Parents and officials spar over portables after testing finds minimal radon, single mold spore; district spends for testing and remediation

Board members spent a large portion of their Sept. 11 meeting addressing concerns about the district's portable classrooms after parents and staff raised questions about indoor air quality, maintenance and safety.

Superintendent staff and facilities officials told the board the district owns about 50 portables (53 units on-site, three owned by daycare providers). Facilities director Michael Redmond said portables are designed for temporary use but can be extended with maintenance; he said moving a unit between sites can cost in the high five figures to nearly $300,000. Redmond described two types of portables ("dry" without plumbing and "wet" with plumbing) and said per-unit installation estimates range from about $500,000 for dry units to more than $600,000 for wet units, while permanent additions typically exceed $1.3 million for comparable space.

In response to public concerns, the district contracted a third-party industrial hygienist to test 51 portables and collect 204 radon samples. Facilities staff said the vast majority of readings were "at or below" 0.3 picocuries per liter (pCi/L) and the highest single reading was 0.7 pCi/L; by comparison the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's action level is 4 pCi/L. The district said that radon testing cost $3,100.67.

A follow-up, localized investigation at Chinook Trail Elementary returned one sample with a single mold spore described in the report as a "black mold" spore. Out of an abundance of caution, the district said it contracted remediation work the same evening (remediation company fee reported at $7,118) and asked Apex, the industrial hygienist, to retest the space; the next-morning retest returned no detectable black-mold spores. District staff said the targeted testing and remediation cost for the Chinook Trail follow-up and Apex engagement was about $9,000 in professional testing and an additional remediation fee, and stressed they had notified the county health department and shared results.

Parents and community members disputed the district's characterization of the scope of the problem. Several public commenters displayed photos and said they had collected samples, and one parent told the board she had preserved a sample that she said contained multiple mold types. A student speaker urged the board to act earlier on safety concerns such as crossing-guard coverage. Board members and staff repeatedly said they had acted quickly once they received requests and that all testing used recognized protocols (AARST) and independent third-party firms.

Safety and procedural issues were also discussed. The district's security director, Rich Payne, described the district's standard response protocol and noted that details of safety plans and after-action reports are protected under Colorado law (Safe Schools Act, CRS 22-32-109.1) to avoid creating vulnerabilities. Facilities staff reviewed accessibility upgrades (metal ramp replacements for earlier wood ramps), snow-removal practices on raised ramps, and a plan to dispose of six portables that are not used for instruction. Staff said breakdowns between preventive and reactive maintenance are logged in the district's work-order system and cap-reserve funds are used for larger repairs such as roof and deck replacement.

What's next: board members asked staff for continued transparency and asked for documentation that details which portables are in use for full-day instruction and the ages/manufacturers of units; several trustees also requested follow-up reporting on maintenance records and costs. The district asked the community to share any specific concerns and said it would continue third-party testing whenever indicated by building leadership or parent requests.

The meeting record shows the board did not take a binding vote tied to the portable presentation; instead, trustees asked for additional follow-up items to appear on future agendas.