Board hears update on Greenwich High School pool feasibility; $4M A&E estimate and a proposed nonprofit for fundraising

Superintendent Dr. Jones and district project staff updated the Board of Education on the Greenwich High School pool feasibility study and related campus coordination.

The design team (AECOM and Antonacci) is revisiting options to preserve the campus—s tennis courts while addressing driveway egress, grade and environmental constraints. Dr. Jones and district staff said no action on the pool will be taken at the Dec. 18 meeting and that the plan is still being refined; a follow-up meeting and additional community vetting are planned in January.

District staff explained that a $4,000,000 line for architectural and engineering (A&E) work appears in the capital plan. Presenters clarified that A&E funds are for design documents and do not equal construction cost; they compared the MI (municipal improvement) component for a prior Riverside project to show how MI funding and A&E interact and said MI needs can be substantially smaller than the total conditioned capital request.

Board members pressed timing and process questions: whether PNZ/charter steps and a sketch plan would precede design work, how building‑committee membership is appointed (selectmen nominate members and RTM confirms), and whether tennis, driveway and pool work should be coordinated under a single building committee to avoid sequencing problems. District staff recommended coordinating the three —puzzle pieces— (tennis, driveway/egress, pool) in a single ad spec for coherent planning.

The board also reviewed a draft resolution intended to express support for formation of an independent 501(c)(3) to lead private fundraising for the project. Staff said the proposed foundation would operate independently of the board—s direct control, but the district would retain gift-acceptance controls so donations would not impose contractual conditions on design. Board members asked for clearer language on the foundation—s scope and whether fund use would be pool-specific or could include other campus projects (tennis, egress); staff agreed to revise the draft to clarify scope.

Board members raised concerns about private donations creating pay-to-play pressure and asked staff to ensure any fundraising safeguards protect educational priorities. Several members supported private fundraising as a tool to narrow the gap between concept and construction but asked for guardrails on donor restrictions.

Ending: The board asked staff to refine the educational specifications, coordinate AECOM—s work over the holiday, clarify language in the draft resolution about fund scope, and return with a status update in January; no vote was taken on the draft resolution during the retreat.