Session I - October 14, 1999

At 7:00 p.m. Dale Swanson introduced himself as moderator and asked anyone who wished to participate to get a ballot card from the booths at the back of the room. He read the warrant article and directed people to use the microphones when asking questions.

Drew Christie was introduced. After giving a presentation on the necessity of the expansion and renovation of Oyster River High School, he invited David Taylor to present.

David Taylor, the School Board's Facilities Committee Chair, gave a presentation on the expansion, renovations, and site plans. Seventy percent of the building would be new construction and 30% would be major renovation, essentially providing us with a new building. Other advantages of this plan, he noted, were the resolution of overcrowding and cost effective solution to code and accreditation issues. David said the bond rate was still low, we would receive 45% State Building Aid, the construction price would be guaranteed, and all work would be competitively bid, amongst other points.

He covered the year to year tax impact for the three towns, noting the first year would have the highest tax impact with consecutive decreases every year thereafter. David pointed out now that Claremont has settled our taxes will actually go down. This year we will see Durham's taxes decrease by $3.28, Lee's by $7.05 and Madbury's by $7.72. Although we would not experience the decrease until December, it does mean taxes will be reduced. Madbury's taxes would be reduced by almost twice the amount of the first year impact of the bond. David also covered the advantages of implementing this plan now and the alternatives they studied and considered. He also reviewed pertinent meeting dates and voter registration information which goes as follows:

Meeting Dates: Sept. 28, Bond Hearing; Oct 14, Special District Meeting (Session I); Oct 28 & Nov 9, Information Nights at OR High School, 7:00 p.m.; November 16, Ballot Vote: Durham at OR High School, Lee at Mast Way School, and Madbury at Town Hall

Voter Registration Information: You must be a registered voter to vote at both Session I (October 14) and Session II (November 16). Absentee ballot are available for Session II (November 16).

Register to Vote:
Durham: M-F 8-5; 10/2 & 11/6 10-noon
Lee: M-W-F 8:30-4:30; 2nd & 4th M 8:30-6:00; 10/2 & 11/6 11-noon
Madbury: M-W-F 8-1; M 6-8 pm; 10/2 & 11/6 9-10 am

David called to our attention that this was a special election and that we must register ten days in advance at our town halls or at the registration booths at the back of the gymnasium.

Mr. Swanson reminded us we were addressing the wording of this article for the November 16 ballot and asked for questions and comments.

Dr. Carroll introduced the people who would be answering our questions, including our new Business Administrator Bob Berry, Team Design members, people from MacMillin, and the School Board members.

Mr. Charles McLean of Durham inquired about the 3/5 majority needed for the bond to pass. Mr. Swanson confirmed new legislation had changed the requirement from 2/3 to 3/5 for Senate Bill 2 towns.

Ms. Pat Samuels of Durham thanked the School board for all their work and for coming up with an excellent proposal. She was delighted to hear that the taxes would be going down with the Claremont decision and that our taxes would decrease significantly at first and then continually every year. She asked for a review of the tax information we just covered and was referred to the chart in the white handout which reads as follows: Claremont Lowers Taxes: State aid fixed by law for two years; This year's taxes compared to old tax formula - Durham's decreases $3.28, Lee decreases $7.05, Madbury decreases $7.72. Mr. Swanson encouraged everyone to review the tax information on the yellow handout. Ms. Samuels went on to comment on how old this building was and how necessary these changes are.

Mr. Larry Nicoludis of Durham voiced concerns about safety and liability if the bond does not pass. Dr. Carroll noted that if we did allow the building to reach an unsafe condition we would be exposed to liability. However, we work very hard to keep the building safe, making sure we adhere to all safety codes. We do everything we can to make sure the building stays in the best repair as we can maintain a 35 year old facility.

Mr. Morey Borovick of Durham asked several questions about the proposal, the project size, the increase in operating budget and other costs. Mr. Berry answered that the building would be increased by 2,500 square feet, would require three more janitors at a cost of $75,000, and an increase of about $225,000 for heating, electricity and other building operations. An increase of $325,000 overall. He also noted this would be a much more efficient building and cost effective when complete.

Mr. Borovick asked what alternatives we have studied for a scaled down proposal. Do we have alternative size or cost options? Dr. Carroll answered that this package resolved all the code and accreditation problems we have to solve. Cutting this package back would leave some or many issues unresolved and we do not want to resolve these issues in a piecemeal fashion. He reviewed the alternatives they had explored and assured Mr. Borovick that if they could have found a cheaper solution to all these issues they would certainly have presented it. It would have a better chance of passing. He again stated that this is the most effective plan. Mr. Borovick asked if the accreditation problem needed the whole $20 million to be resolved? Dr. Carroll answered yes, he believed so and covered why, noting piecemeal resolutions would not really work. In order to resolve the accreditation issue, the whole package would have to be implemented.

Mr. Borovick went on to ask about only bringing the facility up to code. Quoting a cost of $4 million, with $16 million lumped in for expansion. Dr. Carroll answered that meeting code may cost $4 million, but doing only that would not touch the accreditation problems. Mr. Borovick stated that $20 million was the issue and that similar projects in the state have not cost as much as we are asking the voters to pay. Dr. Carroll reviewed recent building projects, noting the Exeter and Dover Middle School buildings. They cost less because their construction began in 1997, the construction costs for our building is projected out to spring 2002 as construction costs continue to rise. These building are middle schools, which are inherently cheaper to construct than high schools. He also noted that Falmouth is working to construct a building within our same time frame at a cost of $21 million for structure that accommodates only 400 students.

Mr. Borovick and Dr. Carroll went on to discuss the Belmont and Litchfield construction, reviewing student numbers and projected costs. Although it was found that these two projects were not as expensive as ours (6.7 and 11.9 million respectively), they only accommodate about 500 students. They are really not comparable to our core structure which will accommodate 1,000 students and has the capacity to add more classrooms if needed. Dr. Carroll said since 1988 we have been researching the most logical and feasible way to solve these issues. We found it to be renovating the current site. He also covered the disadvantages and failure associated with a multiple option approach, noting primarily that putting two plus options on the ballot inherently splits the vote and that we would not reach the 3/5 necessary to pass a bond. He urged Mr. Borovick and the entire room to attend the information nights so that their pressing and direct questions could be answered in detail.

The lack of alternatives was covered at length by Mr. Borovick. He felt that alternatives had not been covered or documented. And why not try the approach of "if we only had $10 million what could be do? Why not take care of the top priorities or everything we can with $10 million?" Mr. Taylor responded to Mr. Borovick's questions, noting that $10 million would not reasonably cover the mentioned alternatives. It would not meet the needs to pass accreditation and solving one or the other would not be a solution. He said if they could have found a smaller, cheaper solution, they would be presenting it.

Ms. Rosanne Santos of Durham said the conditions in this building are horrendous and went on to list some of her experiences as an intern at Oyster River High School. She invited people to come spend a day and see what the children were dealing with on a daily basis. She also found the needs to be so basic and necessary that forcing choices would cause options such as, "do we pick heat or electricity?" Ms. Santos also noted that Keene is paying $17.5 million for a 70K square foot addition. Our project is twice the area at $20 million, and is comparably cost effective.

Ms. Michelle Gregoire of Madbury asked if we are renting or do we own the modular classrooms and what is the cost? Dr. Carroll answered we are renting the modulars because we do not wish to keep them. They basically cost $15,000 per two-classroom unit (we have five units/ten classrooms) per year. Other costs include utilities and such. Modulars mean isolated classrooms and lowered security to the building as students are going in and out of the building all day. The building's heating cost is greater. Ms. Gregoire noted we would lose $75,000 plus a year in costs once this project was completed and a safer, secure building was appealing to her.

Ms. Jean Parsons of Durham noted the unfair perception of the School Board, stating how hard the Board works, that they do not get paid for this position, the long hours and the intellectual research they put into this project, the hours she saw her son put in as student representative, and that they pay these taxes and are impacted by the cost too. The thinking that the Board gets something out of this or that they are pulling the wool over our eyes is wrong. She went on to say that this unfair perception should end, it is fine to disagree with the Board but that we should respect the Board.

Moderator Swanson asked for any further questions or comments on the article's language. With no further questions pending, the Moderator called the language of Article 1 to vote. The language passed and will be officially presented on the November 16, 1999 ballot.

He went on to review where you may vote on November 16, 1999 and concluded the session at 8:01 p.m.

Kim Starbranch

Session II - November 16, 1999

A total of 3,007 ballots were cast for the following warrant article:

Article I: Shall the School District raise and appropriate the sum of $19,951,897 for the partial reconstruction, enlargement, renovation and equipping of the high school, said sum to be in addition to any federal, state, or private funds made available therefore; and authorize the issuance of not more than $19,951,897 of bond or notes in accordance with the provisions of the Municipal Finance Act (RSA Chapter 33); and authorize the School Board to issue and negotiate such bonds or notes and to determine the rate of interest thereto; or take any action relative thereto?

Article 1 was adopted with 1,883 (62.6%) votes cast in favor of the bond and 1,124 (37.4%) cast against.

Kim Starbranch, School District Clerk

Last update on 22-Feb-00 at 10:40 PM.

http://www.orol.org/district/elections/2000/report/minutes199911.html

This page is edited by David K. Taylor. Please send questions or comments to editor@orol.org.