Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Capital Projects topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board reviews GHS natatorium, tennis and access driveway specifications; Option A favored but raises continuity questions
Summary
District architects presented educational specifications and two main options for the Greenwich High School natatorium and tennis upgrades. Option A (rebuild on the existing site) is lower cost but would require a temporary pool closure; the estimated natatorium cost is roughly $47M with an additional $13M for tennis/site and driveway work, and the board asked the administration to develop mitigation plans to preserve aquatics programming during construction.
The Greenwich Board of Education received detailed educational specifications from district staff and consultants for a proposed reconstruction of the Greenwich High School natatorium, replacement of the tennis courts, and construction of a Cardinal access driveway. The consulting team presented two principal approaches: Option A, which rebuilds the pool on its existing footprint, and Option B, which relocates the pool and associated facilities.
Architect Lisa Yates summarized the technical problems with the existing facility (drains and filtration approaching end of life, non‑compliant diving clearances and a roof that would have to be raised) and the trade‑offs between options. Option A was identified as the more cost‑effective approach and would keep the facility adjacent to the high school but requires taking the pool fully offline during construction. "Option A has many benefits ... lower cost, faster zoning path, and the building is connected to the high school," the architect said.
Project cost estimates shown in the educational specs were roughly $47 million for the natatorium building element and about $13 million for tennis courts, access driveway and site work (total conceptual program cost shown in the EDS document). The timeline presented assumes formation of a building committee, designer selection and zoning reviews with a possible start of construction in early 2028 under a best‑case scenario.
Board members pressed the administration on continuity plans for displaced aquatics programs and asked for more detailed mitigation work and financial analyses. Pete (athletic director) told board members the district has already begun conversations with local partners — YMCA, Boys & Girls Club and regional pools like Chelsea Piers — and coaches to secure temporary practice times. "We have tentative schedules already set up... they have assurance they will help accommodate us," he said.
Several public commenters and coaches warned that prolonged displacement could harm championship‑level programs. The feasibility committee emphasized its community process (multiple firms engaged, 11 options considered and 18 scoring factors analyzed) and recommended Option A as a data‑driven compromise.
Next steps: the board signaled interest in moving the educational specifications forward and forming a building committee. The administration will return with a Q&A responses list, a more detailed mitigation plan for maintaining aquatics programming during construction, updated cost estimates and a proposed schedule for the building committee and key milestones.
