Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the School Facilities topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Germantown board approves Amy Bell Elementary overflow lot paving after 4-3 vote; members raise procurement and safety concerns
Summary
The Germantown School District Board approved paving an overflow parking lot across from Amy Bell Elementary for $57,184, funding it from the district's Fund 41 capital improvements budget. Several board members said the project did not go through a standard bid process and urged immediate safety signage and crosswalk work.
The Germantown School District Board of Education approved a $57,184 contract to pave and stripe the overflow parking lot at Amy Bell Elementary School despite objections from several members about procurement and pedestrian safety.
The project was presented to the board as grading and paving roughly 13,000 square feet of existing gravel lot, reconstructing a compacted hot-mix asphalt pavement, and providing pavement markings and any required ADA elements. The motion authorized Johnson and Sons Paving to perform the work and directed funding from Fund 41 (Capital Improvements).
Board members who opposed the item said the district did not follow the standard public bidding process. "I am going to remain a no on this vote," said Mister Pollock, who also told colleagues that signage and crosswalk work must be accelerated if the lot is paved. "If this moves forward we need to accelerate that signage, for safety purposes," he said, noting heavy pedestrian traffic during pick-up and drop-off periods.
President Ewart described the board's concern over the procurement process and the use of taxpayer funds. "We're spending upwards of almost $60,000. We we can't have that," he said, criticizing the project scope and the decision to proceed without multiple bids.
Other board members defended moving the project forward this year to take advantage of paving season and what they described as a reasonable price. Mister Barney said he would vote in favor, noting timing constraints for completing asphalt work before winter. Mister Love said he was "not happy about the lack of quotes," but that "the price seemed reasonable and that's why I was a yes vote" at the earlier committee meeting.
The vote in open session was 4 in favor and 3 opposed. Board members asked administration to prioritize safety measures, including signage and a crosswalk or other traffic controls, before or immediately after construction. Board materials said the work could be tentatively completed by October (the packet discussed an October target), but the board did not set a firm completion date at the meeting.
The paving item originated from the Buildings & Grounds committee and was recommended to the Finance Committee before coming to the full board. Committee materials discussed contacting the county about any required approvals and flagged additional work such as crosswalk placement and signage as outstanding items that would require follow-up.
The board did not add additional funding for signage or crosswalk improvements in the motion; members who voted no said those elements should have been scoped and bid with the project. Supporters said delaying to rebid risked pushing the work past the seasonal window for asphalt.
The district did not identify the project mover and seconder on the public record; committee materials show it came forward with a positive committee recommendation.
A next step the board requested was clearer scheduling for signage and a follow-up on whether a formal crosswalk or other permanent pedestrian infrastructure could be added to the contract or completed before winter.
