Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the GHS Pool topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Greenwich RTM rejects motion to cut GHS pool design funds after students and coaches warn of safety and program risks
Summary
District 8’s proposal to cut $2.4 million from Greenwich High School’s natatorium design funding failed after coaches, students, BOE staff and community members testified the pool is at risk and cuts would delay crucial repairs and disrupt programs.
The Representative Town Meeting voted on May 11 on a District 8 motion to reduce the Greenwich High School (GHS) natatorium architectural and engineering appropriation by $2,400,000 (reducing $4,000,000 requested to $1,600,000). The RTM rejected the motion by a 34–162–4 vote.
Cheryl Moss introduced the District 8 motion, citing municipal-improvement (MI) process concerns and Town Charter Section 99 as the basis for limiting funding to the amount necessary for MI approval. "Section 99 precludes funding more than is necessary to obtain MI approval," she said, arguing standard phased appropriations protect RTM authority.
Students, coaches and school officials countered that the existing natatorium is in precarious condition and that delaying design and bidding would risk immediate program disruption, increased escalation in construction costs and the loss of longstanding athletic programs. "The current pool's old, deteriorating, and unreliable mechanical systems could fail at any time," Ben Brannon, chief financial administrative officer for Greenwich Public Schools, told the RTM. Student speakers and athletes described displaced dive teams, split practices and the possibility of losing athletes to club programs if the timeline slips.
Multiple district delegations (including District 12) and the education committee rejected the cut in their internal votes. The BOE and BET had approved the full item and conditioned 60% of the funding on MI approval; school officials said the remaining 40% would be released in stages and that the BOE expects to finalize educational specifications in the coming months.
Supporters of the cut argued the RTM must follow charter limitations and avoid approving larger appropriations before MI status; opponents said the procedural remedy was already built into BET conditions and that a funding delay would likely cost taxpayers more in the long run. The motion failed and the full A&E funding remained in the adopted budget. The BOE and feasibility committee will continue work on educational specifications and next-stage design with the conditional release structure described in the budget.
