funding for the Kendale school.
“If they’ve got a big budget deficit now, then they have the opportunity to save money,” said Sandy Vogelgesang of Save Seven Locks, in an interview. “$20 million for the Kendale school, at least, versus $10 million for [improving Seven Locks]. They’re hurting for money? This is one gift for them.”
VOGELGESANG’S FIGURES are based on calculations by Save Seven Locks members. The county has estimated the cost of the Kendale school at around $14 million, but opponents say that number does not factor in increases in materials costs or needed improvements to surrounding roads.
The county estimates the new Kendale school will cost $3 million less than an expansion followed by a modernization at Seven Locks and has asserted that cost-of-construction increases would affect both projects equally, leaving the comparative cost unchanged.
Beneath Kendale opponents’ arguments for fiscal responsibility lay longstanding complaints about a lack of due process and new allegations of secret deals between county officials and real estate developers.
Vogelgesang referred to “what some consider a political plot to surplus school property” in her oral testimony and said in a written submission that “numerous developers have been approached regarding high-density development of the Seven Locks site.”
Cyril Draffin, president of the Deerfield-Weathered Oaks citizens association and a Save Seven Locks member, said, “We were appalled by the potential inappropriate or unethical behavior of public officials and lack of public dialogue on the tradeoff of building the current Seven Locks site [instead of the] Kendale road site. There are alleged deals between developers who gave campaign money to public officials and the County Council directing the board of education to give up land for development.”
Draffin’s comments prompted a fierce exchange with Councilmember Michael Subin (D-At Large). (See box.)
Other board members added to Subin’s criticism that Save Seven Locks members had made false accusations and scrutinized the language and substance of the Kendale opponents’ testimony, especially references to the term “high-density housing.”
“Saying that the Seven Locks site is going to be used as high density housing in my opinion is nothing more than a scare tactic,” Councilmember Steve Silverman (D-At Large) said to Vogelgesang. He then asked Vogelgesang to provide the council with a list of housing types that the community would find acceptable for the Seven Locks site, prompting murmurs from the remaining audience, which at past 9:30 p.m. consisted almost entirely of people with Save Seven Locks signs or T-shirts.
“We are struggling to make the right decision and we’re weighing cost and we’re weighing convenience to the community, we’re weighing traffic, and we’re weighing a dramatic need for housing, workforce housing and other types of housing,” Council Vice President George Leventhal said, noting that he had not yet made a decision about the Kendale CIP item. “To talk about alleged deals is just not the way to make a case to us and it’s not persuasive and it’s just not the way to win a vote.”
Councilmember Nancy Floreen (D-At Large) added, “If anything there’s a conspiracy here of people trying to do the right thing.”
Councilmembers who had chided speakers for straying off-topic themselves lapsed into a debate about the consequences of meeting the County Charter limit on property tax revenues at the end of the evening.
36 HOURS LATER, School Superintendent Jerry Weast and members of the Board of Education were on hand for a Council Education Committee meeting to consider CIP amendments, including funding for the Kendale school. Numerous Save Seven Locks members were in attendance, although the meeting did not include public testimony.
Discussion regarding Seven Locks surrounded MCPS’s priority list of CIP projects. The order determines potential cuts in CIP projects if not all of them can be funded due to cost increases or other factors.
The Kendale school ranks 56th out of 60 items, leading Draffin to call it a “low priority” in May 3 testimony. Council staffer Keith Levchenko called that “inaccurate and misleading” in a May 4 memorandum, because the Kendale project did not include a request for state aid this and was therefore automatically placed below other CIP items that do include a state aid request. The low placement “was made to maximize state aid eligibility in FY07 and involved moving systemic work ahead of projects not receiving state aid in FY06,” he wrote.
Councilmember Howard Denis (R-1), who represents Potomac, requested that modernization at Farmland Elementary School in Rockville be moved above the Kendale project, citing longer delays in the Farmland improvement in spite of the slightly higher utilization rates cited by the school system as reason for putting the Kendale project first. The committee agreed to bring the proposal to the full Council.
Denis also reiterated his stance against potentially surplussing the Seven Locks Elementary site.
THE LAST STOP for advocates and opponents of the Kendale school last week was a Planning Board hearing Thursday on the Kendale site plan and preliminary forest conservation plan.
All capital projects initiated by government agencies — including schools — must go before the Planning Board for review, known as a “mandatory referral.” However, the board’s recommendations are advisory only and all board decisions — including denial of the project, may be overruled by the applicant.
Twelve community members reiterated to the Planning Board concerns about the Kendale site, including being situated in a flood-prone area and on a road too narrow for buses to pass one another or for an emergency vehicle to pass a car.
Although the board’s role in mandatory referrals is strictly limited to land-use questions concerning the property at hand, community members also spoke to the relative merits of the Seven Locks site versus the Kendale site.
Board Chairman Derrick Berlage took up that issue. He asked Planning Board staffer Callum Murray, who wrote the staff report and recommendation to approve the mandatory referral, to summarize why building a new school at Kendale would be superior to expanding and modernizing the current Seven Locks.
“I think it’s actually quite difficult to do,” Murray said, prompting applause from Kendale opponents in the audience.
The board deliberated for more than an hour but asked few questions of the MCPS construction representatives present at the meeting.
The board voted to approve the forest conservation plan 4-1, with Commissioner Meredith Wellington voting no. She said that a plan that includes 90 percent deforestation with off-site restoration does not meet county forest conservation standards, over which the board has some discretion.
The mandatory referral passed by a vote of 3-1 with Wellington voting no and Commissioner John Robinson abstaining from the vote.
“I think this is a poor site for a school. It’s poor from an environmental point of view, it’s poor from an engineering core point of view, it is particularly poor from a transportation point of view, compared to the existing site which is located on an arterial close to intersections that allow access from all parts of the community. It’s poor from a pedestrian access point of view in terms of potential sidewalks and as the staff would say, sidewalks that go anywhere. It’s poor from a recreational point of view,” Robinson said. “It’s bad land use planning.”
Following those statements, Commissioner Allison Bryant asked Robinson why he was abstaining rather than voting against the motion.
“I’m abstaining because the decision’s been made by a higher authority,” Robinson said.
'I WANT NAMES!’
Members of County Council sparred with two Potomac residents about the future of Seven Locks Elementary last week during public hearings on the public school capital improvement plan.
Deerfield-Weathered Oaks Citizens Association president Cyril Draffin and Councilmember and Education Committee chair Michael Subin (D-At Large). Approximately 9:30 p.m.:
Draffin [during testimony]: We agree with selected members of the County Council who believe transparency is important. We were appalled by the potential inappropriate or unethical behavior of public officials and lack of public dialogue on the tradeoff of building the current Seven Locks site [instead of the] Kendale road site. There are alleged deals between developers who gave campaign money to public officials and the County Council directing the Board of Education to give up land for development. …
Subin [during questions]: That’s all the good news. The bad news is the issue of alleged deals. Not the right thing to say. Not the right thing to bring up. And some really poor implications. And if you have any evidence of deals that were cut, we all want to know. And I’m sure the State’s Attorney would want to know. And so if you’re holding evidence of ill and illegal dealings by anybody, I want to know. I want to know right now. And if you don’t have that evidence, you owe somebody or somebodies up here an apology.
Draffin: You’re asking for a response?
Subin: I want to know who was involved in those deals and what evidence do you have. Because even on something like this, the ability for somebody to cut the deal is virtually nil. Zero. There is a process by which property is disposed. And before it gets to this council there is a long process to go through. And to say that anybody up here was involved in a deal or that there was any deal making means that there is a very large conspiracy afoot, that would involve the superintendent and the Board of Education and the county executive and the community and the majority of the members of this council to get to that point. So if there was a deal, there were at least five of us involved. And I know I wasn’t one of them, so instead of five out of nine you’re talking about five out of eight. So, where was the deal, where was it made, and who was involved? You’ve made an allegation, it is a serious one, and you made it publicly.
Draffin: In response to your comments …
Subin: No. Who? I want to know who. I want names.
Leventhal: Let him answer.
Subin: No, I want names.
Draffin: Did you want an answer?
Subin: I want names.
Draffin: Can I speak?
Subin: I want names. Who were the names? Who’s involved in the dealings?
Draffin: Well, if I can speak.
Subin: If you’re going to give me names you may speak. Was it Mr. Hawes, was it Mr. Lavorgna, was it Mr. Silverman, was it Dr. Weast, was it Mr. Duncan?
Draffin: I’d like to give you a response if you’d like a response.
Subin: Sure, I’m waiting.
Draffin: The listing of priority came from you, the County Council and MCPS so that was the basis for my comment on why the school was listed as a low priority. … As far as the comment on — I don’t know whether there’s anything that’s been inappropriate, I mean I talked to many people. I think you’re all hardworking, talented, knowledgeable people. I don’t have any particular items. … Certain things [are] alleged, so I commented on them. I have no personal understanding.
Subin: Why do you comment on something as serious as a breach of fiduciary duty and conspiracies and dealings with public lands and public monies predicated solely on rumors and innuendoes? … Don’t come here and impugn the integrity of these people, who could be making three times as much as they’re making with one quarter of the hours that they’re making, based on rumors and innuendoes.
Draffin: If I offended you, I apologize. That was not my intent. I think you people are hardworking, put in many long hours, care about the county.
WHAT'S HIGH DENSITY?
West Bradley Citizens' Association member and Save Seven Locks Coalition co-chair Sandy Vogelgesang and Councilmember Steve Silverman (D-At Large). Approximately 9:45 p.m.:
Vogelgesang [during testimony]: We’re here to help you. We think you’ll love our solution to your big budget problems. As you know we strongly oppose the school board’s decision to reverse the County Council’s own directed plan to upgrade Seven Locks Elementary School and instead to close Seven Locks, build a 740-student core replacement school on Kendale Road and suggest surplussing the Seven Locks site for high-density housing. Although our voters are angry about everything from lack of due process to what some see as a political plot to surplus school property, I will highlight the budget points in our written statement and protest petition.
Silverman [during questions]: When did the school board suggest surplussing the Seven locks site for high density housing?
Vogelgesang: We understand that … contrary to the usual procedure on the Seven Locks issue, the plan for adding to Seven Locks and modernizing was actually a directed council decision. …
Silverman: I was interested in the part where the school board suggested surplussing the Seven Locks site for high-density housing.
Vogelgesang: … In terms of the reference to housing, when Superintendent Weast explained the change of the plan for Seven Locks, he indicated a number of reasons and one of them he gave on the record was that he was responding to the request form the county executive, Mr. Duncan, to consider identifying school property that might be surplussed for the use of affordable or workforce housing. That was given as the rationale and it was for that reason that many people in our community have assumed that that was part of what was wanted …
Silverman: I’ll ask the question again. When did the school board decide to suggest surplussing the Seven Locks site for high-density housing? There was a memo from the superintendent that talked about identifying surplus sites. I’m not aware of any decision by the School Board to surplus the Seven Locks site for high-density housing, are you?
Vogelgesang: I appreciate your raising the question. I use the term “suggest” advisedly because what has happened is the school board has listed Seven Locks as one of four sites, school sites that might be surplussed, so they seem to be suggesting or opening the door to that.
Silverman: Did they suggest it for high-density housing, Sandy?
Vogelgesang: The specific reference was to affordable housing.
Silverman: Is that high-density housing?
Vogelgesang: As I understand it, given the recent Zoning Text Amendments that it would be highly likely that it would be so that you would get the number of affordable housing units that you would like.
Silverman: I would suggest respectfully that you have your facts wrong and that the school board has identified some sites. To the best of my knowledge the School Board has made no decisions whatsoever with regard to the Seven Locks site much less the speculation about what type of housing and the density level of housing there and to suggest otherwise does a disservice to this entire process. We have been accused, all of us collectively, of shutting out an opportunity for people to comment. I have worked hard to ensure that you had an opportunity to comment and we’ve had a very good working relationship. It is very troubling to me that you would continue to in your written testimony to suggest and imply that decisions have been made when they haven’t been made. And saying that the Seven Locks site is going to be used as high density housing in my opinion is nothing more than a scare tactic. For all you know, the School Board could decide to keep Seven Locks and to lease it out to any number of non-profits or other schools as the currently do. Or they could use it for administrative purposes. So I’m quite frankly puzzled as to why you would continue to use the term high-density housing in connection with Seven Locks, when that hasn’t been put on the table at all.
Vogelgesang: … What we are trying to convey is the perception in our community, rightly or wrongly, is that there is the strong possibility of high-density development on that site. That is the concern, and in that spirit of openness we are trying as friends with you to convey that word from our community.
Silverman: Well why don’t you do us all a favor, OK? And since you obviously have some concerns about high-density housing, why don’t you provide us a list of the type of housing and nature that you would find acceptable. Because then at least we could understand as an alternative to a school what it is that the Seven Locks community would find acceptable, since the continued statements about high-density housing strikes me as something that you obviously don’t want. So I’d like to understand at some point what the alternatives are that you would suggest.