South Valley Sports Toilet Cost and Schedule Management

It is time to begin tracking the cost and schedule for the South Valley Restroom and Concession stand, aka, Senator Nancy King's sports toilet.

HISTORY

The South Valley Restroom and Concession stand was proposed and awarded a Maryland Bond Bill grant to the Montgomery Village Sports Association (MVSA) in early 2012.To actually receive this $125,000 grant, the project must be completed in a timely manner and in accordance with the Maryland Department of General Services (DGS) procedures. Consequently, it is time for the Montgomery Village Foundation (MVF) to elevate its game and initiate rigorous cost and schedule management of this project using professional earned value management techniques.

Senator Nancy King and MVF President Bob Hydorn are the ones bringing this unwanted and unsavory "amenity" to Montgomery Village. Far from nurturing the flourishing brand, this addition to South Valley Park is unwanted because nearby residents objected, nature lovers objected, fiscally minded Villagers objected, and even the Maryland legislature objected to awarding the $125,000 Bond Bill grant to MVF. Dissatisfaction with this "amenity" will only grow as the financial facts become known along with the difficulties in planning and resolving  certain cost pressures stemming from sewer/water and electrical connections and permit costs along with a plat requirement for a natural resource inventory and forest conservation plan.

BASELINE

The September 6, 2013 MV News establishes the baseline parameters for such project management. Important to highlight:

1. The project was previously approved in the MVF Fund, but it has now been moved to the Capital Contribution Fee (CCF) Fund. Ongoing operating costs will be funded by MVF Fund.

2. Project costs are shown net a 50% grant approved by the state of MD. Reserve contributions will be based on the full amount of the project cost.

Splitting the responsibility for this project between the MVF Fund and the CCF Fund adds to the complexity of tracking the project costs to completion and diminishes the transparency that would facilitate Village residents attention to these outlays. 

The MVF Fund contains annual outlays for SVP concession/ restroom of  $8,333, $8334, $8,335, $8,336, and $8,337 for 2014 though 2018 and beyond. The CCF Fund contains a 2014 budgeted expense of $125,000 for SVP concession/ restroom. These figures comprise the cost baseline.

ISSUES

Planning for the South Valley Restroom and Concession stand must resolve certain cost pressures stemming from sewer/water and electrical connections and permit costs along with a plat requirement for a natural resource inventory and forest conservation plan.

In addition, risk management measures must take into account the potential impact of M83 Option 9 favored by the City of Gaithersburg which threatens South Vally Park itself.

OPPORTUNITY

Beyond cost and management challenges and known issues, there is a game changing opportunity being presented by the MV Golf Course development with its Blooming Montgomery Village initiative.

The opportunity lies in relocating the Montgomery Village Sports Association (MVSA) sports fields and the South Valley Restroom and Concession stand to the golf course property. With 147 acres, the golf course would be a wonderful site to relocate the Montgomery Village Sports Association (MVSA) sports fields from South Valley Park, a move that would address the following community stresses:

1. It would eliminate the South Valley tension between the interests of recreation enthusiasts and nature preserve purists. The MVF Board could then designate South Valley as a nature preserve. 
2. It would eliminate the tension surrounding State Senator Nancy King's Bond Bill sports toilet project. Relocating the MVSA sports fields and the South Valley Restroom and Concession stand to the golf course would eliminate this persistent community tension entirely.
3. It would eliminate the South Valley specific sports toilet project cost pressure stemming from sewer/water and electrical connections and permit costs along with a plat requirement for a natural resource inventory and forest conservation plan.
4. It would eliminate the MVSA sports field scheduling conflicts and ensure fairness for both boys and girls teams.
5. It would eliminate the disruption to the MVSA South Valley sports programs and the attendant health risks of the impending M83 Mid-County Corridor Study Options 8 or 9 representing 40% of the alternatives retained for additional study and impacting 30-48 acres of parkland. The City of Gaithersburg selection of Alternative 9 makes it the odds on favorite choice.

Adopting this game changing strategy would convert the challenge of developing the MV golf course into an opportunity to resolve these long held issues and stresses and an opportunity to demonstrate leadership to deliver outcomes residents desire.

TRACKING

The MVF must determine the estimated cost at completion, the estimated schedule at completion, and the percent of earned value completion as follows:

August 2013 

estimated cost at completion- not available

estimated schedule at completion- not available

percent of earned value completion- not available

September 2013 

estimated cost at completion 

estimated schedule at completion

percent of earned value completion

October 2013 

estimated cost at completion 

estimated schedule at completion

percent of earned value completion

November 2013 

estimated cost at completion 

estimated schedule at completion

percent of earned value completion

December 2013 

estimated cost at completion 

estimated schedule at completion

percent of earned value completion

January 2014

estimated cost at completion 

estimated schedule at completion

percent of earned value completion

February 2014

estimated cost at completion 

estimated schedule at completion

percent of earned value completion

March 2014

estimated cost at completion 

estimated schedule at completion

percent of earned value completion

April 2014

estimated cost at completion 

estimated schedule at completion

percent of earned value completion

May 2014

estimated cost at completion 

estimated schedule at completion

percent of earned value completion

June 2014

estimated cost at completion 

estimated schedule at completion

percent of earned value completion

July 2014

estimated cost at completion 

estimated schedule at completion

percent of earned value completion

August 2014

estimated cost at completion 

estimated schedule at completion

percent of earned value completion

September 2014

estimated cost at completion 

estimated schedule at completion

percent of earned value completion

October 2014

estimated cost at completion 

estimated schedule at completion

percent of earned value completion

November 2014

estimated cost at completion 

estimated schedule at completion

percent of earned value completion

December 2014

estimated cost at completion 

estimated schedule at completion

percent of earned value completion