Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...

Suffolk School Board observed a facilities update from RRMM Architects during their Oct. 10 board meeting held at City Hall. 

Provided by Jeff Harris of RRMM Architects, topics included the Driver Elementary School site, the prospect of PK-8 Schools and the cost analysis for projects. Noting the challenges of renovating a 60-year-old school versus building a new one, Harris discussed the schools current zoning restrictions.

“You would have to apply for a Conditional Use Permit and that would have to go in front of the planning commission and city council for public hearing before we can even consider developing that particular site,” Harris said.

Along with the site’s parking lot not meeting today’s standards with an estimate of $2 million for parking repairs, an expansion and a stormwater management system. Building renovations would include structural improvements to the exterior walls, new windows, thicker roof insulation and more. Harris further says that a building of “this age” wouldn’t function too much longer in the future. When Board Chair Karen Jenkins asked if there was anything “positive” they could gain from the building and space, Harris expressed that renovations can be made, but noted if the money used would be worth it.

“It is definitely doable, but, what I am suggesting is renovating that building would probably be more costly than if you were able to build something new,” he said.

Board Member Tyron Riddick expressed the possibility of tearing the building down and repurposing the land as a primary serving Pre-K and Kindergarten.

“I think that’s more bang for our buck,” Riddick said. “We’ve already got a prototype design with the SECEP building, that’s what I am looking at.”

When Board Vice Chair Heather Howell asked the minimum to maintain the 9.7 acres, demolish the building and grade the property, Director of Facilities and Planning Terry Napier says they spend very little on maintenance and utilities. Both Napier and SPS Superintendent Dr. John B. Gordon III noted that the gymnasium is still being paid for due to Nansemond River High School still using it for wrestling. Howell expressed she understands not ever wanting to give up a valuable asset.

“This is not a valuable asset and to turn it into a valuable asset, we either got to wait 10 years for it to fit into our CIP, or we’ve got to bump this ahead of buildings with students and mobiles in it,” Howell said. “And neither of those seem like wise choices based on the overwhelming feedback I’ve gotten in my community and the decisions and presentations we’ve had here.”

On the idea of PK-8 schools, Harris says that they see school divisions doing the format across the state and noting they can be doable. He brought up the maintenance of interactions between lower grade students and 8th Graders.

“That’s the, I guess, probably the biggest hurdle you have to get over initially, is everyone ok with that? And if so, how do you manage that and how do you mitigate a lot of the interaction as much as you can. I guess that’s a policy decision that you guys have to discuss and make sure you are ok with,” Harris said.

Jenkins noted Smithfield Middle and High School being connected as an example.

“So they have the high school on one side, the middle on the other, it’s connected. They have their own gym, cafeteria, everything. They have their own admin each, but it is connected. So I was just trying to picture that as you were talking and it works,” Jenkins said.

Noting that he taught at a PK-8 school, Riddick discussed being inspired by Hampton’s work in PK-8 schooling.

“Hampton has the blueprint,” he said. “Phoenix is a PK-8, Hunter B Andrews is PK-8. The way it’s done, the way it’s set up, the library – really not bigger than this room – but it’s divided by the bookshelves and you have a librarian for this side and a librarian for that side. It works, and they’re still able to provide those specialty programs versus not being able to provide.”

Likewise, on the cost analysis on SPS cost model projects, Harris discussed the increase from 2020 to 2024. The listed variance increase totals at $300,570,440.

“We know during tough times when budgets are hard to come by and getting the money you need is difficult, this doesn’t make it any easier, but it’s the world we live in,” Harris said. “And we’re not happy about it, I know you guys aren’t happy about it, but these are real numbers. Makes it difficult to plan for sure.”