Learning from the Riverdale Expansion Project

By Meg Skinner Jackson 

Meg Jackson is a parent who attends Germantown Municipal School Board Meetings on a regular basis. She has a BA in Economics from the University of Memphis, and freely admits that she would rather repair a toilet or rewire a light fixture than pick out paint colors or curtains.

At the November 20th school board work session, I sat through a presentation of plans for Germantown’s new elementary school. The meeting took place in the multipurpose room of Riverdale’s beautiful new addition. As I sat there, I couldn’t help but notice that the new school design bears a striking resemblance to the building in which we sat. It is not surprising that the new elementary school would be similar in design. Throughout all of the discussions for the Riverdale addition, Superintendent Manuel and his staff talked about establishing a “Germantown brand”. The Riverdale expansion would be the first example, and the look and functionality of every school to be built or remodeled in the future would reflect this brand.

Before designing the new yet-to-be-named elementary school, the Germantown Municipal School District gathered a great deal of community input. At the beginning of this year, the district posted a survey asking stakeholders what they would like to see in the new elementary school. The results were prepared and presented to the Design Review Committee in March, but this was well before many of those same community “wants” had been put into practice at Riverdale. Let me say right here that the middle school building at Riverdale is impressive. It is bright and colorful and has many modern features. However, as I watched the PowerPoint presentation and listened to the discussion, I started to wonder about a few things. Were there elements to the design that were merely pretty and not practical? Before we spend $25+ million dollars on a new school (which is essentially Riverdale 2.0), I think we need to gather as much constructive criticism about the building we just opened. I wanted to ask the students, teachers, and parents who use the building every day what they like and don’t like about the building. I created a simple fill-in-blank survey asking for feedback, and will attempt to summarize the results here, but before we get started, here are links to the GMSD Board meetings and PowerPoint presentation.

10/23/17 GMSD Work Session video

PowerPoint Presentation for new elementary school

The discussion starts at the very beginning of the work session video, but the sound quality is not the best. It is helpful to scroll though the Power Point slides as you listen. You can get more information about the Design Review Committee and view their meeting minutes by using this link.

The Riverdale Survey

The survey link I created was posted in various places on Facebook and Next Door. As of this writing, I have received 37 responses. The distribution of respondents is shown in this chart.  

  

Overwhelmingly, people in all categories think the Riverdale building is beautiful. They especially like:

·       The layout of the building

·       The windows and lighting

·       The water fountains with bottle fillers

·       The technology

·       The dedicated spaces (The Science/STEM lab, band room, choir room, art room, the multipurpose room, and the new gym are all a big hit.)

As one would expect, the responses indicate that this building is a tremendous improvement over the portables it replaced. It is worthwhile to note that parents of special education students were particularly complimentary of the new building. They like having an elevator, having dedicated classroom space, and they like the modern bathrooms with adequately sized handicap stalls.

There are a few issues with the design, however. Some of these I believe are already being addressed in the new building, but some are not. I will attempt to break them down. 

The Gym

While parents, teachers and students alike seem to love how the gym looks, several complained that is noisy. It lacks sound baffling, and the acoustics are terrible. Further, they stated that there is not enough seating, suggesting that there should be bleachers on both sides. There were also complaints that there were no water fountains in the gym, and no offices or storage rooms for PE teachers. Locker rooms are not attached, are too small, and are not set up to provide privacy for changing clothes. Specifically, students who are changing clothes are visible anytime someone opens the hall door. One commenter indicated that the basketball goals may have been installed incorrectly.

These complaints are particularly concerning, because at the presentation for the new school, it was stated with pride that the gym would be identical to Riverdale’s new gym. Looking at the PowerPoint presentation (which is very fuzzy and difficult to see online), it appears that the new elementary gym only has bleachers on one side, and that the PE offices, storage, and locker rooms are not directly attached. I hope the district will consider adding water fountains to the new gym, and hope that noise/sound issues will be addressed at both locations.

Noise

Noise complaints were not isolated to the gym. Respondents mentioned similar problems with noise in the multipurpose room. Sound baffles were installed to address the issue, but they are not working. I can attest to that from my experience sitting through the school board meeting. Sound was bouncing all over the room. It was difficult to hear much of anything, and I was seated within 15 feet of those who were talking. If you watch the video link posted above, you will see what I mean. One teacher indicated that the walls between classrooms do not contain soundproofing, so what is going on in one room can easily be heard by students in the adjacent room. There is also a fair amount of noise from people walking down the halls, and from the scraping of chairs on the upstairs floor. I would have to imagine that is distracting and does not provide the best learning (or teaching) environment.

The Parking and Carpool lines

There were many comments about the lack of parking at Riverdale and the very limited queuing area for carpool drop-offs. I am happy to report that this issue is not likely to repeat at the new elementary school. Whereas Riverdale can only queue a scant six cars on property, the new school will be able to queue a whopping 160! The city and district were both concerned about traffic backing up onto Forest Hill Irene, so they have worked hard to accommodate as many cars as possible on the property. A couple of respondents suggested a covered walkway for students. Note that the new school plans do show a covered area to protect students during inclement weather as they wait for bus (or car pick up?).

The Front Entrance

Three non-staff indicated that the entrance at Riverdale is now difficult for those with disabilities and for those who are trying to enter with a stroller. Apparently, the handicap parking spots are not located close to the main entrance, and the wheelchair ramp is long and steep. Riverdale was trying to make do with the land it already had, so there were some challenges with fitting in some of these logistical details. I am hopeful that the district will pay closer attention to the location and ease of accessibility of handicap parking at the new school. They may want to ask those in wheelchairs for their input, keeping in mind that not everyone has a power chair nor an attendant to push them.

The Restrooms

There are not enough stalls to accommodate the students, and they are not sufficiently supplied with paper, soap, etc. When the Riverdale plans were unveiled at a public input session, I saw that there were not enough bathrooms and asked the architect about it. He was not concerned and was convinced that what they had in the plans would be sufficient. Apparently, it is not sufficient. To compound the problem, the stalls are equipped with small toilet paper holders (the kind that hold one small roll at a time) instead of the large holders one usually sees in public restrooms. It was noted that they are frequently out of toilet paper.

From what I can see (again, the PowerPoint is blurry), the new school may also have a bathroom problem. The second floor shows two sets of restrooms, and I see two, possibly three (?) bathrooms on the first floor. It is more difficult to corral first graders than middle schoolers through a restroom break. More stalls mean less time wasted during the day. One of the board members pointed out that there was no teacher bathroom on the second floor of the new school. The board agreed that the architect should probably find a way to squeeze one in somewhere so the fourth and fifth grade teachers would not have to travel downstairs for a restroom break.

Space

There is not enough space in the new building. This was the number one concern mentioned by parents, students, and staff. The building lacks enough classrooms. Those dedicated rooms that everyone loves? Some of those are being used as regular classrooms. Many feel that the Science lab and STEM lab should be separate, because two classes cannot meet in there at the same time, which hampers scheduling. In fact, this lab has been commandeered as a regular classroom, so students are not able to use it for science lab. It was also highly recommended that the new school have a computer lab, something Riverdale lacks. More than one person noted that while band, art, and choir all had their own dedicated rooms, orchestra does not. The orchestra must travel like nomads, sometimes using a room in the old building and sometimes using the multipurpose room, where the acoustics are terrible. Everyone agreed that the new school should be built with more space than it needs. All felt that the additional space would be filled in no time, allowing the “dedicated use” rooms to remain dedicated as intended.

Beyond the lack of classrooms, all categories of respondents said that the school needs more storage space. Neither teachers nor students have enough storage in the classrooms. There are not enough lockers, causing students to share lockers. Inside the classrooms, students do not have anywhere other than backpacks to store supplies. This causes multiple trips across the room to retrieve what they need from their backpacks. More on this in the next section, but it can be noted that there will be no lockers in the new elementary school. Instead, the students will have cubbies and backpack hooks. During the board meeting discussion, they mentioned the possibility that these cubbies and hooks could possibly be located outside, in the hallway. I sincerely hope I misunderstood what they were saying, because as a mom, I can tell you that even when property is being supervised inside a classroom, things go missing. I would have to imagine that any item stored out in a hallway would be fair game for sticky fingers.

The Furniture and Finishes

There were many compliments about the new flexible furniture. Parents like how it looks and how it can be configured in many different arrangements. Teachers, on the other hand, have mixed feelings about it. Some feel that the furniture in their rooms does not adequately meet their students’ needs. Others want more storage for students such as below-the-chair baskets for easy retrieval of classroom items. It was suggested that the district consult teachers in each content area to determine what type of furniture their classrooms should have, since different subjects have different needs. The durability of the furniture is a big concern. Several parents and teachers commented that it is not of the highest quality, and many fear that it will not last long. Several items are already broken! Better quality furniture was highly recommended for the new school.

The round tables in the multipurpose room are also problematic. It is odd that the same people who chose classroom furniture that could be configured in so many different ways would also choose large round tables for the multipurpose room, which do not make good use of space. (Note: Wedding and conference planners know that round tables require significantly more space than rectangular tables.) Further, these round tables appear to require a great deal of manpower to set up and put away every day. The rendering for the cafeteria in the new elementary school shows the same round tables. Presenters stated that the new cafeteria will only seat 250 students at a time. I have to wonder if we could fit more students into the cafeteria by using a different table shape. Otherwise, this new elementary school may be doomed to repeat the extended lunch schedules that other schools have, where first lunch begins at 10:20, and the last begins at 1:00. The new school will house 739 students at optimal capacity and 815 at maximum capacity. However, Superintendent Manuel mentioned that if they were to use all available rooms, the building could accommodate up to 900 students. I’m not sure how many students can be seated at once in our existing elementary school cafeterias. Please, someone let us know so we can compare, but I imagine that the “old” Riverdale cafeteria holds more than 250 students at once.

In addition to the furniture, some respondents questioned the durability of the interior building finishes. The floors and the drywall are already showing signs of wear. The building has only been open for four months. This is a problem that really should be resolved in the new elementary school. Since there is no soundproofing in these walls, maybe a different type of building material should be considered altogether. And speaking of building materials, let’s talk about... 

The Glass

There seems to be a love/hate relationship with all that glass. While everyone loves the natural light if provides, safety remains a concern. It was noted that for tornado drills, students must evacuate to the old building. This poses the question, “Where will students in the new elementary school go?” The new school seems to have an abundance of glass too. The other concern for the glass is the incredible amount of maintenance it requires. Glass is irresistible to children, who like to leave handprints all over it. The cleaning staff cannot stay on top of 900 hands walking down the halls every day… and that is with 451 middle school kids. Can you imagine how much worse it will be with 800 K-5 kids? And since a few comments indicated that the heat and air is not functioning well at Riverdale, I have to wonder if that is due to faulty or inadequate HVAC systems, or if there is simply too much heat loss/gain with the glass.

Conclusion

From reading the responses, I have a few takeaways that the district should consider. They really need to survey their teachers and staff anonymously to determine improvements that can be made to the new school design. Teachers will be more honest when they do not fear repercussions. At a minimum, the new school needs:

·       More space, both in number of rooms and storage within the rooms

·       Better soundproofing and acoustics

·       More durable and appropriate furniture and finishes

·       Bigger gym with more seating, water fountains, and attached locker rooms, storage, and office space

·       Restrooms with an adequate number of stalls, soap dispensers, toilet paper holders, and paper towels

·       Less glass (or increased staff to maintain it)

I hope it is not too late to address at least some of these issues without significantly impacting the budget. It would be a real shame not use the information we already have to prevent future mistakes in design. We will be living with the new school for many decades, so we should do whatever we can to make sure it fits our needs.

Request: Survey About Riverdale School

The Germantown Municipal School District is preparing to build a new elementary school on Forest Hill Irene Road. They are using the Riverdale Middle School expansion building as their guide for the new elementary school building. The addition at Riverdale is beautiful, and it is an example of what the district calls the "Germantown Brand." But before we move forward with another building (link to plans), I feel it is important to critique the design of the district’s first project.

What do you feel the Riverdale building design got right, and where does it fall short? Please take the following survey and let me know your thoughts. I am particularly interested in receiving feedback from teachers, students, and parents who use the Riverdale facilities day-to-day.

I am not affiliated with the school district in any official capacity. Responses you give will be used only as research for the blog and will be kept completely anonymous (unless you provide your name and specifically say it is OK to use it).

Click Here for Survey

Thank you,

Meg Jackson, Guest Blogger

Cost of Sports Complex--$5 million?, $20 million? Or what?

The City is requesting our feedback on the  Germantown Preliminary Master Park Plan. 

Your comments are to be made here. The City, in its non-transparent, hurried way, wants us to comment on the Master Parks Plan, and only gives us until Friday to do it. The problem is that we are lacking complete financial projections and also lacking basic data on the need for sports fields in the city.  

We don’t know the projected cost of any of the elements of the Draft Recommendations of our Comprehensive Parks Master Plan. I am not sure how the public is expected to be able to give commentary without any idea how much each improvement will cost. Although the entire plan and its component parts should at least give us ballpark cost estimates for each part of the master plan, I am concentrating in this post on the proposed sports complex, because the PowerPoint emphasized its economic impact. As you will later see, the case for the economic impact is weak, at best. Since the City's presentation did not include an estimated cost of the facility, I put pencil and paper to it and came up with a ballpark figure of about $15 milion. I will explain how I came up with that figure later. 

I am a huge supporter of public parks, and I do not mind paying higher taxes for amenities. I also love kids' sports. What I do mind is paying for a costly tournament level sports complex in the southestern part of the city which has no impact on the vast majority of Germantown residents, and may become a financial burden to the City in the future. While there very well may be a need for more sports fields to serve the youth in Germantown, there does not seem to be any statistical analysis of how many fields are needed and for what sports. No discussion is given to whether or not land needs to be acquired to support the current and future expected level of sports participation. Instead there is emphasis on the supposed economic benefit of tournaments that are hosted. If there is an economic benefit, a formal cost/benefit analysis should have been done. If the proposed sports fields are really for the participants and youth in Germantown, the case should have been made for that.

The “economic impact” we are given has some problems--it is not translated into City revenue projections, and it does not seem to take into account the fact that the location of this proposed sportsplex is in the far southeastern portion of the city, and the economic impact is likely to be spread among Shelby County, Collierville, Memphis and Germantown.   

The plan details some possible economic benefits due to the number of participants in various sports within a region. It shows the Mike Rose complex in Shelby County as a competitor of our complex. At another point, they point to a little synergy, because 3 of 17 regional events held at Mike Rose have to rely on other sports fields. Just as any fields we build would have an economic effect on surrounding areas, the Mike Rose fields already have an economic impact on Germantown, due to their location. If our Sports complex means fewer tournaments at that sports complex, there would be little net economic benefit for Germantown. 

How much in fees will this sports complex generate? How much incremental tax revenue will this sports complex bring Germantown? The amount of spending per person attending tournaments is estimated for the six or seven tournaments we expect to host per year, but we were not even told how this affects our tax revenues. I did some preliminary calculations and if the expectations are met in terms of tournaments, and if all the revenue from people attending the tournaments is spent in Germantown (unlikely), the tax benefit in total for five years for the City is around $700,000. Yes, there can be a multiplier effect for total revenues, but the two to three million dollars that people would spend per year here while attending these tournaments does not justify the high cost of the fields. We need a complete cost/benefit analysis, and a needs assessment for the youth and other sports participants in Germantown before we can consider such a complex. 

My main question is, do we need new fields for the players we have living in Germantown? A good argument may be able to be made for that, although it was not made in the presentation.  Do we need land acquisition to accommodate those needs? I don't know. The emphasis on building fields capable of tournament hosting drives our costs up, and puts the needs of youth and other sports participants on the back burner. The economic impact of tournament hosting is too slight to justify the costs. The City could likely have given us a good argument to build more sports fields for our youth--that our current fields are insufficient in number. Instead it decided to make the specious argument that six to seven regional sports tournaments a year in the southeastern part of the city would be a driver of economic growth. And if we want the project to be economically viable, will we charge high prices for access to the fields, which could eliminate a lot of recreational teams, in favor of the competitive teams?


Does our administration badly want this part of town developed? Yes it does. Two projects for the area just came before the BMA this past Monday (that is another story). And who can forget the way the administration tried to railroad the Crestwyn/Winchester site for the new school? Even after that site was ultimately rejected by the site selection committee, they persisted in trying to shove it down our throats. That effort failed, although the location eventually selected is in the the same general area on Forest Hill-Irene. 

As you can see, I have serious doubts about the economic case for building the sportsplex. Will it mean more tax breaks such as PILOTs or even TIF given to new hotels in the area, based on “pie in the sky” type economic projections?  I cannot definitively answer that question, I can simply pose it.  

Contrast Germantown’s preliminary Master Plan to that of New Braunfels, TX, a fast growing city of 70,000, just north of my hometown of San Antonio. 

New Braunfels Preliminary Master Plan for Sports Fields

I note the following things different between the New Braunfels study and that of Germantown: 

1. The New Braunfels plan only concentrated on athletic fields, and there were 65 pages of specific information on that alone. I feel that a separate athletic fields survey would have been appropriate for Germantown.  On our survey, there was very little about the needs for individual sports. We really have no idea from the information collected how many new sports facilities are needed for each sport.

2. A recreational trend analysis was given for each sport in the New Braunfels report. Do we even know how many kids in Germantown play various sports?  If we do it wasn’t included in the information the public was given. No national trends in sports was noted in the Germantown plan, as was done in the New Braunfels plan.

3. There is much greater detail given in the New Braunfels plan on the deficits in the current fields, including giving various grades for different aspects of each current field.   

4. In New Braunfels, in a referendum, voters agreed to purchase property for a new sportsplex.  Germantown does not seem to want that level of community input. No referendum is planned. 

I could go on, but I don’t really have time for that. This has to be published before the comment period ends on Friday. I therefore turn to the New Braunfels cost projections for a proposed complex, as a guideline to what the Sports complex could cost Germantown. Keep in mind that I would not have to use New Braunfels projections for Germantown fields if our draft recommendations had included them.   
The bottom line is that $25 million is the estimate for the development of a 100 acre sportsplex in New Braunfels, with various types of athletic fields. The emphasis for New Braunfels seems to be for local use rather than sponsoring tournaments, so their cost  per acre may be lower than ours would be.The $25 million does not include land acquisition.  

The conceptual plan for Germantown shows a 45 acre site. If our costs are in line with those of New Braunfels, we are talking about $11,250,000 in development costs. We spent upwards of $3 million for a school site in the same area, and the acreage was about 20% less than our proposed sportsplex.  My estimate therefore is that more than $15 million dollars will be required to acquire land and complete our sportsplex. We are not talking about the entire plan for all the parks-- this is for the sportsplex alone.

How is this to be funded?   

Do the residents of this City want and need this? Here are the priority rankings that were given in the by the 700 people (out of 39,000 residents) in Germantown that answered the survey: 

Development of tournament level athletic facilities and parkland acquisition are both in the bottom half of the priority rankings.  I remember being a bit frustrated filling out this survey. I want to support kids' sports, and I want them to have the appropriate facilities. How could I respond positively to that without the "tournament level" attached to the idea? I don't believe that was possible. The survey was flawed in the way it was constructed. The plan does not make the case for athletic fields either due to the community needs, nor is a solid case made for the economic benefit to the City. I am frustrated by both the survey and the recommendations.

What Should Germantown "Resolve" about Hate Groups?

Resolution 17R16 – A Resolution of the City of Germantown to Combat Hate, Extremism and Bigotry  

Is Resolution 17R16 an appropriate condemnation of hate of the type seen recently in Charlottesville? Or, instead of being simply a fluffy, feel-good resolution, is it a pathway to enacting laws with unforseen consequences, perhaps even including legislation that might infringe on the First Amendment rights of assembly and speech? 

This is the question that aldermen must face this Monday.  

Germantown considering stance against bigotry and white supremacy; one alderman asks why 

Now, let's look at the text that the aldermen will be voting on: 

I completely reject the white supremacy movement and find it extremely dangerous. In all honesty, I don't mind our city's passing a proclamation against white supremacy, although some people disagree. Detractors wonder why a city should judge which ideas are right or wrong. They ask, "Shouldn't such judgments be left to the individual rather than to a government?" I do not find this argument persuasive. White supremacy is morally indefensible. If this were simply a measure denouncing white supremacists, neo-Nazis, and other similar groups, I would say: "Fine. Pass this fluffy feel-good resolution. It will be nice to put Germantown squarely against the morally bankrupt hate movements responsible for the events in Charlottesville."   

But I did a double-take and my hair stood on end when I read past the last "whereas" above. It states:

Now, therefore, be it resolved that the City of Germantown supports the Mayors' Compact to Combat Hate, Extremism and Bigotry and supports the Mayor's effort to work with executive and legislative partners at federal and state levels to ensure that civil rights laws are aggresively enforced, existing hate crime laws are strengthened as needed and new laws are enacted to ensure that all hate crimes are prosecutable in their jurisdictions to the greatest extent of the law." 

The above clause implies that Germantown will follow all the recommendations of the Mayors' Compact to Combat Hate, Extremism and Bigotry-- an initiative developed by the Anti-Defamation League and the U.S. Conference of Mayors. New legislation is contemplated, but what conduct will it ban? Although the resolution is non-binding, the City would appear to be committing itself to support laws recommended by the Mayor's Compact. Are we prepared to make such a commitment when we know so little about this Compact and what it intends to do? I cannot help but wonder if far-reaching legislation isn't the whole point of this effort to entice communities into signing off on what otherwise appears to be a condemnation of hate.  

Here is an article about the Compact that appeared in the Washington Post:

U.S. Conference of Mayors Condemns Trump, forms compact to fight racism  

  

To put it mildly, I am surprised that the City of Germantown proposes to align itself with a newly formed group that arose in the wake of Trump's controversial response to Charlottesville. I did not see this coming. Did you realize that Germantown is a hotbed of anti-Trump sentiment? I didn't. Don't we have enough controversy over fountains, mattress stores, buildings too close to the street, bicycle lanes, drainage, school locations, and alcohol ordinances? Is it wise to further divide our community by aligning ourselves with a national group formed as an emotional reaction to controversial statements by President Trump? 

Apart from the Resolution's potention for distraction, it could also lead to pitfalls with ominous implications. I talked to a lawyer friend, and here were some of her questions:

Does the Resolution mean that the City of Germantown will work ACTIVELY and officially against proposed legislation to carve out protection for car drivers who strike someone in the street that is a protester? Does it mean the City of Germantown will work ACTIVELY and officially against legislation that enhance penalties for any injuries to a police officer, whether purposeful or accidental?  Does it mean the City of Germantown will be using its lobbyist to work ACTIVELY for legislation to enact a "Hate Speech/Hate Crime" law on the state level?    

It is my friend's last question that most concerns me. Does the Compact contemplate legislation that would criminalize speech or limit free assembly? We are treading in dangerous water if we promote challenges to the First Amendment. European nations ban the use of Nazi symbols and salutes. Here, however, these hateful expressions are protected by the First Amendment. Does the Compact contemplate legislation that would outlaw these symbols? Does the Compact envision limiting the citizens' right to assembly? We all treasure these rights, and any attempt to chip away at them should be resisted.  

    

A central purpose of the First Amendment is to protect unpopular speech, indeed, speech so unpopular as to incense the overwhelming majority of Americans. David Cole, National Legal Director of the ACLU, felt it necessary to write a thoughtful piece on why we must not permit the events occurring in Charlottesville to enduce us to forsake the First Amendment. Even the horrible, neo-Nazi thugs who demonstrated in Charlottesville need First Amendment protection.  

Why we Must Still Defend Free Speech 

I recommend that everyone read the entire piece. Here is an excerpt: 

As Frederick Douglass reminded us, “Power concedes nothing without a demand. It never did and it never will.” Throughout our history, disadvantaged minority groups have effectively used the First Amendment to speak, associate, and assemble for the purpose of demanding their rights—and the ACLU has defended their right to do so. Where would the movements for racial justice, women’s rights, and LGBT equality be without a muscular First Amendment? 

The First Amendment implications of this resolution should be apparent to all; however, Clay Bailey, a journalist who should have a heightened appreciation of these issues, ignored these First Amendment implications in his recent hit piece against resolution-opponent Dean Massey, who objects to the resolution because it is overly broad and connected to an unvetted authority.

Never assume any idea needing adoption by politicians is a given, even denouncing hate and bigotry 

Mr. Bailey's column is needlessly polarizing. He has given no thought to the potential ramifications of this resolution.

Whatever your feelings about Resolution No.17R16, be sure to communicate them to our aldermen--  

Our aldermen 

I personally feel that the resolution should be tabled until we have a clear picture of the specific legislative agenda sought by the Mayor's Compact to Combat Hate. We need to ensure that such legislation does not affect our First Amendment rights. If we feel we must take some action, the wiser course at this point would be simply to adopt a resolution that our community can fully embrace-- namely, a resolution condemning hatred of the sort that we saw in Charlottesville.

Wildwood Farms--the people, the history, and the future

As the rest of our City "urbanizes," one part, thankfully, is preserving Germantown's rural heritage. Wildwood Farms is one of the newest additions to the National Register of Historic Places.

Nothing defines the Germantown of the past century better than its horse farms. And our quintessential horse farm is Wildwood Farms, located on South Germantown Road near Stout. When I heard about its being added to the Register, I yearned to know more. You see, my introduction to Germantown was through Wildwood Farms, during the early 1980s.  

I was privileged to count Lynn Taylor as a very good friend. Her husband Lee grew up at Wildwood Farms, which was originally purchased by his grandfather. Lee's parents, William and Audrey Taylor, lived in "The Big House." The Taylor family was in the cotton business. Once a week, I drove from east Memphis, turned into the magical farm and followed the winding road around "The Big House", past the swimming pool until I reached two well manicured rubico tennis courts. Within view in one direction was the historic barn, and behind the courts the horse and walking trails ran through the woods. Eight of us played tennis, and afterwards talked in the shade by the court as we sipped lemonade or sweet tea. I thus became familiar with Germantown.  I visited the Germantown Commissary when it was still a country store, experienced Old Germantown when it was much larger than it is today (and still located on a country lane), and drove past the famous horse speed limit signs. Occasionally, I even went to the polo matches at the field just down the street in Memphis (this was long before before 385 was built), or went to a party in the barn or The Big House. If there was a band, it was generally The Settlers (listen to Germantown Blues by the Settlers). 

Sadly, Lynn was diagnosed with breast cancer just a few short years after I first met her. Following her initial treatment, Lynn decided to skip the polo season in Palm Beach. Instead, she went to Oxford, England to study Shakespeare, and, upon her return, she taught English at Germantown HIgh School. She had a passion for her job and she loved inspiring the average student even more than those that were more accomplished. Her interest in innovative teaching methods led to the establishment of The Lynn Warren Taylor Excellence in Teaching Award at GHS, which exists to this day. Unfortunately, she eventually succumbed to her disease. I lost a wonderful friend. 

Melanie and Calypso, with Gold Medal

Later, I was pleased to learn that Lee had remarried-- to Melanie Smith, a member of the Hugh Frank Smith family, well known in the Germantown horse world. By then, Melanie was a world-class rider, having won a gold medal in the 1984 Olympics in Los Angeles for team show jumping. She remains active in horse circles, and serves as an analyst on NBC for horse show competitions. She authored a book, the favorably reviewed Riding With Life, Lessons from the Horse. From the Mid South Horse Review-- 

Against the backdrop of her life story, Melanie presents a wealth of detailed exercises, instructional photographs, and valuable advice, as well as details about the many horses that have helped shape her approach.Throughout, she encourages us to appreciate and honor the nobility of the horse and forge a true connection with this wonderful animal.   

Melanie and Lee, from her book Riding with Life

Here she answers some questions put to her by The Eclectic Horseman. I was happy to read that Melanie stresses the importance of wearing a helmet.

Audrey Taylor Gonzales, Lee's sister, is another author in the family. She has lived all over the world. When she returned to the Memphis area, for a time she served as a minister at Calvary Episcopal Church downtown. Audrey's Blog gives "musings" from her life. Of particular interest to us is a post that describes her early life in Memphis and Germantown. She was the focus of a piece by David Waters-- Lifelong Journey Leads Woman of Privilege Back to Memphis Priesthood, and the Poor. Here she is talking about her novel South of Everything. 

Lee Taylor, now deceased, was the "heart and soul" of Wildwood Farms, according to Melanie. "Without Lee, there would be no Wildwood Farms." His devotion to the equestrian way of life was inspirational to everyone in the area. 

In addition to overseeing the operations of the farm, Lee used his considerable business acumen to solidify the family business by diversifing from cotton into other areas--a prime example being the company's acquisition of Holly Farms Chicken (later purchased by Tyson Foods).  

Lee was an outstanding polo player, even competing with Prince Charles in Palm Beach. Because of his commitment to the sport, the Memphis Polo Club games were moved from the Hunt and Polo Club in Memphis to Wildwood Farms. One year, he was called upon to host the U.S. Open of Polo, when the Oak Brook, Illinois location had issues that prevented it from hosting the event. After 385 was built, the Memphis Polo Club games were moved out of town.

One View of Historic Barn

I recently chatted with Melanie, current owner of Wildwood Farms. When I asked the how and why of the listing on The National Register of Historic Places, she said simply, "It needs to have its history preserved. This is a good first step." She stated that in completing the long application process she learned a good deal about the history of Wildwood Farm. It is believed that there was a Civil War encampment located there, as evidenced by the artefacts found at the site with a metal detector. The historic buildings on the property are the marvelous barn, the shop, and the manager's house. (The Big House is gone.) These buildings were designed and built during the Great Depression, in a time frame of just six months. Paul Mueller was the architect who laid out the plans for the farm. His son, Bart, remained in Germantown and started the Longreen Fox Hunt. Bart and the late Sonny Foster were the two people who started the Germantown Charity Horse Show.

The barn from another vantage point

When I asked her if the preservation efforts were limited to the buildings, Melanie answered with a resounding "NO." She said that all 360 acres need to be preserved as a unit. "I am taking measures to ensure that." It is her personal mission to see that the preservation is done correctly. 


We should all be happy that the future of Wildwood Farm is in the hands of Melanie Smith Taylor, a determined woman with an appreciation for the preservation of history. 

More details can be learned about Wildwood Farms from Melanie's book, or from a display at Saddles 'n Such on S. Germantown Road. 

Display at Saddles 'N Such

Next Year's Budget, the Proposed Property Tax Increase, and The Special Called FAC Meeting Last Week

After writing two click bait articles about nothing, well, about the "outrage" that easily available public information had been inadvertently made, ahem, a tiny bit more visible, the "right-sizing" Commercial Appeal finally got around to covering something substantive-- the special called Finance Advisory Commission meeting last week.  

Two Alternatives Could Lead to the Reduction of the $.23 tax increase 

Oddly enough, despite being presented with two less costly alternatives, the FAC voted for the full $.23 increase that had been passed on the second reading by the BMA three days prior to the called FAC meeting. Here is the full audio of the FAC meeting (Please note: This audio is not available on the City website. I paid five dollars for it to be put on a flash drive. I could have listened to it for no charge if I was willing to listen to it at City Hall. I present this YouTube as a public service to the citizens of Germantown) : 

Here is the FAC meeting packet: (click to enlarge the smaller ones)

I want to note that there were only two private citizens that attended the called FAC meeting, and one of them was kind enough to upload the above information to Facebook. It made me kind of dizzy trying to get everything to face rightside up. Hopefully I didn't lose any lines or columns in coverting it into something easily readable.

The Commercial Appeal article quotes Mary Anne Gibson as saying she is open to reducing the $.23 tax increase based on the new information presented to the FAC, and Alderman Massey as saying that due to projected fund balances which are adequate, there is no need for an increase in the property tax rate this year. 

Rocky Janda's position was not quoted, which is odd due to his position as the financial liaison to the Financial Advisory Commission. The vote on the $.23 tax increase begins at 56:30 in the above video. Alderman Janda votes "yes" for that motion, along with the majority of the FAC. Three members vote "no." 

What is notable about this called FAC meeting is that it was three days after the public hearing on the budget at the BMA meeting, and that it gave more options-- a possible reduced tax increase, all while staying within guidelines of an adequate cash reserve and maintaining a AAA bond rating. No expenses or capital projects would need to be cut from the budget!  

The pretext for the called FAC meeting was that the Forest Hill Irene Road improvements had bids which were less than expected. This "new" information had been available for ten days or so, according to the administration. Yet the citizens and aldermen had not been told of this before the public hearing on June 12. Furthermore, the lower bid did not even seem like a large enough difference to completely rework the budget. 

The public hearing at the second reading of the June 12 BMA meeting itself was a bit of a sham, since public comments began after most people go to bed, and several people had to leave before Patrick Lawton finished his 90 minute presentation. Again, that presentation did not include the new information that was prepared for the called FAC meeting later in the week. It also appears that by the time of the June 12 meeting, the administration had already decided it needed a new FAC meeting, as the mayor stated the administration's desire to "gather the troops" at about 2:44.30 of the City recording at that meeting 

Thus the public hearing was a waste of time, as it did not provide complete information to the public prior to the meeting, or even at the meeting; nor did it furnish the public with the opportunity to speak about budget issues at a reasonable hour.

Even though a lot of citizens had gone to bed, a former City employee, took the time during the June 12 public hearing to point out some things about the budget:

At the second reading of the budget at the June 12 BMA meeting, two aldermen voted against the budget and proposed $.23 tax increase: Aldermen Barzizza and Massey. The other three aldermen voted for the increase. Alderman Barzizza objected to lack of detail in the budget and the need to follow the Code by voting on the City Administrator's salary. Dean Massey agreed with him on those issues, and he also noted that he does not want any raise in the property tax this year, due to the fund balance being more than adequate (over 40%) using the administration projections. Here is a sample of some of his points from the BMA meeting, and some of the administration responses:  

Alderman Massey prepared this spreadsheet to demonstrate what he believes are excess reserves (over 40%) produced by the Administration's budget: 

Alderman Massey points out that the City has often cited 40% as being an adequate fund balance. In listening to the FAC meeting, it seems that most of the members cited various "what if" (some may say doomsday?) scenarios to justify the full $.23 tax increase this year.  What one person feels is fiscally prudent may strike another person as unnecessary padding. But listen to the FAC meeting yourself and form your own opinion. 

The citizen comments at the BMA public hearing begin at about 2:45 (two hours and forty five minutes), and the discussion by the aldermen begin at approximately 3:42 (three hours and forty two minutes) here.

Road Improvement Plans Unchanged by School Site Choice

When the Commercial Appeal first discussed the Germantown budget, I did a little double take, as it said the "bulk" of the proposed $.23 property tax hike increase was for the new school. Yet, the breakdown of the 23 cent hike showed that .$10 of the hike was for the school, and .$03 was for the widening of Forest Hill Irene Road, by the school.  

  
From the article  

The bulk of Germantown's proposed 23-cent property tax increase is rooted in a need to address growth in education — either by building a new K-5 campus or securing three namesake schools under control of Shelby County Schools.

….(snip)…… 

Of Germantown's additional 23 cents on the property tax rate, 10 cents is destined for purchase of a school site on Forest Hill-Irene, along with construction and furnishing the campus. An additional 3 cents is to improve Forest Hill-Irene south of Poplar Pike to Winchester, a segment of which passes alongside the proposed school site. 

That 13 cents will cover the $33.5 million bond issue for those projects. Officials have put the price of a new K-5 school at $27 million. The other 10 cents in the hike is to "keep the five-year model," Lawton said. 

The term "bulk" and the lumping of the school construction and road widening costs together in the article certainly seems to suggest that the road work is due to the new school.   

Indeed, the City website more directly links the improvements to Forest Hill-Irene to the school site: 

GMSD Growth - The need for a new elementary school and road improvements necessitated by the location of the school, combined with a significant reduction in state shared revenues from the Hall income tax requires the consideration of a property tax adjustment. The new K-5 elementary school including land, site work, construction and equipment has a budget of $27 million. The necessary safety improvements to Forest Hill Irene Road leading to the new school have a budget of $6.5 million. Collectively, this will result in a bond issue of $33.5 million and an increase in debt service payments of approximately $2 million annually.    

Yet this Commercial Appeal article shows that the improvements to Forest Hill-Irene were being considered prior to the selection of the new school site. 

Dean Massey emailed Tim Gwatney and asked how the school site selection had changed the budget for improvements to Forest Hill-Irene. Here is the exchange on this particular subject:  

Conclusion: For whatever reason, the City website, which claims that the road improvements are necessitated by the school location, is incorrectly characterizing the reason for the road improvements. The city engineer confirms that these improvements are necessary with or without the new school.