The Sept. 27 and Oct. 10 Garland ISD board of trustees meetings were attended by students and parents who were unhappy with the board’s decision to move construction of the natatorium from the first phase of the bond package to phase 4. They expressed their opinions during the public comments section of both meetings. Board members listened without response as they cannot discuss topics that are not on the agenda during public comments.
The students said that if the project is pushed back they will not get to enjoy the benefits of the pool before they graduate. Other students talked about less than ideal conditions at the pool where they currently practice.
Parents commented about difficulties in getting their children to and from the current pool as well as the importance of water safety. Most said that the natatorium project should be moved back to phase 1 and expressed fear that if postponed, it will never get done.
Board of trustees President Linda Griffin later said that the board members want to build the natatorium and it is only the timeline that has been changed.
“We’re still committed to the project,” she said. “This board understands the importance of water safety and teaching students to swim.”
Most comments were delivered in an appropriate manner. Some were personal.
One speaker questioned the board’s trustworthiness and motives.
Another accused the board of bait and switch, saying, “I’m done paying more taxes. I for one will not vote for any future Garland initiatives except to keep my damn money.” He called for an investigation and mentioned taking the matter from the board’s hands and turning it over to the mayor and city council. (This is not an option as the city and the GISD are separate entities.) Additionally, he said that he wondered if any board members have business ties to companies that would be doing the jobs that would get done in lieu of the natatorium.
Another specifically mentioned unhappiness with board member Jed Reed and continued after being asked to stop. Board policy states that during public comments, speakers cannot mention specific names of board members, administrators, teachers and other GISD employees.
Another expressed what he called “extreme displeasure and disappointment.” He is specifically upset with Griffin and Reed, Larry Glick and Johnny Beach. He added that Glick was largely responsible for the increased cost of the natatorium. The speaker said that Glick is “like a plastic grocery sack blowing in the wind and it’s disgusting to watch this.” He was asked to stop mentioning names.
Glick later said that there were four items that he asked to add to the natatorium and the additional cost totaled $1 million.
“I will take blame, credit, responsibility for…the additional lockers because Lewisville ISD said that they didn’t have enough lockers,” Glick said. “They also suggested to be sure that deck space around the pool is adequate and I told the board that we needed more deck space.”
He also learned from LISD that there was more need for storage space than anticipated and he suggested that storage space be increased. Rockwall ISD’s advice was to be sure that the amount of pool space was adequate. GISD will have 47 elementary schools using the pool. Numbers were re-run and showed that the pool as planned, would not be large enough. Glick asked that one more lane be added.
“I’m responsible for those four items, extra storage and lockers, additional area around the pool and a fifth lane,” Glick said.”
He pointed out that taxpayers voted for a bond of $455 million. When the numbers for each school are added together, the total is $480 million. When the bond manager’s fee is included, the total goes to $495.5. The amounts for each school are listed on the GISD website.
He said he is doing what the taxpayers expect him to do, being fiscally responsible and that safety and renovations to aging schools were at the top of the priority list and the pool was “way down on the list.”
Two speakers agreed with the board’s vote to postpone the project.
One said that he understands the frustration, saying, “I think the taxpayers…were sold a bill of goods.”
He said that the natatorium was presented at $20 million and the estimated cost is up to $32 million. He suggested that before proponents of the project turn on the board of trustees…they should remember that these decisions were made two years ago and it was undersold then.
“We were told we were going to get a natatorium like the one in Lewisville for $20 million in 2014 and that is what 62% of the voters voted for,” the speaker said.
He added that because the cost has increased to $32 million, other projects will be cut because there will not be enough funds. He said, “It’s just math. It will have to happen.”
Another speaker agreed that postponement is financially sound and that a distinction must be made between wants and needs.