Paperwork incomplete on Springfield school projects

The town of Springfield isn’t the only permitting authority that wants more information about traffic from the Springfield school district about the completed renovations to Elm Hill and Union Street schools.

http://www.vermonttoday.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/RH/20101121/NEWS02/711219886 Published November 21, 2010 in the Rutland Herald         Paperwork incomplete on Springfield school projects         By SUSAN SMALLHEER Staff Writer         SPRINGFIELD — The town of Springfield isn’t the only permitting authority that wants more information about traffic from the Springfield school district about the completed renovations to Elm Hill and Union Street schools.         The District 2 Environmental Commission, which granted the school district an Act 250 land use permit last year to renovate the town’s two elementary schools, recently sent a letter to the school district asking for missing information.         According to a letter sent Nov. 4 from District 2 coordinator April Hensel, the school district has missed two deadlines for submitting the information.         The school district was supposed to submit a plan for sidewalk improvements near Elm Hill and Union Street schools by June 1 and a traffic report by July 1, according to Hensel’s letter.         Hensel said Friday that it is not unusual for district commissions to send out letters reminding applicants of missing information.         “It’s a common occurrence; we remind people,” said Hensel.         After the permits were granted, the school district made several changes to its plans. It decided to consolidate students by grade. Additionally, with the closure of Park Street School, each school now houses about 300 children, more than double their old size.         The shift in use has created some big traffic problems, particularly at Elm Hill, which now houses all of Springfield’s children in kindergarten through second grade. Parents are refusing to put younger children on the school bus, and are in line up to an hour before dismissal time to pick up their children.         The district commission wanted certification that the school district has met two conditions of the permit: completion of intersection improvements and the re-striping of crosswalks along walking routes the schoolchildren take. Hensel said she believed that the walking routes had been re-striped.         The school district has run into trouble with the Springfield Development Review Board as well over the renovations and expansion of the schools.         The local board met with school officials earlier this month to iron out differences. As a result, the school district has agreed to submit a revised application. One of the main holdups is that the Springfield School District has yet to receive a final traffic report, according to Superintendent of Schools Frank Perotti.         School officials met with Resource Systems Group of White River Junction this past week to try to speed up the final report. The report has been delayed due to maternity leave by the report’s main author, Perotti said earlier.         Hensel asked that all Act 250 information be submitted by Nov. 22. http://www.rutlandherald.com/article/20101121/NEWS02/711219886