| July 21, 1998 | 7:00 p.m. |
|---|
In Attendance:
| Thomas Carroll, Superintendent | George Rief, Town of Durham |
| Jay Flanders, CDORE | Rosanne Santos, Community |
| Paul Gasowski, HS Faculty | Ann Shump, HS OREW |
| Martie Gooze, PASS | Ed Smith, Community |
| Gail Kelley, Friends of Performance | Kim Starbranch, MOH PTO |
| Peter MacDonald, Community | David Taylor, School Board |
| Thomas O’Malley, HS Administrator | Helen Wilcox, Visitor |
| David Penniman, Town of Madbury | Gary Whitmarsh, HS OREW |
Martie Gooze opened the meeting and affirmed that the current architectural and building firms would be handling this project.
Jay Flanders spoke of the preliminary report presented to the school board, and clarified that July 29 is a soft date for the final report. Board members, he continued, stated the report meets the first part of the charge, however, they would like a little more narrative, and they are interested in the committee’s consensus. It was stated that the school board will be meeting with the architect and builder at 5:00 p.m. on July 23, and the Community Advisory Committee may want to arrange discussion time with them as well.
Discussion ensued on the middle school bond, and it was noted that the code for a fire wall came into being after the design had been set, shaking up the plans through no fault of Baybutt’s. Mention was made that costs are going up because there is a high demand for builders.
The guaranteed maximum price may draw contingency funds. Also as the drawings for this most recent bond are much more accurate than earlier drawings, the cost is probably much more realistic.
Baybutt does not plan to use its own company to build; rather they send work out to bid and manage the project. They work in the interest of the client. It was stated that the architect sat down and discussed plans with teachers and took their input into consideration when designing renovations.
It was voiced that the last bond was based on price, this one should be based on content. The school board must get behind the project and clarify reasons for costs. If solving problems over time, the cafeteria must come first, with classrooms next, and so forth.
The board is looking for constructive criticism to utilize as it moves forward. Candid conversation needs to come from this committee. A reasonable approach is needed. Building should meet curriculum needs and the rest will follow. To be addressed is the issue of what the community is looking for in the high school.
If the committee is to give the board an accurate range on the scope of this project, it will need an accurate review of educational needs. It was stated that if the minimums are met exactly, we may not be able to give cost but an outline of the shell. We do not have the expertise to determine cost. The architect or builder may need to expand on this for us.
It was questioned if parameters are firmly established, and 1000 was cited as the core facility need. It was stated that space is available to build for 1000-1200, but the land may not support the projects a building that size would bring into the mix.
Projected numbers were reviewed, as were the numbers used to build the Moharimet School. It was stated that if the district wishes to build or renovate the building to significantly go over maximum projected student numbers, it will not be popular with the voters.
It was noted that the committee keeps sliding back into what can be “sold” to the voters. First the need is to build for basics, and then continue with what voters may invest in.
A “design horizon” needs to be taken into consideration to add to the longevity of this building.
Contiguous and non-contiguous playing fields were discussed, and questioned was if playing fields were put elsewhere could the building be sufficiently expanded on this site.
Paul Gasowski stated that the building should be driven by educational philosophy versus number of students. The building should be based on educational needs and student numbers ten year out. Caution was expressed not to build or refine the building to an old form as in ten years a facility may need much more advanced technology and teaching strategies.
It was voiced that flexibility is needed in the facility, and that the project should be designed with vision to the future.
Pods were discussed, and mention made that they adapt well to multiple curriculum needs. The pod structure tends to lend itself to changes down the line and gives the ability to run similar programs adjacent to each other.
The committee focused on education over the next ten years, with focus on the high school being a center for learning versus a home for learning. The building should not be built to meet educational needs so far into the future that flexibility is lost for the present. It was voiced that the school must also meet community needs.
It was stated that the school board stepped into the renovation issue addressing needs, then the price fell from that, however, the $12.1 million was not supported.
In addressing the last bond issue, Jay Flanders felt that it did not clearly delineate educational needs and wants. And that was in part the reason the bond did not pass. He stated that reasons for wants must be expressed and effort made to sell them.
Mention was made that we want to meet the educational needs, however, the wants will enhance the school and make it better.
Dr. Carroll asked if needs versus wants could be defined. Would a cost/value analysis be needed? He stated that representatives of the district need to go out to teach people what our educational needs are, and to teach what a basic and adequate education is and what it needs.
Only the school board can offer a bond up for vote, and the committee has been asked for input to help direct them, for example, by identifying where and how the plan might be altered. Rethinking a design should not take two to three years. There is an excellent opportunity to do something here. It was stated that the community needs to be involved and that ecologically responsible material needs to be used.
Points that should be addressed:
The committee may want to figure out the needs and take them to an architect to have it put together.
It was noted that involving community does not really require structural change. It is a matter of attitude and putting out a welcome mat. Other area schools were cited as examples.
Martie Gooze encouraged the members to come to the next meeting with specific and hard questions for the architect. The architect needs to be given ideas and input, and then let them come back with a plan/project, then we can deal with what we can cut back. The architect knows the bond did not pass, and may already be reviewing their plans and have valuable input.
It would be fine to put together an outline for the second part of the charge, then the board can ask the committee to refine or expand on any points. A more formal narrative report can be put together later.
The meeting was adjourned at 9:10 p.m.
The next meeting is with the architect is set for July 23 at 7:00 p.m. at the high school.
Kim Starbranch, Recording Secretary
Commons
Schools
Newsstand
Library
Voting Booth
Soapbox
Last update on 30-Mar-99 at 10:57 PM.
http://www.orol.org/schools/orhs/orgs/cac/minutes_980721.html
This page is edited by David K. Taylor. Please send questions or comments to editor@orol.org.