Board OKs $27M school project
GREENWICH — By a narrow margin, the Board of Education voted to approve the education specifications for a $27 million renovation project at Julian Curtiss School.
But the project was the subject of intense debate at the board’s meeting Thursday night over its scale and its potential impact on other building projects due to the cost.
School board members Christina Downey, Karen Kowalski and Peter Sherr voted against the education specifications — preliminary documents used to guide the design process. Board of Education Chair Peter Berntein, Vice Chair Katherine Stowe, Secretary Karen Hirsh and members Joe Kelley and Meghan Olsson voted in favor of the plan.
“I have strong reservations in approving a project of this size that addresses more than ADA, accessibility and security issues.” Karen Kowalski, school board member
“About two weeks ago, we presented our original scheme, which was much more pared down than (the one) we did in the spring,” Joseph Costa, principal at Perkins Eastman, the firm hired to create the education specifications, told the school board. “We heard from the board that there should be additional items.”
Specifically, members of the Board of Education, including Bernstein, had asked Costa to revisit the project to add a science classroom and a new first-floor corridor and courtyard, enhancements that would increase the price tag by about $1 million to $1.6 million, as well as the square footage.
Those additions, along with two new prekindergarten rooms, which had been part of the plan since its earliest incarnation, were debated by the board members, some of whom felt the project was too large.
Downey and other board members wondered whether there was an option to bring much-needed health, safety and Americans with Disabilities Act access improvements to the building in a more cost-effective way, without the science room and courtyard. She also questioned whether the cost of the project would rise in the coming years — the full project would take several years to complete, pending approval — and make it unfeasible.
“I have reservations because I’m looking at the number of schools after this in addition that may need attention,” Kowalski said, referring to the board’s 2018 Master Facilities Plan, which looks at district schools based on need. Several, such as Julian Curtiss, also have ADA compliance issues. “I have strong reservations in approving a project of this size that addresses more than ADA, accessibility and security issues.”
Others, including Kowalski, questioned the need for a science classroom in an elementary school. Sherr characterized the project as a “want-to-have” as opposed to a “need-to-have.”
According to Superintendent of Schools Toni Jones, seven of the district’s 11 elementary schools already have science classrooms. Bernstein suggested the board take a forward-thinking approach to its science curriculum, the implementation of which could be aided by hands-on science spaces.
Kowalski and Sherr also raised questions about the need to add classrooms at Julian Curtiss. According to a recent enrollment report, the district is expected to see a downward trend in its student population.
“I’m stuck on why we’re adding classrooms, particularly when school enrollment is declining year over year,” Kowalski said.
And while Sherr agreed that the idea of offering neighborhood preschools is nice, given the capacity around the district, he said there may be more efficient ways to use school classrooms.
“What I’m concerned about is that we have an assumption that’s driving all of this in our facilities plan,” Sherr said. “Which is all buildings will stay where they are and all current school zones will stay where they are. I’ve been on the board 10 years, and I never want to touch redistricting. But other boards before us were more courageous. This is long before me. And sure it was incredibly unpopular, but they made the hard decisions to more efficiently use our buildings.”
Bernstein, however, stressed the uncertainty caused by the COVID-19 pandemic and its potential effect on those projections.
“I think it’s dangerous to look at the capacity this year as the bellwether for all years,” Bernstein said. “We do not know what it’s going to look like next year … so I want to be very careful when we talk about capacity.”
When it came to a roll call vote, Downey and Hirsh passed when Bernstein addressed them. He returned to them at the end, at which point Bernstein, Kelly, Olsson and Stowe had voted in favor. Kowalski and Sherr voted no.
Downey, reluctantly, voted in dissent, leaving the decisive vote to Hirsh, who could’ve caused a tie with a vote in the negative. Instead, after some deliberation, Hirsh gave the edge to those in favor.