The Fayetteville Environmental Action Committee on July 21 discussed the proposed Graney junior high school site and agreed to draft a joint letter to the mayor and the Fayetteville School Board urging broader, coordinated consideration of alternative sites and additional technical review.

Committee chair Jeff Pummel opened the discussion by placing the item on the committee’s old‑business agenda and asking for members’ views. “I just wanted us to talk for just a few minutes about where we are right now with the whole issue and what people are thinking about,” Pummel said. Several members raised concerns about site geology, traffic access and loss of tree canopy if the school is built on the proposed parcel.

Member Margaret (first name only in the record) and other committee members cited a detailed letter from a local resident (referenced in the meeting as a technical letter) outlining risks including steep slopes, constrained ingress/egress and foundation problems on nearby properties. Margaret said the site “will be expensive to develop no matter who develops it because of the site and all the challenges associated with the site.”

City planning staff advised that no formal rezoning or variance application from the school district had been received as of the most recent intake cycle; Longridge Planning staff noted the next application intake date was July 30 and that the planning commission would likely hear any application in early September. Planning staff said, “The next time an application kind of could come in is on July 30. Whether or not the school district would intend to submit for that date or not, unclear.” (Britton/Longridge Planning).

Public commenters and committee members pushed for a more proactive, cross‑jurisdictional effort. Dot Neely (public commenter) cited scholarly and local geological data and said the shale and swelling clays on local slopes could drive very high mitigation costs, estimating “at least $10,000,000 to adapt the site” (commenter statement). Committee members and residents also raised traffic and neighborhood impacts from student drop‑off and heavy trucks and urged that alternatives be pursued before the issue reaches planning commission hearings.

Committee members discussed options for committee involvement. Several members recommended preparing a letter that would (a) summarize the committee’s environmental concerns, (b) request that the mayor convene a task force including city staff and school‑district representatives to seek alternatives, and (c) note available technical resources and resident feedback. Member Margaret volunteered to draft the initial letter and circulate it to the committee for revision. After a show of hands the committee indicated support for circulating a draft to send to the mayor and the school board.

No formal motion or binding vote was recorded; the committee agreed to prepare a draft letter and to circulate it for committee review before any submission to planning commission or city council. Committee staff noted the process would aim to provide committee comments to planning commission if an application is filed.

Why it matters: Committee members said the site’s geology, slope, tree cover and constrained access raise both environmental and public‑safety concerns. The committee positioned itself to provide technical and public‑comment support for a more thorough site assessment and to ask the city and school board to pursue alternatives prior to a formal land‑use change.

What’s next: Margaret will circulate a draft letter to the committee; if an application is submitted to the city by July 30 it could be scheduled for planning commission review on September 8. The committee asked staff to track planning intake and to compile the technical materials cited by public commenters for committee review.