In Attendance:

Chris Cairns, HS Principal	Emma Rous, HS Faculty
Tom Carroll, Superintendent	Walter Rous, Community
Jay Flanders, CDORE	Ann Shump, ORHS OREW
Paul Gasowski, HS Faculty	Ed Smith, Community
Martie Gooze, PASS	Kim Starbranch, MOH PTO
Meg Hill, Real Estate Rep	David Taylor, OR School Board
David Penniman, Town of Madbury	Shirley, Thompson, OR School Board
George Rief, Town of Durham

Visitors from Baybutt Construction: Fred Baybutt and Mike Wiggin
Visitors from Team Design: Dan Bisson and Scott Hughes

The meeting came to order at 7:00 p.m., and members of Baybutt Construction and Team Design were introduced. It was acknowledged that the architect and builder had not reviewed the survey and could not expand on the results.

Need for a written outline or list of all that the design calls for was mentioned, to make this plan as cost effective as possible.

On this bond, they did not have a written outline from the school board. Past reports and verbal information from school board is what they modeled the bond with.

It was established that construction cost has not gone down, but they could not give an exact figure of inflation increase, however they thought about 10-15%. There is much construction going on in the state, there is a lack of man power, materials, and many schools are building – the demand is high; i.e. windows are running 24 weeks.

GMP = guaranteed maximum price.

Baybutt’s role is to manage construction work for the school; who will bid, no less than five companies per bid; financially sound. We do not participate in construction until all major trades are put out to bid and no one responds. Emphasis is on local business. They review all information and choices with us.

GMP: When drawings are complete, they will draw estimate that will not increase more than 10% unless the owner changes the order, or unforeseen issues arise.

Each company building works their own contingency into an agreement; materials are set and they do not drop in quality or they can increase quality if requested. If construction comes in under GMP, 100% comes back to the district, and we may upgrade some items in construction.

Baybutt has been building schools for 34 years. Arichitect negotiated a fixed rate. The builder’s fee was negotiated in 1992, a percentage.

Design build makes sense in some instances: in electrical or mechanical construction but not with our complicated project. You would not have access to architect and others who bid, you could only go through design builder; with less checks and balances.

We welcomed their accurately described input for public information.

Mike Higgins will provide Tom Carroll with an article by Associated General Manager describing methodology of bidding: design build, GMP, etc.

Answering to the middle school construction, Mike Higgins stated that when the third bond passed for the middle school, no plans or specs were laid out. By March 3, classrooms had to be done and air quality issues had to be taken care of quickly. What money was left was to take care of the test. The state then came in to review construction and caused change to plans and added increase in cost. The most economical solution was met. Everyone involved worked together to meet the needs and the end product was configured differently than the original plan presented to the general public.

Mechanical, architectural, and electrical engineers reviewed the school before drawing up bid price. Bid price is very accurate because of this.

We need to note that much of the work (meeting code and ventilation issues) will not be visible or out in the open. It will be hidden in the walls and such and won’t be in public view.

We have state and fire people come in and check as we build and we comply with changes as we go along. Trying to keep costs in line and meet these changing requirements can be challenging and difficult.

NEMA standards do not meet NH requirements.

Challenges we may have: passive solar; air delivery systems (inexpensive way to turn air); insulation (best value, we keep eye on that); review technical aspects to control expense and maintenance. Passive solar is more popular than active because it takes less money up front.

Dan Bisson addressed possible increase of GMP, noting we will have to redesign the project so that it may make it less expensive. A better design is to keep PE space simple, that may reduce cost.

Mike Higgins noted technology changes, we may find decrease in cost if technology aids us.

It was asked if we reversed what we build first, (spreading building out over time); i.e., do café and gym first, instead of classrooms, leave modular classrooms in place for the years you build, would that possibly assist in keeping price down?

Spreading out financing and cost to voters was discussed.

Additional suggestions from architect and builder:

• Permits from state are difficult to get now. Permits are a month behind, construction may not start until September or October instead of March. But bidders may be winding down projects, possibly making them cheaper, bidding out jobs at lesser cost.
• But winter building issues come into play.
• A five month delay would help us; get more bids, more sound design, less mistakes, cheaper bids. Classrooms would be ready for September 2000; project would end December 2000.
• Noise abatement and noise pollution during September to December would need to be addressed.
• Storage and staging areas were covered. It was noted the modular classrooms were placed strategically as not to interfere with the construction.
• We don’t have many areas to change cost. Materials will be the same, our design changes would affect the cost.
• Gym simplifications: eliminating basketball and bleachers, phys-ed stations for program only.
• Existing square footage meets state guidelines for physical education space
• Build two more adjacent PE stations: 125 K would build 1000 seat bleachers (not including the space they take up); bleachers fold up and gives us four PE stations (which would meet 850 core); if bleachers were pulled out, we would not increase the current floor space much – note that this would be a multi-purpose space too.

School and Community:

Gaining financial support, we may want to include community access to the structure (gym and auditorium, maybe library) – have you worked on projects with this issue? Dan Bisson stated the gym and auditorium/café were all self-sufficient an could be used by the community. We need to put together a fact book that includes all the information we are covering.

Pod design was discussed. Architect discussed central areas, like the Dover Middle School’s community area, four separate wings (two self-sufficient units).

Heating system was discussed, the systems are we using for this building is supposed to last 50 years, are they adaptable to other fuels down the line? It was determined engineers needed to be consulted and cost may be an issue.

When designing the building, we need to avoid buried courtyards, snow, egress, hallways, cost to add halls (Mast Way). Avoid clumping auditorium and gym on one end: too many people in one area, makes them remote; they are on far end, does not really function well.

Stand alone additions would work best, disturbing less of the structure.

Energy (heat, solar, and circulation): need flexibility and design. Needs to be reviewed with mechanical engineers and architects. It has not been addressed as of yet.

Auditorium for performing arts center a need, not a want. Can we increase the performance space in first design? Acoustical consultant can be brought in; move a wall out. It is an option we can discuss further. We would need to readdress hallways, boiler room, and kitchen. We may have a problem acoustically as ceiling may rise. Planetarium may be affected. Operational aspects of auditorium - we need clearer definition of its use, told to keep it simple.

Architect needs to know if we want a teaching space vs public use auditorium. We need to set guidelines for a multi-use auditorium for the architect to work with.

The site space was discussed as a concern. Expansion of building is an issue; parking an issue.

The architects and builders left at this point (8:35 p.m.)

Jay Flanders handed out Robert Kennedy’s survey comments. Martie addressed the second part of the charge - what specifics need to be dealt with to make an outline.

David Taylor reviewed the most recent school board discussion: conceptual general direction of bond, needs of community. Capacity is an issue in the core and for classrooms - this will drive the rest of the issue.

Long range planning strategies need to be used. The core number could be addressed as the maximum number of students ever to be held at this site.

We should adopt a number with tuition students included. Keep this number flexible. Tuition income will help defray tax impact. Projected numbers peak at 770 over the next ten years. An 850 core meets that, but it would be easy to increase to 1000 in case we do make a mistake in our numbers or have more students. Our long range planning numbers are reviewed every fall and

adjusted as needed. Our numbers have been very accurate. Our toughest number to predict is kindergarten. We take births and move them five years out.

Grade ratios were discussed. They have been very accurate over the past 30 years. Many upcoming housing developments have been reviewed by the Long Range Planning Committee and taken into consideration.

The core numbers 850 and 1000 were discussed. For space reasons, 850 was recommended. This facility has physical limit to be considered.

In terms of curriculum, 800-1000 students give the variety and depth needed for a quality education. If we max out at 1000, when the population expands over the core number, do we build an entirely new school or additional school?

The operation budget was discussed briefly, and good upper max number was stated to be 1000. A vote was taken: 850 classes with core of 1000.

Gym and auditorium: Gym was discussed at length. Number of bleachers and floor space and teaching stations were discussed. Regulation size is quintessential. Competitive athletics are a need in this community.

Maybe design more bathrooms to be used by school during day and gym during events; then cut back total number of bathrooms and cost. Maybe reduce gym to 650 seats. Aerobic room discussed as an option, shrinking volume of gym to three teaching stations, having fourth station an aerobic room on lower floor adding flexibility and community use. The size would still meet many community needs.

Seating for entire school and events or functions was covered. The gym can seat +/- 1000, cafeteria 850, auditorium 500 in current design.

The survey was referenced regarding the gym. The survey does not support sending the same size gym to vote. We need to package the gym better; prefab gym was suggested (pre-engineered).

Four stations in gym meet state guidelines. Supporting an interscholastic gym was a critical reason of defeat of the bond and a serious concern of the community. We must be careful when bringing down cost not to disappoint the public with the end product. Gym proposal needs to be different than it was before, and will need to be balanced well with auditorium.

For the gym, explore all possibilities of squeezing gym down; review all cost, no duplication; seating 800; four teaching spaces, aerobic room possibility; pre-engineered option to explore; support a gym as it is necessary and acknowledge athletic community needs.

Pod concept explored and cost compared.

Performing arts

• Performing arts should be equal to athletics
• Is performing arts is a part of basic education
• Strongly support performing arts space, can double as teaching space
• How big – 500, 600, 700 people?
• We should consult with teachers on what spaces are needed.

Using existing walls, an auditorium could seat 450-460, expanding back space could bring seating up to 650. We are backing into a number, what is an adequate performing arts space? The principal suggested half of the enrollment into an auditorium would be sufficient.

Make it commercial, that would add community support. Let individuals go get outside funding. Include a couple of options in a bidding package. One academic only, one with outside funding support. A time frame would be needed for bringing money in.

How many of these structures can the seacoast support? There are many performing spaces in this area.

We really can’t expect the architect to design two auditoriums and incorporate them into the plans. We need to know how much outside support we can get on paper.

Inviting organizations to partner and pull in funds could be explored.

Long term maintenance of auditorium needs to be taken into consideration.

In supporting performing arts we should consider:

• performing arts space separate from café
• teaching and performing space interchangeable
• 450-500 seating capacity
• widening footprint as possibility
• old kitchen space utilized
• don’t tamper with planetarium unless necessary
• off site playing fields to accommodate expansion may need consideration
• revisit economizing and function over beauty.

The committee will present to the School Board at its meeting on Wednesday evening, July 29. The next meeting will be Thursday, July 30, a joint meeting with the school board at the high school.

The meeting adjourned at 10:35 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_980723.html

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