also by Tom Morphet

Progress on a "programming study" to determine who and what might go into a renovated elementary school apparently slowed to a stop after Haines Borough facilities director Brad Maynard resigned in June.

The borough assembly voted July 26 to pursue demolition of the old school building, weeks before a memo that included some of the study’s initial findings was shared with the public.

Interviews this week established the borough had problems with the memo issued May 10, but never communicated those to the study’s authors, and that Maynard and borough manager Mark Earnest held differing views on both the study’s purpose, and its shortcomings.

Earnest canceled the study last month, saying it missed the mark by not considering a recreation center independent of the old school.

Maynard said this week the study was always exclusively focused on the old school and said he had specific conversations with Earnest about that. "It was absolutely as clear as a bell with him what was going on."

According to the title of the assembly resolution authorizing the $14,442 study, its purpose was "to provide assistance with planning, programming, and conceptual design for future use of the remaining portion of Old Elementary School Building."

Maynard was working with MRV Architects of Juneau and residents on the study, starting in January. MRV’s seven-page memo was lacking in specifics, he said.

"It doesn’t graphically show what the usage of the building would be, whether it would be 100 percent utilized, 50 percent utilized or 200 percent utilized. It doesn’t have a definition of the economics of the building in terms of usage," which was a major reason for doing the study, Maynard said.

Maynard said he did not express his concerns to MRV but instead passed them on to Earnest. He said he never heard back from the manager on the issue before leaving the job at the end of June.

Maynard filed grievances against Earnest at the time of his resignation.

"I wanted (Earnest) to make a decision on what direction we went. I’d made too many decisions without manager input or feedback at that point. I asked him for feedback on what he wanted me to do. He never gave me direction on where he wanted to go with it," Maynard said.

Project manager Corey Wall of MRV Architects said this week he never heard anything from Earnest after Maynard left the job, and that he became aware of the municipality’s dissatisfaction with the study only by reading recent newspaper accounts.

"What we provided was what we were asked to provide… I have not had a conversation with the manager about this project," Wall said.

Wall said at that time he attributed the borough’s delay in communication to a personnel change from Maynard’s departure. MRV never was instructed to stop work on the study, but work came to a stop as the company waited for direction from the borough, he said.

On Wednesday Earnest said that he had "just become aware" that communication had stalled between the borough and MRV. "I don’t know what was communicated to them," Earnest said.

Asked to respond to Maynard’s assertion that the project was left in his hands, Earnest suggested someone at the borough instructed MRV to put a halt to work. "I don’t know what was communicated (to MRV). The idea was to put it on hold. They were advised to do no further work. It’s my understanding that’s what was communicated."

In mid-June, MRV submitted three pages of rough drawings to the borough, including floor plans showing where exercise rooms and machines and borough offices might be located in a renovated building.

Assembly members made repeated inquiries during the summer about the status of the study.

On June 30, Earnest was quoted telling a CVN reporter that the study was "ongoing" and he "didn’t have an estimate on when that will be ready for the public discussion."

On July 12, Earnest told the assembly the borough had received some preliminary information back "but I don’t think it really went to the core of what the question was, and that was to develop some cost estimates and some basic, sort of, guidelines in terms of what the interpretation of the needs were."

The borough minutes of the July 12 meeting say, "(Earnest) will check with MRV to find out where they’re at on (cost estimates)."

On July 26, the borough assembly voted to begin the process of demolishing the building. "It’s been over a year (since a decision to postpone demolition) and I haven’t seen any concrete ideas or plans come forward," assembly member Joanne Waterman said at the meeting. An Aug. 4 CVN article about the meeting quoted recreation center backer Marnie Hartman, who was absent from the July 26 assembly meeting, saying she thought an assembly decision on the building would wait until the study was complete.

On Aug. 23, Earnest told the assembly he was going to put a halt to the study, saying it was more focused on the old gym building rather than the general concept of a recreation facility, and not what he was expecting. He said he would pay MRV about half the amount the borough authorized for the project.

Earnest instead said he would seek "requests for qualifications" from interested parties to help with planning a new recreation center.

Earnest provided a copy of the May 10 MRV memo to the CVN on Aug. 24. The memo and floor plans were included in the Sept. 13 assembly meeting packet.

Maynard this week expressed incredulity that Earnest didn’t understand the MRV study was only on the old building.

"I made it perfectly clear. We weren’t doing a study of a new building. We were doing a study of the economics of keeping a building that was already there. That was what the whole study was based on," Maynard said.

January newspaper articles also identified the study as measuring demand "for a community recreation center that would be located in the old elementary gymnasium and adjoining classroom space."

Recreation center supporter Hartman this week said she also understood the programming study was to focus only on the old building.

"Maybe that’s what the (newspaper) story said," Earnest said this week. "That wasn’t my take… I’ve done programming studies on buildings that weren’t being retrofitted."

Maynard said this week he had no personal opinion on what should happen to the old school building.

He characterized the study as valuable. "One of the things I really believe in is that if you take and spend $10,000 to figure out what you really do or don’t want to do with something, you’re better off than making a million-dollar mistake."