Sides form in the battle over GHS’s Cardinal Stadium

GREENWICH — To build or not to build? And if to build, to build what exactly? My apologies to Bill Shakespeare, but those are the questions being asked about plans for a new Cardinal Stadium at Greenwich High School.

Many people around town are probably unaware that the school board is pursuing funds to revamp Cardinal Stadium and to change, eventually, the entire configuration of the southern part of the GHS campus. Such a project was considered years away; the new athletic

facilities ranked pretty low on the priority list that was included in the school board’s 15-year, $750 million master plan.

But now a new Cardinal Stadium sits atop the Greenwich Public Schools wish. Sussing out how and why Cardinal Stadium earned its place of honor on the construction schedule is a byzantine tale of dysfunctional school board relationships and a seemingly reluctant Board of Estimate and Taxation that has not insisted that the school board stick to its original priorities.

Instead of delving into the arcane minutiae of intra- and inter-board governance and politics, there is a more interesting story in the tale of two GHS stadium plans.

The first plan, favored by Board of Education Chairman Peter Bernstein, who also made himself chair of a committee he formed to explore stadium options, would raze the existing, and condemned, bleachers, and build new seating sections on a site 20 feet closer to the playing field. Phase two of this plan calls for new parking spaces under the bleacher section and a new access road. The third phase would see the entire tennis court complex moved to another campus location to make way for a 7,000-square-foot athletic complex. Total price tag stands at about $20 million.

Before you can say PCBs and soil contamination, does anyone think digging yet another new foundation in this heavily compromised site is a good idea? It’s been eight years since PCBs were discovered when the hole was dug for a new auditorium and music classrooms, and the town still does not know how much that cleanup will eventually cost. Several RTM members have told me that school

Sussing out how Cardinal Stadium earned its place of honor on the construction schedule is a byzantine tale of dysfunctional school board relationships and a seemingly reluctant BET.

board members claim the stadium site is clean. I’ll believe it when they dig it up and show us.

In heralding his plan, Bernstein said there was promise of a significant gift from the private sector that would lower the cost to the town. This is where the second stadium plan comes in.

The Greenwich Athletic Foundation has promised a major fundraising drive for a stadium plan that provides a state-of-the art facility for GHS teams. Unfortunately, according to Randy Caravella, a founder of the GAF and currently its chairman, the Bernstein plan “is not one we would raise money for.”

“I want to be clear,” Caravella said this week. “We always support the town when it wants to build new athletic facilities. We bought and installed the new speakers at the stadium. Purchased new bleachers for the gymnasium, a new scoreboard for the stadium and new equipment for the Dorothy Hamill skating rink. And we will support whatever the town decides at Cardinal Stadium, but we will not raise funds for the plan as it stands now.”

Cardinal Stadium as envisioned by GAF differs substantially from the Bernstein plan. It calls for either refurbishing the condemned bleachers or buying new ones that would be placed in the existing footprint, not moved closer to the playing field. Instead of building a new “complex” where the tennis courts are, the GAF plan would put team locker rooms, public bathrooms and concession stands under the bleachers.

“We got an estimate from an engineer and a contractor. Bringing the existing bleachers up to code would cost $125,000 or less,” the GAF treasurer said.

“Using space under the bleachers is done in almost every new high school stadium,” Caravella said. “Greenwich Country Day School is doing it now in building its new complex, and Fairfield University has done it. It is the most efficient use of space.”

Several GAF members met with Bernstein’s stadium committee recently, and came away believing the two plans would be presented to the school board “for a vote” at its June 13 meeting. I would be very surprised if it gets to a vote. The BOE is on record supporting the Bernstein plan. By bringing the GAF plan up for discussion, the BOE can appear to be considering the group’s proposal but ultimately reject it.

All this brings us back to whether a new stadium should be built, no matter which of the two designs is chosen. The school board is expecting to receive the first round of funding to replace bleachers and other work beginning July 1, but the finance board says it won’t release the money until all town land use agencies sign off on the plan.

If a large stadium project is approved, do not be surprised when the bill doubles because some black goo or other contaminant is unearthed by the first steam shovel to break ground at the stadium.