Ann Arbor school board to consider Haisley Elementary School parking lot, other summer construction projects
The much-debated Haisley Elementary School parking lot project could be approved at the Ann Arbor school board’s next board meeting after trustees heard an update on summer construction projects for the district Wednesday night.
The project would add a bus lane, an area for parents to drop off their children in front of the school and additional parking spaces in the front of the school. The next board meeting is at 7 p.m. May 25 at the Ann Arbor District Library.
Randy Trent, the district’s executive director of physical properties, said the project would update the school to accommodate modern day transportation patterns in which the majority of students take the bus or are driven to school rather than walk, which was the prevalent means of getting to school when it was built.
“Currently, 60 percent of students arrive by bus; 28 percent arrive by car; and 12 percent arrive by walking or bicycling. This is a significant change in our culture,” he said.
The project at Haisley is by far the most controversial project laid out for the summer by Ann Arbor Public Schools. Ten other schools will also have pavement work done in their parking lots this summer, according to district materials.
Parents and residents of the neighborhood cited the elimination of green space near the school building, issues with the cost of the project and concerns with the process of engaging the school community about the construction as reasons they were against the project.
Conversely, other parents spoke about the additional handicapped parking spaces, added safety measures and confidence in district staff as reasons they supported the project.
- To view a PDF of the proposed project, click here. To view a PDF of what the parking situation currently looks like, click here.
All funding for all of the summer projects proposed by Trent on Wednesday will come from the district’s sinking fund, designated by law for the purchase of property and funding of construction and repair of school buildings.
Trent said Haisley was targeted for the largest overhaul because of its unique situation in the district. The enrollment of 424 students is well above the average of 362 students in the district’s other elementary schools, as is the number of buses coming to the school, the number of staff at the school and the number of special needs children.
Haisley parent Norm Cox said he believes the project is putting the convenience of parents dropping their children off at school over everyone else. He said the district should be encouraging more students to bike and walk to school as a part of the Safe Routes To School program.
Additionally, Cox said his professional background as a licensed landscape architect led him to be against the proposal.
“This is a fundamentally flawed plan and is the outcome of a fundamentally flawed process and I don’t say that lightly,” he said.
Many of the administrators and staff members at the school are behind the project, according to Haisley teacher Nancy Schafer.
Schafer, who teaches fourth grade, said with 11 buses coming in during pickup and drop-off times, the parking lot as it is currently laid out can get dangerous. She said she and other staff members are looking forward to the new plan because of the safety upgrades they believe it will provide.
“We watch every day as students and parents are put in harm’s way,” she said. “We feel the parking lot is a dangerous place and it’s an accident waiting to happen. We would really like the parking lot fixed for safety reasons.”
David Hay, a Haisley parent who has a daughter with cerebral palsy, said the fact that the school’s leaders want the project is enough for him to support it.
“We worry about her navigating the Mad Max Thunderdome of the Haisley parking lot,” Hay said. “Every kid is exposed to that danger in that time.”
Among other projects which are planned for the summer and will be voted on at the board’s next meeting are:
- Replacement of ceiling in the corridors of Huron High School. Cost: $112,976
- Creation of garden areas at 20 district elementary schools. Cost: $140,000
- Asphalt repairs at Abbot Elementary School, Ann Arbor Open School, Bryant Elementary School, Burns Park Elementary School, Community High School, Huron, Haisley, Lawton Elementary School, Pioneer High School and Thurston Elementary School. Total cost: $683,234.80
- Roofing repairs at Allen Elementary School, Angell Elementary School, Burns Park, Pittsfield Elementary School, Stone School and Tappan Middle School. Total cost: $1.59 million.
- Site work to comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act. Cost: $936,556
- Exterior door and frame replacements at Scarlett and Clague Middle Schools. Cost: $222,238
Kyle Feldscher covers K-12 education for AnnArbor.com. He can be reached at kylefeldscher@annarbor.com or you can follow him on Twitter.
Comments
Troutfisher
Fri, May 13, 2011 : 3:14 a.m.
The district's engineer, Midwestern Consulting, developed 4 plan concepts. I believe that concept #1, with the smallest footprint, is a safe, lower-cost solution that would garner broad (unanimous?) support among the Haisley community.
for balance
Fri, May 13, 2011 : 1:35 a.m.
The project which will cost 320K seems like a money that could be put towards other repairs at schools in the district. Waiting to proceed till a design that makes sense seems prudent. Much of the time the parking lot is underutilized while the playground is used for soccer games and waiting for the bell before and after the school day. Now, children will have to be aware that if they step off the sidewalk, they will fall into a school bus rather than have the buffer zone that is available now. They have also put awkward islands in the middle of the parking lot---if you remove them, you could get back a sizeable amount of greenspace.
a2up
Thu, May 12, 2011 : 7:51 p.m.
This is not the first time that an A2 public school has proposed a highly problematic redesign of its parking lot or drive access. There is a systemic problem here: neither principals or central school administrators have sufficient planning/design/landscape expertise to develop viable plans of their own -- or know how to interpret plans of consultants/contractors. To make matters (far) worse, the school district lacks a substantive process of plan review. Too often the proposed solutions are crude, antiquated and poorly-researched, often following the principle: when in doubt, pour more concrete. Efforts by well-meaning and well-informed parents and neighbors to participate in the process are often resisted and marginalized. The result is alienated parents and neighbors, bad planning outcomes and wasted money. The solution? have the A@ school district develop a viable, legitimate process of plan review and community design. The current process is remarkably (and distressingly) opaque and undemocratic, with inadequate oversight and accountability. Getting there will not be easy: school officials often have a tin ear to good design and community input.
KJMClark
Thu, May 12, 2011 : 7:48 p.m.
Looking at the two pdfs and the google map (BTW, the aerial photo shows the 'before' pdf isn't accurate), it looks like there are currently 62 parking spaces, and the new plan increases that to 87. If parents are dropping kids off and picking them up, why add parking spaces? Maybe staff is in favor of the new plan so they have more free parking available? So what if the district either accepts the changed traffic flow with no increased parking, or accepts the new plan, but with metered parking and $600 per year permit parking? Would staff still be in favor? It seems like if you want to improve the traffic flow, there's no need to increase parking. However, if you're quietly improving the taxpayer-provided "free" parking, the district should institute a parking charge system to pay off the extra parking, which wasn't needed to solve the traffic problem. And what is the situation with bike parking? The former plan doesn't show any existing bike parking. Really? The new one sticks some of the bike parking in an area the Google aerial photo shows as car parking (want to bet they end up removing the bike parking?), and the rest replacing part of another play area. And why is it that the schools never bat an eye at spending tens or or hundreds of thousands of dollars to add car parking, but they can't be bothered to spend a thousand or two to put in *covered* bike parking? It rains a good deal in Michigan. Prime parking for motorists, but the kids get the minimum required.
Foote
Thu, May 12, 2011 : 1 p.m.
While enrollment at Haisley is higher than average, it is lower than it was just before Lakewood Elementary was re-opened. At that time the traffic in the parking lot was managed (aggressively and professionally) by a part - time retired firefighter. You did not dare to park or let your kids off in the wrong spot. He would actually assist children out of vehicles at times. Kids never had to cross any lanes of traffic. This worked well. I do believe that there is now an opportunity to improve the situation, but the proposed design has children being dropped off and crossing a bus lane to get into the school. I can't believe that we paid someone to come up with this design. It is ill conceived. There are MANY children that are presently served via bus routes whose parents choose to drive them to school. Perhaps there is a lack of confidence in the bus system. Waiting a year to come up with a better design would enable the school to try the following. Children being served by bus routes should be encouraged to use them as opposed to being driven by parents. Parents should car - pool if busing or walking is not an alternative. All children that live within walking /biking distance should do so whenever possible (I see many groups walking by my house on a daily basis, some with parental supervision - so there are a good 40-50 walker/bikers presently). A retired firefighter or police woman/man should come and direct traffic in the morning and afternoon. Overall, the proposed design is not an efficient use of scarce funding. We should insist on better for our kids.
Foote
Thu, May 12, 2011 : 1:02 p.m.
Additional factors for consideration: The higher enrollment at Haisley has come about partly as a result of the principal recruiting from outside of the defined boundaries for Haisley. I personally view her mission to open the school to others (including kids from outside of the A2 school district) as a good thing, bringing revenues to the district from the state by doing so. These kids often do not have any choice but to be driven in a private vehicle. Finally, with enrollment so high at Haisley, why not direct some children to another less utilized elementary school?
Adam Jaskiewicz
Thu, May 12, 2011 : 12:28 p.m.
Why do so few kids walk? When I went there, we lived on Westwood, which was only about a half mile walk. Most of my friends lived closer to the school than I did. My mom might have dropped us off in kindergarten, but by first grade she walked us to school, and by second or third grade I was walking myself.
Chip Reed
Thu, May 12, 2011 : 11:11 a.m.
Miss Ritsema (the original principal) will be turning in her grave when this is done. Why can't the kids who live around there (Arbor Heights, Maple Ridge, Westaire Terrace subdivisions) walk or ride bikes to school? If childhood obesity and the price of gas weren't problems there would still be the loss of playground. If something needs fixing at Haisley, it would be to stop allowing irresponsible dog owners use of the nature area as their own secret dog run.
Arboriginal
Thu, May 12, 2011 : 12:14 p.m.
Sing us the song Chip! Pink & Brown!
jcj
Thu, May 12, 2011 : 11:54 a.m.
Miss Ritsema was my principal in 1955 at Haisley. I agree with the dog issue. Why have a law that you must pick up your dogs waste and then let them leave waste all over a playground where children play? If your going to take your dog to the playground... PICK UP the waste!