In Attendance:

The meeting was called to order at 7:05 p.m., and introductions were made around the table. Martie Gooze presented the agenda:

1. Tom Carroll - Summaries of architectural designs

2. John Abers - Handout: Size of bond vs voter support from survey results

3. Martie mentions
   • When looking at plans, keep in mind if viewed in terms of money, you can’t separate renovations and classes;

   • As the preliminary report is due July 15, think of subcommittees to generate the report.

Dr. Carroll reviewed renovation a cost handout, cautioning up front that these items were not put out to bid in advance and money figures are not exact and being pulled out of whole project costs.

Highlights of the handout:

• In life/safety category, fire alarm already done (about 130K). The fire alarm had failed once this past year.

• Once work begins tapping into any item it requires removal of all asbestos.

• All windows - replaced for aesthetics and energy efficiency.

• Whole first floor would have been redone, remodeled.

• It is difficult to break out sprinkler costs for just the first floor.

Discussion of windows included that they would be thermo-pane, and it was established that if windows were reduced in size the cost of materials and labor would outweigh any possible savings.

A reminder was given that there are two needs and they must be considered together: space and bringing the building up to code.

Refusal to vote for a plan that puts off renovation was stated. It was voiced that time should not be spent going over old ground and the co-chairs were asked to direct the conversation forward, and also mentioned was allowing for open discussion.

The purpose of the committee was revisited: to give an overview of ideas.

The group first talked of a new, free standing structure on school grounds to temporarily skirt codes, and then the possibility of an all new building was discussed. A new building would cost significantly more to build and becomes more problematic. Discussion ensued regarding other sites to build on near the building, infringing with property lines, parking, bus access, and wetlands.

Mention was made that the current building needs to meet accreditation as the district is on probation. It was questioned how long we can delay addressing this issue.

The need for the group to focus on specific concepts, what seems feasible, and recommendations to give the board was voiced.

The possibility of leaving out a $3M gym was put on the table.

Dr. Carroll covered core problems addressed by the board:

• The cafeteria is too small. To the suggestion that a new cafeteria be built in the courtyard section it was stated that closing up this area would cause a problem with fire codes.

• The gym floor needs replacement. The gym could be made into a cafeteria, or if used as a gym could only be used for physical education and not house basketball courts.

• Library. Could be expanded by taking back the second floor and using that area.

• Halls. Could be improved by taking lockers out of hallways and installing banks of lockers in other areas of the school.

• The $3M gym would add: locker rooms, a new mechanical room, needed bathrooms, elevator (to make the library handicapped accessible), general and athletic equipment storage, and four additional classrooms.

The design is conceptual in nature with many opportunities to make changes inside the footprint. Adding a second floor would be structurally expensive since we have to meet new seismic codes. Brainstorming could occur on how we can change the gym addition and/or other areas, as well as discussion on the survey analysis relative to the identified split votes.

Mention was made that copies of the full survey will be available in the schools, the town offices, and libraries, and the school district office for review

Discussion continued on how the size of the cafeteria and the need to three lunch periods is driving the school’s schedule, and there is a need to cut back to two sections.

What is truly needed to make the school work? How do we satiate the one-third who voted on the “too much” end and the one-third who voted on the “too little” end?

Emma Rous shared her ideas which included first a bond for renovations and classroom space, then going for a gym and auditorium later, or getting an entirely different scenario which was less costly.

PDT Design thought that the cafeteria could also be used for performing arts by creating a continuous space out onto the courtyard.

Suggestion was heard for a pre-fabricated gym, and thought was expressed to be cautious about building to meet minimum needs and being at the maximum level when the building is ready. “Minimums” became a topic for review, with discussion of a new building surfacing again.

Dr. Carroll indicated the current plan would meet estimated growth for the next ten to twelve years.

The group then discussed the accuracy of projected growth in this area, and mention was made that the district’s Long Range Planning Committee’s projections have been found to be more accurate that those of the county’s or state’s.

Two questions need to be addressed: Should the district build a new school or not? Should a bond be in stages or not?

Lengthy discussion ensued regarding the pros and cons of a new school with speculation as to the actual cost of such a project, building site, sewer and water availability, and probable voter support.

The charge was questioned: should we stick strictly to the survey? The school board charge states “community.” The group could provide a couple of ideas that are out there. It was thought that the more consensus the group is able to generate, the more likely the community will pull together in support.

The highest concern is accreditation, with mention made of running out of lab space. It was questioned how can a plan be presented and suggested that multiple plans will dilute the situation. A fair number of individuals were in agreement.

It was noted that the charge states to suggest direction to the school board and to state key issues, and that reporting a direction or two with our key issues expressed would meet definition, reinforcing open conversation.

At the next meeting, it was suggested that Dr. Carroll could address what things could be done to affect the price, and what things could be cut out of the current plan.

The committee discussed the negative feelings towards the construction company as reflected by the survey, speculating that the middle school construction was probably the reason, however, some refuted this. Some expressed that it might be beneficial for the architect to come to a meeting for discussion purposes.

Martie Gooze closed by stating the group needs to focus on its purpose or expressed ideas, and members were asked to come to the next meeting with a list of priorities formulated from using the survey.

Meeting dates were set for July 7 and 9, 7:00 p.m.

The meeting adjourned at 9:25 p.m.

Kim Starbranch, Recording Secretary

Last update on 30-Mar-99 at 10:57 PM.

http://www.orol.org/schools/orhs/orgs/cac/minutes_980629.html

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