Officials raise concerns about GJH

Nearly four years ago, the Clark County School District proposed a plan to create a K-8 campus in Boulder City to replace Mitchell and King elementary schools as well as Garrett Junior High, resulting in the closure of all three schools.

Had it been approved, the consolidated campus would be opening its doors next month.

But public pushback forced the district to rethink and the project was scrapped.

The district’s reasoning was a decrease in enrollment at all three schools as well as the buildings costs of maintenance and upkeep on the buildings. Mitchell opened in 1970, Garrett in 1978 and King in 1991.

Garrett Principal Melanie Teemant recently said she feels the schools are paying the price for the community pushback. She said that she and others have heard from those in the district’s maintenance and facilities division that, since Boulder City did not want a new school, the three campuses have since fallen way down the list of those to receive major maintenance and safety repairs.

“We feel like we’re on

the back burner. It’s been stated that when the community decided they didn’t want a K-8 that Garrett, Mitchell and King were put on that back burner. They literally said you have gone from here to here,” Teemant said, gesturing with her hand going from a high to low.

Another of her concerns is that she’s seen several schools in the district that were built long after Garrett, get much-needed upgrades, while they continue to wait.

“They have a schedule for these types of things and you’re supposed to be on this schedule,” she said, noting that some schools have come around twice for upgrades while Garrett has been bypassed. “How do I keep dropping off that schedule?”

Teemant said Garrett is not looking for anything special or out of the ordinary but rather just standard maintenance and updated safety features.

“I’m not looking to get anyone in trouble, but I think it’s fair to let the community know that we’re doing the best we can and that the district is aware of our concerns,” she said.

Councilwoman has questions

The topic of school safety and maintenance came up during a June 10 city council meeting in which Dr. Deanna Jaskolski, CCSD Regional 3 superintendent, gave council her quarterly update on the city’s four public schools.

During her discussion, Councilwoman Sherri Jorgensen shared some concerns she had heard.

“I know we are not doing a K-8 school,” she said. “We decided to have our schools stay separate. My questions would be, on a maintenance level, what does that mean now for our schools for maintenance and where do we fit in? I’ve talked to people in our community — parents, teachers, principals, that there are some concerns about maintenance at our schools and that the schedule is not being kept up.”

Jaskolski said she did not have an answer but said she would seek one from other district officials as to where Boulder City fits into the maintenance schedule.

When reached by the Review, Jorgensen wrote in an email that these quarterly updates, “Provide council members an opportunity to share concerns that we have heard from constituents. I hope Council can get any additional information at the next quarterly update, which is scheduled in September.”

Jorgensen also shared a response sent to her from the district:

“All schools, including Martha P. King ES and Mitchell ES, remain district assets and will be maintained in accordance with all standard maintenance practices across the district,” it states. “There is a stakeholder advisory group, and a community forum that happened in the spring, and will happen again in the fall with various facility outcomes on the table. We will send the dates when determined. That group, and the outcome of the FMP (Future Master Plan) work, do not change how much or whether we perform customary maintenance on the current facilities.”

An email from the Review to CCSD’s communications department seeking additional comment was responded to but only with, “Yes, please use that information (the above quote) for your story.”

Letter to CCSD

In March, Garrett’s School Organizational Team, which is made up of faculty, parents and a student, sent a letter to the district requesting “a detailed record of the most recent dates of replacement, maintenance, improvements, repairs or modernization” at the school for the purposes of daily use and safety. These included a request regarding the HVAC system, electrical, roof, lighting, security cameras, integrity of the doors and gym structure among the 19 items listed.

Teemant said the response from CCSD was simply, “This is not within our master building plan.”

Safety issue

One of Teemant’s concerns dates back to January of this year. That’s when School Resource Officer Eric Prunty, who is assigned to BCHS by the Boulder City Police Department but also serves the three other public schools, contacted her regarding “a campus security issue.”

As Prunty described in a police report, “For unknown reasons, the city of Boulder City-owned steel gates have been removed from the Avenue B dirt road between the city-owned baseball field and softball fields. This has created a campus security flaw where any vehicle can drive onto the Garrett JHS campus fields and basketball courts, potentially where students can be hit by a vehicle if a person wanted to do mass harm to students while the students and staff are on the fields.”

As noted, the gate sits between the two ballfields across from Mitchell Elementary. The dirt road is used by utility companies and by the Boulder City Parks and Recreation Department.

Boulder City Public Works Director Gary Poindexter met with Teemant shortly after to discuss cutting off access closer to the school, which could include the installation of a fence on the property line between the school and the city property. He said there will have to be discussion to determine if that fence comes at the expense of the city, school district or a combination.

“In working with emergency management, we feel that having our property fenced off completely is the safest and most secure solution to this situation,” Teemant said in late January. “Also, Gary (Poindexter) said that there could be some collaboration in putting up a fence that would be less expensive at the end of the access road. As a principal, I would rather know that our property is fully fenced and we have control over whether something is open or not.”

Last week she said, “I want to know that we’re at least on the list and when the fencing issue will be addressed. Anyone (students and faculty) who is on that field should have a sense of security that no one could easily walk or drive on there.”

This week, Poindexter said there’s no update from the city but said he was invited to be a participating member of the CCSD’s Office of Traffic Safety working group. He hopes a resolution regarding the fencing can be found soon.

“We want to work with the schools whenever we can,” he said.