Hope Bonanno
June 24, 2020To the Board of Education Members:
Our names are Hope and Jerry Bonanno and we’ve been residents of Brunswick for 15 years. We attended and spoke at the Board of Education meeting on June 12, 2019, and submitted written comments prior to the Board’s June 10, 2020, meeting. We appreciated the opportunity to be heard at that meeting and the Board’s decision to approve the “replacement” option for Brunswick High School.
Now, a year later, the Board is being asked to approve an Educational Facilities Master Plan (EFMP) that will render its decision to do the right thing for Brunswick’s students largely symbolic by pushing the proposed start date for the Brunswick High School replacement completely off of the proposed FY 2021-2026 Capital Improvement Program (CIP)
budget. According to the proposed EMFP, the start of the design phase for Brunswick High School is now slated to begin in 2029, with actual construction not starting until sometime after 2030. This means that for the next decade Brunswick’s children will continue to be educated in a facility that - according to the County’s own feasibility study -- does not meet the FCPS’
educational specifications, is lacking required program spaces (e.g., laboratories), and is not in compliance with current energy, mechanical, or electrical codes, building codes, or accessibility requirements.
We are asked to accept this outcome when according to the same proposed EFMP -- Brunswick Elementary is operating at between 143%--147% capacity; Valley Elementary hovers around 100% capacity; and the Brunswick Crossing development continues a steady march towards its end state of over 1,500 homes at a rate of approximately 100 homes per year. The most recent information available from a member of the Brunswick City Council, Angel White indicates that the Brunswick Crossing build out stands at 731 homes permitted (677 occupied) with a total planned build of 1,505 homes.
We appreciate the additional information provided by the Board and County staff, which helped us to navigate the EFMP and other supporting documents, such as the Comprehensive
Maintenance Plan (CMP). That said, after studying these documents the basis for the decision to remove the Brunswick High School project from the FY2021-FY2026 CIP remains largely opaque.
For example, the EFMP states that the County’s “project selection criteria” for new schools or additions as including “several variables,” such as “current and planned educational programs; location of the population to be served; long range projections of general population and school-age population growth; and available capacity in existing schools.” The EMFP lists other variables considered as “ the need for additional or improved spaces for general teaching areas and/or supporting areas as defined in educational program specifications, the physical condition of the building and its systems, the building’s health and safety conditions, and potential barriers for those with disabilities.” 2020 EFMP, at Section V, pg. 37. But we were unable to
determine how these factors were considered or weighted in the decision to remove BHS from the CIP.
While the page count of the EFMP is impressive, and the document contains much information, it does not explain why major projects are being shuffled on and off of the budget every
year. Thus, after spending hours with the EFMP we’re still unable to determine exactly why the BHS replacement was removed from the 5 year CIP.
Complexity is an unavoidable characteristic of modern life, but it should not be used to obscure decision-making. We are sure that’s not the County’s goal or intent, but as the systems theory heuristic goes, “the purpose of a system is what it does.” And the system being used to make these decisions has, in this case, yielded an outcome that seems to make little sense and can’t be readily explained.
From a financial standpoint, the amount budgeted for the Brunswick High School
“Modernization/Addition” included in the FY 2020-2025 approved CIP was $91,058,800 with the design phase starting in 2023 and the construction/renovation work being completed in 2025. The County’s 2019 Feasibility Study provided a total estimated construction cost for the replacement of Brunswick High School of $96,839,517 for a state rated capacity of 1,000 students. At the conclusion of the June 12, 2019, meeting the Board approved the replacement (rather than “modernization”) of Brunswick High School with a modified capacity of 900 students. Taking the 100 student reduction in capacity into account, it doesn’t seem that the cost of replacement would be much higher than the approved budget for “modernization/addition” contained in the FY 2020 - 2025 CIP. Thus, it does not appear that a cost increase associated with replacement was the reason for removing the Brunswick High School project from the CIP.
At the June 12, 2020, Board meeting, the FCPS staff committed to provide the Board with a modified estimate to replace Brunswick High School with a capacity of 900 students. Has the staff provided that estimate to the Board? If so, what is that revised estimate for replacement?
With respect to the treatment of projected enrollment growth, Section 4, page 32, of the 2015 EFMP contained the following statement:
“Outside the major growth areas, smaller (but not insignificant) areas of residential development can be found within several incorporated municipalities. For example, the Brunswick Crossing development located in Brunswick will include over 1,400 single family, townhouse, and multifamily units. The rate of new housing construction growth will be a function of sales and municipal policies.”
This appears to have been part of the evaluation of the potential growth facing the Brunswick area, which is encouraging. But an examination of the 2016, 2017, 2018, and 2019 EFMPs reveals that this same paragraph was simply cut and pasted into all of those subsequent planning documents. The total build for Brunswick Crossing was not corrected until the 2020 EFMP was issued. We’re asked to rely upon the growth and capacity estimates for the Brunswick area, but it appears that for four years the assessment of those numbers consisted largely of cutting and pasting the same paragraph into subsequent reports, using numbers that underestimated the total build out for Brunswick Crossing by over 100 homes.
The Facilities Condition Index (FCI) was referred to several times by Board members and staff as a key factor supporting the delay of the BHS replacement, and the prioritizing of other schools. As described in The Comprehensive Maintenance Plan for Educational Facilities FY 2020:
“The FCI is defined as the ratio of current year required renewal cost (or, deferred
maintenance) to current building replacement value. The purpose of the FCI is to provide a means for objective comparison of building conditions, as well as allowing decision makers to understand building renewal funding needs.”
Each school was listed with a Current Replacement Value and Deferred Maintenance (DM) figure which provided the ratio for the FCI. Brunswick High School’s DM is listed as
$13,648,513. The information outlined below are some of the major conditions that were detailed in the BHS Feasibility Study 2019 on pgs. 28-78 and need to be addressed.
Roof, Stairways, Windows, Sidewalks: BHS Feasibility Study details the needs for roof replacement, window replacements, older sidewalk replacements, stairway
replacement and additional stairways (current stairs do not comply with current building codes and allowable occupancy of second floor require three 1-hour rated stairways with at least 2 of them exiting to the exterior. Section 2.4.1.2 Interior Circulation-Stairs and Elevator, p. 45), and better insulation for energy efficiency and comfort.
There is evidence of water infiltration throughout the building that needs to be addressed. The following statements were included in the BHS Feasibility Study,
Section 3 Existing Conditions, 4.1.2 Structural Systems Observations and Comments, p. 63:
“The overall roof system consists of poured gypsum which is vulnerable to water infiltration. Saturated gypsum deteriorates and loses its capacity to carry superimposed loads. It can also present a problem with mold and mildew. A leaking roof system was observed throughout the site. Further testing of the roof system is being conducted as part of this study. See Appendix E for the report.
•
• The structural steel at the exterior walls is exposed
• to the weather. This condition must be addressed and remedied. This includes steel beam channels, and columns. Sealing between steel and masonry is critical and because of thermal movement (summer and winter) it is difficult to
waterproof the exterior walls.
• Water infiltration was noted throughout the complex. The columns are exposed to both the outside and inside of the building and have no insulation; because of this thermal hot and cold transmits into the building. This does not meet the current energy code.
• Again because of water infiltration, existing mold and mildew are a major concern. Some minor rusting of the steel was also observed, and must be addressed.
• The exterior walls throughout the building have 2”
• cavities, which are not adequate to allow for proper drainage. We noted that there are no weep holes nor flashing at the exterior walls. It appears that the insulation fills the entire cavity preventing the proper drainage of water. Therefore, water filtering
• from the exterior brick into the inside of the exposed masonry was observed at many locations. We were told, repainting of walls due to peeling paint is a constant problem caused by the water seepage. We observed deteriorated brick joints at several locations.
• This is due to water infiltration causing rusting of the joint reinforcement. We are concerned that this condition will continue to cause deterioration, mold and mildew until it is addressed. “
Failure to Comply with the ADA: There are numerous areas throughout the school that are non-compliant with current ADA requirements according to the BHS Feasibility Study 2019. (p. 56)
“Specific renovations to the Brunswick High School over the years have addressed some accessibility issues, however full compliance with current ADA requirements is not provided throughout the facility. Existing non-compliant conditions include:
• There is no accessible route from the main school • building to the CTE/Arts building.
• All toilet rooms do not fully meet current ADA requirements.
• Fixture type and mounting heights, accessories, and clearances require correction in most locations.
• Door maneuvering clearances at entrances to classrooms,
• toilet rooms, locker rooms, etc. do not comply with current ADA requirements and require corrections in most locations.
• There are many building exits which do not have an • accessible route to the sidewalk upon exiting the building. • The auditorium stage does not have an accessible route
• from the audience area without leaving the auditorium space. Additionally, the orchestra pit and the auditorium control booth do not have a compliant route for access by disabled students and staff . The instrumental/vocal music classroom has a tiered floor
• and does not allow access for disabled students to get to the front of the classroom. • Shower facilities in the locker room areas do not have ADA compliant shower fixtures.
• Not all drinking fountain locations around the building • are ADA compliant.
• The open riser stairs are no longer compliant and, • if kept, would need to be corrected.”
Problematic Plumbing Systems: Plumbing systems have been problematic in the locker room area and need to be replaced (p.71) and the majority of the lights in the building were in various states of failure (p.72).
Non-Compliant Security Systems: The security systems are at maximum capacity and need to be replaced to comply with the current FCPS standards. Additionally, more security cameras are needed in areas of assembly, a lock down system needs to be installed, additional access control card readers need to be installed, and all security systems need to be located in a secure, dedicated space. (p. 77)
The information outlined above are just some of the major conditions that need to be addressed that were detailed in the BHS Feasibility Study 2019. Given the extensive nature of the repairs needed, we were interested to determine how the deferred maintenance estimate for BHS was assigned (e.g., method and actual numbers that were used to calculate the values). We were particularly interested, given the fact that the 2019 Feasibility Study estimated that the cost to “modernize” BHS to address these problems was estimated to be $74,147,541. But this information is not included in the Comprehensive Maintenance Plan for Educational Facilities FY 2020. So, again, we’re left with no meaningful explanation of how the inputs to the formula used in the EFMP are determined. A model is only as good as the information that is used to feed it and, here, we have no means to examine or understand the veracity of that information.
In sum, and to put it bluntly, according to the County’s own 2019 Feasibility Study the BHS building is seriously substandard; the feeder schools are overflowing; and at the current pace we can expect 828 additional occupied homes in the community by the time the design phase of the BHS project is complete. Yet, Brunswick is asked to wait over a decade to replace the oldest high school in the County. Our students and teachers have shouldered more than their fair share of the load while other County schools received needed renovations and replacements.
Brunswick had made do for long enough.
We respectfully ask the Board to vote no to any EFMP that removes the Brunswick High School replacement from the five year CIP.
Thank you,
Jerry and Hope Bonanno
Crystal Pierson
Dear Board of Education and Superintendent,
I am concerned, and want to ask you to please vote NO on the Superintendent's Educational Facilities Master Plan (EFMP) 2020 on Wednesday, June 24th for the following reasons.
The 2020 EFMP has BHS design phase set for 2029 and I am concerned with your proposal to disregard expert Feasibility advice on our Brunswick High School Building. We moved into the area, understanding a new high school was coming and we would have modern accommodations. My children will miss out of you push this out 9 years. The feasibility report's experts informed you of the dangerous current building issues.
I would like to support Ellen Fowler and restate the items from the feasibility study.
The feasibility study identified and informedof serious current building conditions and ADA problems with building and made the following recommendations . . .
Feasibility Study Building Issues
2.3.1 Exterior Walls and Windows States
"The exterior masonry building envelope areas should be addressed to prevent any further water infiltration into the building envelope as there is no method in this wall construction type to remove water once infiltrated into the wall.
There are several locations where recurring leaks and condensation issues have been reported,
indicating that all areas should be evaluated to have the frame perimeters resealed. School staff report thermal discomfort around the perimeter of the building. Leaks and condensation issues could be a serious health hazard with mold, damage to asbestos currently in building to cause asbestos to become airborne and health compromised.
The building’s exterior window systems, due to poor performance, are in very poor condition and have exceeded their useful life.
2.3.3 Roof of BHS feasibility study states
The overall built-up roofing areas are nearing the end of its useful life. There are areas where there is evidence that some water ponding occurs after weather events. There are some areas where there is damage to roof drains and flashing for roof equipment. You have not addressed this problem, If this roof fails, where are you going to put all of our students?
2.4.7 Auditorium
The plaster ceiling is in fair-to-poor condition. There are reports of water penetration issues along the rear stage wall. The acoustic performance in the auditorium house area is poor. Lighting and sound equipment systems are poor, outdated, and in need of replacement.
2.4.9 Dining / Kitchen
The flooring at the corridor intersection adjacent to the Dining Room has a large crack and evidence of differential settlement in the floor slab.
2.4.10 CTE/Arts
This wing shares similar construction detailing with the original 1963 school and demonstrates similar signs of age and compromises of the exterior envelope described earlier in Section 2. There is evidence of through wall flashing and weeps in portions of the exterior walls of this building.
The primary negative aspect of this building (Area E) is that its floor level is two-feet below the level of the main school building, with no accessible route between them. As a separate building, faculty and staff must exit the building and then re-enter. This poses both supervisory challenges as well as safety and security challenges for both students and staff . This wing does not contain staff or student toilet rooms, requiring outdoor travel to the main school building for toilet room access.
2.4.11 P.E. / Athletics
With the gymnasium, There is evidence of water penetration in two locations, resulting in painted surface degradation on both the CMU wall and structural steel roof framing.
The original gymnasium now serves as an auxiliary gym. There is no bleacher seating in this space. The walls appear to be in fair-to-poor condition. It was reported by school staff that
CMU wall units in the upper northwest corner became dislodged and fell to the floor a few years ago. The aluminum windows contain original, single-pane glazing and are in poor condition. Locker and shower spaces around the original gymnasium are outdated. Lockers are in very poor condition. The feasibility report outlined numerous building issues that are vulnerable and I dont understand you leaving our children in a safety hazardous school, and is one of the several reasons why we
recommended and addressed the BOE last year to build a new school. The Feasibility report summarized BHS problems . . .
4.1.2 Observations and Comments:
• The overall roof system consists of poured gypsum which is vulnerable to water infiltration. Saturated gypsum deteriorates and loses its capacity to carry superimposed loads. It can also present a problem with mold and mildew. A leaking roof system was observed throughout the site. Further testing of the roof system is being conducted as part of this study. See Appendix E for the report.
• The structural steel at the exterior walls is exposed to the weather. This condition must be addressed and remedied. This includes steel beam channels, and columns. Sealing between steel and masonry is critical and because of thermal movement (summer and winter) it is difficult to waterproof the exterior walls. Water infiltration was noted throughout the complex. The columns are exposed to both the outside and inside of the building and have no insulation; because of this thermal hot and cold transmits into the building. This does not meet the current energy code. Again because of water infiltration, existing mold and mildew are a major concern. Some minor rusting of the steel was also observed, and must be addressed.
• The exterior walls throughout the building have 2” cavities, which are not adequate to allow for proper drainage. We noted that there are no weep holes nor flashing at the exterior walls. It appears that the insulation fills the entire cavity preventing the proper drainage of water. Therefore, water filtering from the exterior brick into the inside of the exposed masonry was observed at many locations. We were told, repainting of walls due to peeling paint is a constant problem caused by the water seepage. We
observed deteriorated brick joints at several locations. This is due to water infiltration causing rusting of the joint reinforcement. We are concerned that this condition will continue to cause deterioration, mold and mildew until it is addressed. Further testing of the exterior wall is being conducted as part of this
study. See Appendix E for the report.
• Because of the lack of expansion joints there are numerous conditions where the floor has cracked and is uneven. Various methods are available to improve the condition of the floor depending on budget constraints.
• We observed some minor masonry cracking in several isolated areas; example room 115. From the information we were furnished, these cracks appeared after the earthquake in 2011. None of these areas appear to be structurally serious. Although not serious, we do recommend fixing. Note from what we could deter-mine, none of the masonry walls are reinforced except at the new gymnasium built in 1993.
• This building is not protected from damage regarding seismic loading. This includes steel lateral cross bracing at exterior and interior walls and reinforcing of masonry walls.
This report’s assessment of the existing building’s structural systems is based upon available construction document drawings and on non-invasive visual inspections. Though it is apparent that significant work will be required to bring the current structure up to current standards and codes, it will be necessary during future design phases involving renovation and modernization of the existing building that a fully comprehensive structural analyses be undertaken. This analysis will ascertain the extent to which modifications to the building’s structural systems will be needed to bring the building into current standards and building
As you have read from the BHS feasibility report. This building is unsafe, and they pointed out to you that numerous things needed to be addressed. With asbestos throughout the building, only complicates and adds to its unhealthness for students and staff. Current building leaking water issues add to the poor health environment you want our children to go to school in for 9 more years.
It has been a year since this study, what have you addressed?
Please vote No on the current 2020 EFPM, I feel design being pushed out to 2029 is not acceptable given the current condition of Brunswick High School. I respect fully urge the board to please carefully
consider modifications to this plan as it relates to Brunswick High School. Concerned,
Crystal Pierson
Brunswick citizen, mother to up and coming high schoolers
So that you can familiarize yourself, here is the link to the feasibility study:
https://go.boarddocs.com/mabe/fcps/Board.nsf/files/BCN5J26D502D/$file/06.12.19%20Brunswick%20 High%20School%20Feasibility%20Study%20Report%202019_%20backup1_FINAL.pdf
Ellen Fowler
Dear Board of Education and Superintendent,
I am concerned, and want to ask you to please vote NO on the Superintendent's Educational Facilities Master Plan (EFMP) 2020 on Wednesday, June 24th for the following reasons and I am requesting that you please read my comments at the boardmeeting.. since we can not attend.
The 2020 EFMP has BHS design phase set for 2029 and I am concerned with your proposal to disregard expert Feasibility advice on our Brunswiick High School Building. Your wanting students to wait 9 years to build a new school in a school that is unsafe. The feasibility report's experts informed you of the dangerous current building issues.
I have personally inspected BHS asbestos reports and that BHS has numerous asbestos issues with flooring, edging, asbestos pipe spraying that runs through out most of the buildings and classrooms. Please remember as you read the list below of building issues that leaving asbestos to further wear down or water damage could dangerously expose staff and students to airborne asbestos particles and could result in serious and deadly health conditions to students and staff.
The feasibility study identified and informed you of serious current building conditions and ADA problems with building and made the following recommendations . . .
Feasibility Study Building Issues
2.3.1 Exterior Walls and Windows States
"The exterior masonry building envelope areas should be addressed to prevent any further water infiltration into the building envelope as there is no method in this wall construction type to remove water once infiltrated into the wall.
There are several locations where recurring leaks and condensation issues have been reported,
indicating that all areas should be evaluated to have the frame perimeters resealed. School staff report thermal discomfort around the perimeter of the building. Leaks and condensation issues could be a serious health hazard with mold, damage to asbestos currently in building to cause asbestos to become airborne and health compromised.
The building’s exterior window systems, due to poor performance, are in very poor condition and have exceeded their useful life.
2.3.3 Roof of BHS feasibility study states
The overall built-up roofing areas are nearing the end of its useful life. There are areas where there is evidence that some water ponding occurs after weather events. There are some areas where there is damage to roof drains and flashing for roof equipment. You have not addressed this problem, If this roof fails, where are you going to put all of our students?
2.4.7 Auditorium
The plaster ceiling is in fair-to-poor condition. There are reports of water penetration issues along the rear stage wall. The acoustic performance in the auditorium house area is poor. Lighting and sound equipment systems are poor, outdated, and in need of replacement.
2.4.9 Dining / Kitchen
The flooring at the corridor intersection adjacent to the Dining Room has a large crack and evidence of differential settlement in the floor slab.
2.4.10 CTE/Arts
This wing shares similar construction detailing with the original 1963 school and demonstrates similar signs of age and compromises of the exterior envelope described earlier in Section 2. There is evidence of through wall flashing and weeps in portions of the exterior walls of this building.
The primary negative aspect of this building (Area E) is that its floor level is two-feet below the level of the main school building, with no accessible route between them. As a separate building, faculty and staff must exit the building and then re-enter. This poses both supervisory challenges as well as safety and security challenges for both students and staff . This wing does not contain staff or student toilet rooms, requiring outdoor travel to the main school building for toilet room access.
2.4.11 P.E. / Athletics
With the gymnasium, There is evidence of water penetration in two locations, resulting in painted surface degradation on both the CMU wall and structural steel roof framing.
The original gymnasium now serves as an auxiliary gym. There is no bleacher seating in this space. The walls appear to be in fair-to-poor condition. It was reported by school staff that
CMU wall units in the upper northwest corner became dislodged and fell to the floor a few years ago. The aluminum windows contain original, single-pane glazing and are in poor condition. Locker and shower spaces around the original gymnasium are outdated. Lockers are in very poor condition.
The feasibility report outlined numerous building issues that are vulnerable and you leaving our children in a safety hazards school and is one of the several reasons why we recommended and addressed the BOE to build a new school, a d that is what you did.
4.1.2 Observations and Comments:
• The overall roof system consists of poured gypsum which is vulnerable to water infiltration. Saturated gypsum deteriorates and loses its capacity to carry superimposed loads. It can also present a problem with mold and mildew. A leaking roof system was observed throughout the site. Further testing of the roof system is being conducted as part of this study. See Appendix E for the report.
• The structural steel at the exterior walls is exposed to the weather. This condition must be addressed and remedied. This includes steel beam channels, and
columns. Sealing between steel and masonry is critical and because of thermal movement (summer and winter) it is difficult to waterproof the exterior walls. Water infiltration was noted throughout the
complex. The columns are exposed to both the outside and inside of the building and have no insulation; because of this thermal hot and cold transmits into the building. This does not meet the current energy code. Again because of water infiltration, existing mold and mildew are a major concern. Some minor rusting of the steel was also observed, and must be addressed.
• The exterior walls throughout the building have 2” cavities, which are not adequate to allow for proper drainage. We noted that there are no weep holes nor flashing at the exterior walls. It appears that the insulation fills the entire cavity preventing the proper drainage of water. Therefore, water filtering from the exterior brick into the inside of the exposed masonry was observed at many locations. We were told, repainting of walls due to peeling paint is a constant problem caused by the water seepage. We
observed deteriorated brick joints at several locations. This is due to water infiltration causing rusting of the joint reinforcement. We are concerned that this condition will continue to cause deterioration, mold and mildew until it is addressed. Further testing of the exterior wall is being conducted as part of this study. See Appendix E for the report.
• Because of the lack of expansion joints there are numerous conditions where the floor has cracked and is uneven. Various methods are available to improve the condition of the floor depending on budget constraints.
• We observed some minor masonry cracking in several isolated areas; example room 115. From the information we were furnished, these cracks appeared after the earthquake in 2011. None of these areas appear to be structurally serious. Although not serious, we do recommend fixing. Note from what we could deter-mine, none of the masonry walls are reinforced except at the new gymnasium built in 1993.
• This building is not protected from damage regarding seismic loading. This includes steel lateral cross bracing at exterior and interior walls and reinforcing of masonry walls.
This report’s assessment of the existing building’s structural systems is based upon available construction document drawings and on non-invasive visual inspections. Though it is apparent that significant work will be required to bring the current structure up to current standards and codes, it will be necessary during future design phases involving renovation and modernization of the existing building that a fully comprehensive structural analyses be undertaken. This analysis will ascertain the extent to which modifications to the building’s structural systems will be needed to bring the building into current standards and building
As you have read from the BHS feasibility report. This building is unsafe, and they pointed out to you that numerous things needed to be addressed. With asbestos throughout the building complicates and adds to its unhealthness for students and staff. Current building leaking water issues add to the poor health environment you want our children to go to school in for 9 more years.
It has been a year since this study, what have you addressed?
Please vote No on the current 2020 EFPM, I feel design being pushed out to 2029 is not acceptable given the current condition of Brunswick High School. I respectfully urge the board to please carefully
Concerned, Ellen Fowler
Brunswick citizen, PTO President, mother and grandmother
Colleen Gates
