In Attendance:

The meeting began at 7:05 p.m. with Martie Gooze indicating the purpose for the evening was to find a direction, using the survey as directed by the School Board, and it was her opinion that the community has a definite sense that the high school is not up to par.

The committee expressed the need for the current bonds to cost $2M less. Dr. Carroll addressed the possibility of using a mix of the three designs already presented. If the committee is to follow the charge, the new school is not a realistic view. Besides, water and sewer are not in areas where we can feasibly build a new school, and further the $17-22M needed would not be passed by voters.

The group discussed locations of land that could be used for a new building, and reviewed David Garvey’s construction correspondence which states project costs would run about $70-80 per sq ft, including site work. A new building could be finished in one to one a half years. The general feeling was that a new school would not be cost effective, and it was stated that the voters who responded to the telephone survey definitely shot down a new school building.

Walter Rous quoted from the RS Means that a 170,000 sq ft building would range from about $70-80 per sq ft. Forty acres suitable for building would be needed for a new school, and some sites are going to be more expensive than others to bring them to “usable” status. Further, caution was voiced that site costs cannot be determined if there is no site. It was voiced that the community is money for value conscience.

It is estimated that the current high school facility renovated and restructured would last 50+/- years. If the population expands in the future, the district could use the building as a middle school and then build a new high school.

Again discussion centered around the need that the committee’s recommendation must be based on the charge, and survey results did not support a new school. Question was raised if the Board should address builders to see how building could be cheaper, what about the cafeteria, what about multiple uses of one space.

Concern was expressed that the group must determine what it will agree on and that progress must begin to be made.

Discussion ensued that 52.7% of the votes marked yes for bond I, and the committee can’t lose sight of this fact. It was stated that the theme is actually pay me now or pay me later when going to the voters. Nothing can be done without affecting the voter’s wallet. The group only has data to work with that goes out ten years. The bond plans will meet the foreseeable future, and it is projected to house a maximum of 770 students. It was felt that bringing multi-purpose space into the plan would prove to voters that the district is trying to get more value out of its investment.

It was stated that the fine arts programs need the auditorium or performance space. It was determined that the Sound of Music had an approximate attendance of 500 for each of the three performances, and the gym was nearly full. Gail Kelley advised that outside sources for funds for the performing arts are available for those willing to go after them. Reviewing bond II, it was stated that the stage area is completely inadequate.

Discussion of placing a larger auditorium on the back of the school by the music room ensued. Gail shared that Winnacunnet’s 750 auditorium built in 1997 cost $3.5M, and that space is used every single day. The school made $5,000 last year without using it regularly as a source of income.

Planetarium space was discussed at length, with feeling that the committee does not want to lose it in full, nor does it want it rebuilt some place where the space is not used economically.

Proposed changes to plan the committee might consider include:

• Possibly refine corridors

• Cut back bathrooms a little; those are expensive

• Cut back the cafeteria space.

Dr. Carroll expressed that the district is going to have to cut back the flexibility of the plans for bonds I and II, and that the Board needs to sit down and refine these plans with the architect. The building should have a core that accommodates 1000 students, and classrooms that handle 800. The district needs to let people know what has been done and what has been changed, and try to gather 80% voter support, not just try to squeeze out a 67.7% affirmative vote.

Thought was expressed that the gym needs to be redesigned in a less expensive manner, but that classrooms must be kept. The possibility of building lockers under the gym was discussed, as well as using the tennis court area as 250 parking sites to accommodate most events held at the high school.

Thought was that cost has to come down to show voters improvements are being made more reasonable, and at the same time the arts must be addressed.

The new school issue was addressed by Dr. Carroll, who indicated a two step process:

1. Need to find a site and have voters approve it, as building cost will be dramatically impacted by the acreage purchased, and

2. if the high school is located in an adjacent town, can the fire and emergency departments support a school of this size.

Martie suggested a proposed outline for the committee’s report due the 15^th include reduced costs and possibly shifting some costs from one area to another. Mention was that the committee must get more information out there about the bonds. It seemed that the best questions came from meetings held at neighborhood teas/coffees. Another expressed that it was the Board’s responsibility to facilitate information.

The benefit of tuition students was then discussed. Mention was made that the students added a nice diversity, they were challenged, and had a good influence on the populous, and it might be a great selling point for using extra space.

Martie brought forth the initial outline for the next meeting:

• Key is education - plan must be reduced in cost

• Answer accreditation concerns

• Performance arts addressed

• Parking

• Expand life of bonds to reduce costs

• Where can cuts be found

• Strong minority pushing for new school

• Construction manager issue

It was felt the Board should cut back the program and ask the architect to make it more efficient.

The meeting adjourned at 9:07 p.m., with the next meeting scheduled for July 9 at 7:00 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_980707.html

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