JuNnG & Vassar, P.C. ATTORSEYS APLAW TRiwoer Cours Feaxom TL, Juxe (DC axp Ht Bane) haeeeemnenigenmnentl Hiwatt Ovrtee: «212 05-0070 Soe var 709-080-7010 Paes ete Monday, July 29, 2019 Elizabeth Kameen, Esq. Principal Counsel Maryland State Department of Education 200 West Baltimore Street Baltimore MD 21201 Re: Montgomery County Board of Education — Site Selection Process for Proposed Kelley Park School Dear Ms. Kameen: 1am a resident of the City of Gaithersburg which is located in Montgomery County, Maryland. Located within the City of Gaithersburg is a popular publie park known as Kelley Park (“Park”). Recently, the Montgomery County Boar of Education. (“BOE”) proposed building a new elementary school, designated as the Kelley Park Elementary School (“KPES"”) within our community, much to the chagrin of many nearby residents. These residents formed a group that is informally known as the “Save Kelley Park Group” (“Group”). This Group is made up of residents from the following communities: Audubon Square, Newport Estates, Saybrooke, Villa Ridge and Whetstone Run. Currently, the Save Kelley Park Group has over 1,700 signatures on Petitions to save the Park. There are several websites where you can find out more about the Save Kelley Park story: Although there are many reasons why the Kelly Park site should not have been the site selected by the BOF, we believe that the selection of the Kelly Park site was pre- determined by the BOE and that the site selection process was flawed. The BOE utilized a deficient site selection process, which did not take into account all of the appropriate factors for the selection of the site or allow input from the adjoining communities which were excluded from the process. In addition, the person facilitating the site selection process for the BOE was in a conflicted position,Elizabeth Kameen, Esq, Page 2 July 29, 2019 ‘HE MONTGOMERY COUNTY PUBLIC SCHOOL SYSTEM FAILED TO ADHERE TO ITS OWN POLICIES AND REGULATIONS WHEN CHOOSING ‘THE KELLEY PARK SITE The Montgomery County Public School System (MCPS) failed to adhere to its own policies and regulations during the site selection process when they chose Kelley Park as their preferred location for a new Gaithersburg elementary school. Not only did they fail to abide by their own policies and regulations in connection with the Kelley Park site selection, but it appears that it was done intentionally or at best, with gross incompetence. MCPS has adopted a written policy relating to Long-range Educational Facilities Planning. A copy of that document is provided along with this document. ‘That document states in part: D. DESIRED OUTCOMES A long-range educational facilities planning process that identifies the infrastructure necessary to deliver high quality educational facilities to all students and incorporates the input of parents, staff, and community and, as appropriate, students, (Board of Education of Montgomery County, Policy: Long-range Educational Facilities Planning, Page 4) In addition, MCPS has adopted a regulation for purposes of implementing the above policy. That Regulation provides in part: II DEFINITIONS Ea, Gommumity imolvement, for the purposes of Board Policy FAA, Long-range Educational Facilities Planning, and this regulation, refers to processes designed to obtain input by engaging a broad variety ‘of stakeholders and to utilize opportunities for input from the public and relevant staff members, in accordance with Board Policy ABA, Community Involvement, (Board of Education of Montgomery County, Regulation: Long-range Educational Facilities Planning, Page 2)Elizabeth Kamen, Esq. Page 3 July 29, 2019 VI. COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT ROCESSES A. Community Involvement School and community involvement in MCPS facility planning is important to the success of the plans. Stakeholders and interested members of the community have several opportuni for input in facilities planning through processes that are in accordance with Board Policy ABA, Community Involvement. (Board of Education of Montgomery County, Regulation: Long-range Educational Facilities Planning, Page 10) 8. Community Involvement Methods ‘The superintendent of schools will solicit community input on school facility- related issues, including boundary changes and geographic student choice assignment plans, through any one or more of the following methods: focus groups, task forces, work groups, advisory committees, roundtable discussion groups, public forums, surveys, and/or technologically facilitated communications. 1. Focus groups, task forces, work groups, advisory ‘committees (committees) or roundtable discussion groups (roundtables): a) The superintendent of schools develops a charge for the focus group, task force, work group, advisory committee, or roundtable to follow: (2) _ If the facility-related issue involves site selection for a new school, the superintendent of schools shall ensure that civie groups with candidate sites in their area and appropriate municipal, county government, and Montgomery County Planning Department and Montgomery County Parks Department staff have an opportunity to participate. (Board of Education of Montgomery County, Regulation: Long-range Educational Facilities Planning, Pages 11-12)Elizabeth Kameen, Esq. Page 4 July 29, 2019 As the above provisions of the MCPS Policy and Regulation make abundantly clear, the neighborhoods surrounding the proposed Kelley Park site should have been both invited and involved in the site selection process. They were not. The neighborhoods that are close to the Kelley Park site are Audubon Square (234 homes), Hidden Creek (300 apartments; 159 condo homes), Newport Estates (240 homes), Saybrooke (478 homes), Villa Ridge 417 (homes) and Whetstone Run (85 homes). None of these communities are listed in Exhibit B of the Site Selection Advisory Committee Recommendation for Gaithersburg Cluster Elementary School (“Site Selection Report”), Some of the communities that are included in the site selection process, Washington Grove, Magruder, Montgomery Village, etc., are arguably not personally invested in the Kelley Park site or have some potentially competing interests with Gaithersburg Cluster schools. ‘There is no legitimate reason why the adjacent communities could not have been included. Two of those communities, Audubon Square and Newport Estates, are listed on the Montgomery County's on-line list of Homeowner's and Civie associations yi A simple “Google” search would have turned up the others. Moreover, although Mr. Peter J. Geiling, Team Leader for the Board of Education Gaithersburg Cluster Site Selection Committee, stated he contacted the adjoining communities about participation. However, there is no evidence of such contact and he is contradicted by some members of Audubon and Saybrooke communities. He also stated at a Saybrooke community meeting held on March 7, 2018, that he relied on a list maintained by the Maryland-National Capital Park and Planning Commission, Mr. Geiling’s positions are indefensible, especially when you consider that he served as the Capital Projects and Facilities Director, Department of Public Works for the City of Gaithersburg, a position that would have given him intimate knowledge concerning the surrounding neighborhoods for over 10 years. Mr. Geiling’s failure to include the adjoining neighborhoods was either intentional, or at best, grossly incompetent. We also believe that Mr. Geiling’s prior position with the City of Gaithersburg created a conflict of interest that should have disqualified him from “facilitating” the site selection process. Moreover, this is also not the first time that MCPS has failed, despite its own policy and regulations, to include interested parties. At the public hearing of the MCPS Board of Education (BOE) Ms. Liz Dooley, a member of the New Hampshire Estates and Oakview Elementary School Combined Parent-Teacher Association (PTA), who testified during the “Individuals and Organizations” portion of the hearing, stated that she too was disappointed that no one from the PTA, the school administrations, or any of the eiElizabeth Kamen, Esq. Page 5 July 29, 2019 associations were invited to participate in the discussion regarding a new school in that section of the County (Testimony of Individuals and Organizations at the 1:10 time frame). Thus, it would appear that MCPS consistently violates its own policy and regulation requiring community involvement, to the point that one could conclude that they prefer not to hear from those that are most affected and might complain the loudest In conclusion, MCPS failed to adhere to its own policies and regulations regarding community involvement during the site selection process when they chose Kelley Park as their preferred location for a new Gaithersburg elementary school. Whether intentional or not, this was a critical failure on the part of MCPS that rendered the Site Selection Report of dubious value. In addition, the Site Selection process itself was also flawed. The easiest way to explain these flaws is to refer you to the attached document prepared by Mr. Keven Woodrow, a Civil Professional Engineer. Mr. Woodrow is more than competent to review the Site Selection process. ‘The bottom line from his report is not only that the Site Selection process was flawed but there was an implicit bias in the selection of the Kelley Park site. We believe that we have been railroaded by the Montgomery County Board of Education, Once the Kelley Park site was picked for the proposed school, The BOE has relied on the Site Selection Report to justify all of its actions and to push through its, agenda. Every time a question is raised about the selection of the Kelley Park site, we are told that this was already addressed during Site Selection, a process from which we were intentionally excluded. We ask that your office review the manner in which the site selection was conducted by the Montgomery County Board of Education and whether it ‘was fairly and impartially conducted consistent with the guidelines of the State Department of Education. We have raised these issues with the BOE. and our entreaties have fallen on deaf ears. We do not have confidence that the Montgomery County Board of Education can exercise the necessary independence in conducting this review themselves. Thank you for your consideration of this matter. Sincerely, ‘Thomas W. Vassar (Enclosure) ce: Montgomery County Board of Education City of GaithersburgDate: May 23, 2018 Subject: Evaluation and Comments on the Site Selection Process and Ultimate Recommendation and Conclusion by the Site Selection Committee By: Kevin Woodrow, PE 414 Sanders Lane, Gaithersburg, MD Background: I am Kevin Woodrow and I have lived with my wife Karen at 414 Sanders Lane, Gaithersburg MD (Whetstone Run) for 32 years. We have raised our 6 children and enjoyed the benefits of being so close to Kelley Park...the single entrance to our development is directly across Victory Farm Drive from the Park. Tam also a licensed Civil Professional Engineer, and have worked for Architectural Engineering firms for my entire career of 40+ years. For the last 28 years, | have worked for Jacobs Engineering, the largest A/E firm in the United States, and L am currently an Executive Project Manager. ‘A.couple months ago when 1 learned that a new Elementary School was proposed to be built, and after a Site Selection process, Kelly Park was selected as the candidate site. As a result of my profession, I am very familiar with the Site Selection process and was interested in how Kelly Park was selected, especially since it was taking away a valuable Gaithersburg community asset, and would seriously impact access to our development. I went on-line and downloaded and reviewed in detail the following documents: 1, The Gaithersburg Cluster Elementary School Site Selection Advisory Committee report dated November 14, 2017 2. Site Selection Advisory Committee Recommendation for Gaithersburg Cluster Elementary School Report dated January 11, 2018 ‘After my review, I was very troubled in that from a professional stand-point it appeared that the process and conclusions were not objective, and as I indicate below, “Fatally Flawed" Site Evaluation The Gaithersburg Cluster Elementary School Site Selection Advisory Committee Report ~ | read this report first which lays out the process and purpose of the Site Selection Advisory committee; the need for the new Gaithersburg Cluster Elementary School; the Site Selection Criteria and Evaluation Grid; and provided information for 7 candidate sites Although it did not identify how the 7 candidate sites were identified and proposed they appeared to be potential suitable sites. That is typical of a site selection process, and only suitable sites should be evaluated since proposing un-suitable sites just gives a false impression of considering a greater number of sites. Sites should not be evaluated if they are deemed un- suitable. One glaring omission was the Forrest Oak Middle School site. The Forrest Oak site is ‘owned by MCPS and has additional undeveloped land greatly in excess of the 7.5 acre requirement, It would have scored high on every selection criteria identified, and most likely would have ended up scoring significantly higher than even Kelly Park. ‘The remainder of the selection process and criteria outlined seemed very comprehensive and aligns with the site 128 Communication: Outside (Correspondence) Packet Pg. 3172B selection process that I have seen professionally. The one troubling thing I noted in this report ‘was that the comments on many of the Candidate Sites seemed to be indicating a bias even before the selection process began, and/or the indication they were not suitable sites. Some examples are as follows: Charlene ES #1/#2 - “The site may be too remote from the areas with the most need”, Emory Grove ~ “Losing this facility would impact future capital projects as ‘temporary school location would no longer be available”; Centerway Park ~ “itis not practical given the location”; Woodwards Road ~ “However, the site is not centrally located in the most needed area.”; Jeremiah Park ~“No specific sites have been identified for developer property dedication, Timing for site development is at least several years away”. Only Kelly Park seemed to have positive comments as follows: The site is centrally located and would be a GOOD location for a new school site. It could be a shared school/park facility.” My concem on bias was confirmed when I read the follow-on recommendation report as shown below. Site Selection Advisory Committee Recommendation for Gaithersburg Cluster Elementary School Report ~ It is my professional opinion that the evaluation and final recommendation was ‘fatally flawed and came to the wrong conclusion, It appears to be a very subjective, rather than objective, evaluation. My specific concerns are as follows: 1, Sites Eliminated from Evaluation — Charlene Elementary #1 and #2 were removed from consideration because “These sites were considered too far north from the most heavily impacted schools located within the lower portion of the cluster.” This is in fact not true. The sites are in the geographically center of the cluster, and is immediately adjacent to the Strawberry Knoll service area which is one of the two currently most overloaded schools. The other two most overloaded schools, Rosemont and Summit Hall will be bused to most of the proposed sites, including Kelly Park. Both sites would have been highly rated. n: Outside (Correspondence) 2. Scoring Gi legend in the grid expresses that each criterion should be scored one of three numbers: +1, 0, or -1, Instead the committee gave scores ranging from (-10) to +11. That allows selective/arbitrary weighting which can either eliminate or recommend sites just by that weighting which is not the intent of the evaluation grid, There is no explanation of the weight factor or criteria mentioned in the methodology, and would in fact be technically improper unless weighted criteria had been established. ‘Communicat 3. Actual Scoring - Individual scores for criteria do not seem to always match conditions or ignores elements of the conditions. While I could give many examples, the following just compares some of the Kelly Park(KP) vs Woodwards Road ES(WR) Site scoring: a. Location ~ KP is rated+11 while WR is rated 1. However WR is actually significantly closer to the major overcrowding of Strawberry Knoll ES, and the location of the other overcrowded schools, Summit Hall and Rosemont, will require students to be bussed to either location. 'b. Acreage — Both sites were rated 9. Although KP is listed as 27 acres, that very misleading. Over 50% of the site due to floodplain and wetlands consideration is not available for use. There was also commentary in the initial report that the site may be allowed a shared use with Gaithersburg, leaving 1-2 ball fields. That is in fact not possible since the usable areas on the site is the ball ficlds, and all three will ‘most likely be needed to meet the 7.5 acre new school requirement, jeket Pg. 318©. Access ~KP was rated 10, WR rated -4, The analysis discusses access to WR being poor via Emory Grove Road. In actuality, access for this site would be (or should be) vie the several hundred foot frontage on Mid-County Highway, which unlike Kelly Park access would have no negative effects on neighborhood traffic. 4, Recommended Alternate Candidate Site — even the recommendation of the WSSC Maintenance Facility as the alternate site leads a bias towards Kelly Park since the WSSC. site is not an actual viability. It appears to be driven by the flawed scoring grid. The analysis states “the negative aspects of the site include the existing buildings and fueling facilities. The property would have to be purchased from WSSC unless other arrangement can be negotiated. Also the site is not readily available due to the acquisition process and the requirement for WSSC to relocate operations. Despite the challenges, this site was selected as the altemative to City of Gaithersburg Kelly Park”. Those ‘challenges” essentially eliminate this as a viable site. Therefore there is only one suitable candidate proposed. An obvious trouble with this is that when the MCPS board considered the proposal, and now as the City of Gaithersburg considers this proposal, there appears to be no suitable alternative. One could conclude that either Kelly Park is approved, or an Elementary School for the Gaithersburg Cluster will not be built. 5. No Criteria for Impact on Community ~ MCPS seems to focus on only the suitability of the site for their purposes, and ignores other impacts on the community. It would seem that significant criteria should be current use of land. The fact that those sites like Kelly Park, which has a service/function that is a benefit to the community, is not even a factor for their MCPS selection. 6. Committee Bias ~The last Gaithersburg council meeting, 5/21/18, further confirmed my suspicion of the selection committee bias, Mellissa MeKenna, one of the selection committee members and former PTA president, made a presentation. She was well spoken, and part of her presentation mentioned the centrally located Kelly Park site, a site that would allow students to walk to school. This is in fact not true, and in her position she would have to know that. The overcrowded schools are Strawberry Knoll, Summit Hall, and Rosemont, representing approximately 650 student deficits which will be the Primary student population of the new elementary school. None of those students will be able to walk to the Kelly Park ES. Already a Site Owned and Available — Beyond the “flaws” of the site selection and Evaluation report, I honestly am not even sure there should have been a selection process initiated as MCPS already owns a property that even has a sign posted on Emory Grove Road saying “Woodwards Road Future Elementary Schoo! Site”. When the need was identified for the new Elementary School for this geographic area/cluster, it seems reasonable to assume MCPS would initiate construction on the site they specifically owned and set aside for that purpose. Why initiate a process to find a different site, and why should Gaithersburg vote to give an owned park which provides an important service to its residents to MCPS who already have the site for this purpose? t i & 8