Community Weighs Options for Greenacres School

(Updated March 14) The first of two public forums on the future of the Greenacres Elementary School was held in the school's gym on the evening of March 3. Superintendent Dr. Thomas Hagerman welcomed all to the meeting and asked for a show of hands to determine which demographics were represented. The vast majority of attendees were from Greenacres but within that group there was a fairly good mix of people with children currently enrolled in the school system and those without. Hagerman noted the presence of members of the Board of Education, as well as Assistant Superintendent for Business, Stuart Mattey and Russ Davidson from KG&D Architects whose firm conducted the District-wide building condition survey and also developed proposals for the Greenacres School. The agenda called for an overview of the planning process for the prospective May 2017 bond, a review of the building conditions survey in order to put the needs of Greenacres in the context of the needs of the District's buildings and the recommendations of the Re-convened Greenacres Building Committee. These topics were previously presented in depth at Board of Education meetings and covered by this site here:

To recap, the re-convened Greenacres Building Committee determined that the best proposals to consider going forward were those commonly referred to as "B1" and "C" described briefly as follows:

Option B1 – renovate Greenacres Elementary School interior to educational model standards, plus build an additional six classrooms and several small group instruction spaces in a two-story addition on the north side (Huntington Avenue) of the building.

Option C – build a new school on the open field area across the street and convert existing site into playing fields.

A small, but critical bit of new information on Option B1 was added during the forum. As originally reported at a January Board of Education meeting, Option B1 was estimated to cost $49.4 million vs. Option C at a cost of $56.4 million. At this forum, Davidson also presented a possible version of Option B1 at $35.1 million that was derived by delaying and phasing in certain repairs to the building over time. He mentioned, for example, delaying the replacement of the roof for several years. There were no other details provided on what pieces of the project would be delayed and phased in rather than part of the initial construction. A follow-up email to Stuart Mattey asking for detail was answered "There has not been any additional information shared with nor discussed by the district at this point in time as this estimate has just very recently been developed. In the upcoming months, as we go through the process, we will have the opportunity to go through any chosen option in more detail as the district-wide project as a whole is developed." Davidson did say at the forum that a true "apples to apples" cost comparison would be the original two numbers of $49.4 million vs. $56.4 million.

Many meeting attendees arrived with a document in-hand distributed by The Committee to Save Greenacres who oppose Option C and encouraged community members to come to the forums. An email blast from this group was sent to community members on January 20 closing with "Now is the time for us to show the Board of Ed that the Greenacres community supports a modern educational facility for our children while preserving the vital Greenacres field. If you care about the future of our neighborhood, speak up and be counted on March 3 and March 15."

There were two comment/question periods offered (after the building conditions survey and after the Greenacres Building Committee study report) the highlights of which are summarized below. The format of a public forum does not require that people state their name and address and the meeting was not recorded.

• The Architects were asked to respond to on-going rumors about the safety of the current Greenacres building with regard to the presence of asbestos and mold. The answers are that there is asbestos present in the building but it poses no danger to anyone in the building, as it is intact. Davidson mentioned it is common to have asbestos materials in buildings that are old and have had work done over the years. He stressed that no safety risk was posed. As for mold, he said that there had been mold present in the building in the past, but there is no current issue. He did say that there are building conditions that can lead to the development of mold due to the high water table of the building location, but due to the vigilance of maintenance staff it is addressed and well managed. To be clear, asbestos is present with no risk and there is no mold issue in the current building.

• The vast majority of people who spoke at the meeting used their time at the mic to support Option B1. Many people spoke about the importance of preserving the field and its role as the centerpiece of the Greenacres community as has been heard at all previous meetings on the subject. Residents also discussed the important difference between contiguous field space vs. a similar amount of space broken up over two locations. Davidson agreed that contiguous space does provide for more flexibility in the way the fields can be used.

• A resident asked if it would be possible to knock down the current Greenacres school building and rebuild on the same site to preserve the field. Davidson responded that this had been considered but was eliminated due to cost and disruption. Among other considerations, trailers required to house students for the construction period are very expensive.

• Stuart Mattey addressed audience questions about the decision timeline and next steps. In short, at present the Board of Education is gathering community input on the available options via public forums. No decisions have been made. Before the end of this school year, the Board will make a recommendation of Option B1 or C to the soon to be formed District Wide Building Steering Committee. This Committee will work over the next school year on developing the District Wide Master Plan using the Building Condition Survey and reports from Building Level Committees already in process and prioritize needs. The District Wide Master Plan will form the basis of the capital projects for the May 2017 Bond proposal.

• There were questions about how the District Wide Building Steering Committee would be formed. Mattey said he would soon be sending out information to the community asking for candidates. This Committee is envisioned to be comprised of community members (both with and without children in the school system), Board of Education members, teachers, students and administrators.

• There were some comments that teachers should not have been voting members of the re-convened Greenacres Building Committee and should not be part of the District Wide Building Steering Committee. In response to these comments, one resident who had been a member of the original Greenacres Building Committee, spoke about the importance of having the input of teachers on educational and general facilities' needs.

• One person at the meeting spoke twice in favor of Option C. This Greenacres resident has two very young children still a few years away from attending Greenacres Elementary School. He wanted to make sure that those who have very young children who would have the full benefit of a completely new facility are heard.

• Concerns about the environmental review process were raised. As things currently stand, an environmental impact review would take place after a recommendation is made about which option to pursue. Several attendees thought this would be a very important factor to consider before making a recommendation and in particular there was concern about how a new school building on the existing field might impact flooding in the area.

The next Public Forum is scheduled for March 15 at 9:00am in the High School auditorium. The Board of Education encourages community members to familiarize themselves with the issues, attend the forum and make their voices heard.