Greenwich BOE approves natatorium education specs after hours‑long debate, 5–3

The Greenwich Board of Education voted 5–3 on June 22 to approve educational specifications for a proposed natatorium, new tennis courts and an exit driveway at Greenwich High School, approving the project’s scope after an extended public and board discussion over fundraising, program needs and cost‑saving options.

Board member Sophie moved to approve the educational specifications "as presented," which opened more than an hour of questions from board members, staff, the architect and committee representatives. The specifications as approved include a 35‑meter stretch pool designed to accommodate water polo depth and a shallow curriculum area for lifeguarding and lessons, an expanded diving well, eight tennis courts (maintaining current count), and an exit driveway intended to improve traffic and emergency access.

Proponents emphasized program continuity and safety: parents and supporters told the board the current pool is in disrepair and could fail at any time, and committee members said the feasibility process included 14 committee meetings and six focus groups to determine requirements. "People want to have a facility that they're proud of," one committee member said, urging that a facility attractive to donors is more likely to secure private fundraising than a bare‑bones alternative.

Opponents questioned scope and taxpayer burden. Several board members pressed which features were strictly necessary for health, safety and curricular requirements and which were desirable extras such as an alumni room, a dry‑land training area and a hot tub. One member summarized the concern: private donors had not yet committed funds and the town might bear a large tax burden for amenities that primarily serve competitive athletics.

Staff and the architect explained major cost drivers: a new pool shell and increased building height for diving, and the need to accommodate water‑polo depth and a separate shallow instruction zone, which together produce the roughly 35‑meter configuration now in the specs. The board was told that trimming finish spaces (for example, eliminating an upper‑level alumni room) could yield savings but would not dramatically reduce the structural or roofing costs that drive much of the budget; redesign and re‑pricing would likely take one to two months and could push building‑committee and construction deadlines later.

The board also debated community use. District staff said school programs retain first priority for hours, with Parks & Rec and outside nonprofit sponsors using remaining hours; exact hours of expected community access were not finalized and would depend on seasonal schedules and programming.

The roll call vote to approve the specifications was: Paul No; Veronica Yes; Sophie Yes; Mike Yes; Bob Yes; Karen Hersh Yes; Wendy No; Karen Kraus No. After passage, the board adopted a nonbinding "sense of the meeting" (6–0–2) expressing support for pursuing value engineering and private fundraising to reduce the town’s share of costs. Board members noted, however, that budget decisions and any funding contingencies remain the purview of the Board of Estimate and Taxation (BET) and the Representative Town Meeting (RTM).

Next steps: With the Ed Specs approved, the process moves toward architect selection, detailed design, value‑engineering in schematic design, and BET/RTM budget deliberations. Staff warned that re‑scoping could delay the schedule and potentially affect construction funding deadlines targeted in 2027.