Meeting began at 7:00 PM

The opinion was expressed that this plan may not pass, just as the others.

It was stated that we are advising the board to present the items in the plan properly, so they are not perceived as extras, but the necessities they are.

If people believe we are doing only what we need to get the job done with no unnecessary extras, the rice won’t be what w need to sell.

The Band-Aid approach won’t sell either. The board must get behind this project and show full support.

a goal we have is to get our information fact sheet out in plenty of time before the vote.

Public trust in the school board was addressed as something we need to build. there were high negatives when the poll was taken. But we have come far from that point and we must continue to build this trust.

One approach we may use to sell this plan with is the theme “there is something in this project for everyone.” We should expand on these facts with a broad encompassing description of the project. We will draw more people in. We need sales people in this community. We have got to have something of value to sell.

Comparing March’s plan to this one, changes can be listed as:

• reduced gym
• auditorium incorporated and reduced in scale, and brought into one whole bond
• tightening up all over

It was stated that first we need to determine needs and design a plan form those needs, then refine from there. Price will fall out of that. Don’t worry about price until needs are defined. We will weedle with price then.

It was acknowledged we cannot use the same foot print. Voter won’t let that pass.

What if the price tag is over the original 12.5 million? When presenting this, we need to explain costs. Especially cost of a building as it is rising continually with inflation.

Steel structure was discussed and will be and has been considered in reducing the cost of this current design.

We needed to review exactly what we need and tighten it up, because now we are working with inflation of the construction cost. What price will be tolerated? 12.7 million will probably be shot down. Under 9.8 is a more reasonable amount to shoot for.

Increasing people’s taxes will definitely affect the vote. Bonds set at 25 years will impact taxes less and draw more voters.

The architect and construction manager are aware that the same footprint and same cost will not pass with the voters. And they are considering changes to the footprint and are looking for our guidance as to where to cut back in design.

As far as defining classroom numbers and types, our committee leaves that to the board and the high school administration to determine. We consider them as definite need. We concentrated on the gym and auditorium issues.

We will use recent school construction in the state for cost and quality guidelines.

We need to be much clearer about what people are getting for their dollar. Everyone needs to understand what is happening with this plan.

Points we need to make to sell this plan are:

• parady in programs: the gym is built to meet the program needs first, interscholastic needs second.
• the auditorium was driven by the arts/academic program, then the communities needs.

Present this all in one bond in its equality. Each point, the gym, auditorium, and classrooms all having their own importance. Keeping to the point that this is an educative mission.

The conversation shifted to the trust in the school board. What is going to change perception of the school board was discussed at length.

It was noted one strength of this plan was that the gym and auditorium could not be set against each other because of the parady of the design.

It was stressed one big package is best to push and that we are meeting education standards.

In regards to the advisory committee giving details to the board, it was acknowledged that we cannot give complete solutions, but good directions and ideas. We should rely on the professionals, the architect and the construction manager to take our direction and ideas and come back with concrete solutions. Solutions are what we will work on once we define what all our needs are. We need to build a skeleton of a plan. The architect must be very efficient in creating a plant from our input.

The advisory committee aids in reviewing general problem solving, bringing view points to the table and to give a sense of community perception.

Regarding rise in cost, what we have on our list does not cost more that the last plan. Inflation will drive the price up We are scaling down form 15 million, not 12.5 million.

In realizing cost, cost need to be defined as it may be surprisingly high. It was stated that we won’t know what the community will support until it goes to vote.

We may need to seek out and find a plan we know may pass. Meet a comfort level and reduce the risk before going to vote. We cannot afford to miss the bond for another year.

Building inadequately will drive away people, just as building extravagantly would. We have planned a design that cuts back from the last plan, but incorporates what was considered as extras trimmed down to educational necessities.

George noted that when he ran for his position, he voiced and supported the auditorium, gym and the high school bond and he got the majority of the vote. That certainly shows the community’s support.

Parady vs. meeting the needs of the spectrum of the high school students was weighed in terms of selling this package.

The creeping up of the cost of the Moharimet building was covered. It stated out at about 2 million, and 2-3 years later it was passed at 5.1 million. t he community recognizes education needs and costs.

Addressing the function of the advisory committee by school board members, it was stated we would like to maintain this constructive momentum we’ve got going. We have got to keep these educated eyes (architect, ex-board members, and community members) focused on this project’s process. Advisory committee should continue on as support committee for the school board.

We want to assist the board, but the board smut be the primary driving force.

Needs explanations need to precede cost explanations with solid needs and economic facts.

In getting information out we may want to use more news letters, and more informal meetings. It was noted that with the last bond, we kept seeing the same people showing up in support, hearing the same points again and again. We need to reach the opposing voters.

The League of Women Voters format was discussed. They simply presented facts with no political pull in one direction or another.

When creating facts sheets, we should use our won question form this committee. We need to seek out the people who are not supporting the projects to get good questions. Stop preaching to the choir.

Providing accurate information that makes sense influences people.

Some advice given was the school board aggressively pursue the media. Get our story on cable, the community access channel. This can be extremely effective.

We need to get information out far enough in front of the voting time, so that we may respond to questions. Losing as little people and gaining as many people as possible by answering pertinent questions in plenty of time.

Tom, Chirs, Mike and sometimes Brian Lane define classroom needs and design for the architect. Then the plan is refined and brought to the board.

Other ideas suggested were approaching pre-school parents and possibly addressing parent prior to student oriented events.

In writing the narrative report it was suggested that we include those points that are not clear in the current outline. Capture this discussion and minority views.

We need to set mile stones of this process. At milestones we should have committee meeting to give feed back to keep this committee engaged in the most useful way.

There is a board meeting set for August 26th, the architect may come back with plans around mid-September?

It was questioned who would need a more full and detailed narrative report from the advisory committee? It was established as well as being a document for the school board, the narrative is a public document as part of our record of the committee and this process.

The architects want to start this design process once this “defining” part is completed by the Advisory Committee and the School Board.

There will be several rounds in this process before we hit this comfort level we are striving for. It may be a 6 week turn around form the architect once we give them the parameters. Then the GMP is set. The date we may get a final design could not be determined - as the architect was not at the meeting to speak for themselves. We really do not want to set a time frame for them.

A soft date between late August and early September for a work-shop-type meeting was discussed and to be determined at a later date. The architect may have feedback for us. We can catch things before they are cast in stone. We could possible have the architect and construction manager here for that meeting.

It was determined that Chris Cairnes would give his report to the architect as soon as possible so that we may get their feed back sooner.

The next meeting was set for Thursday, August 13th at 7:00 PM at the high school for narrative report work.

Adjourned 9:12 PM

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

http://www.orol.org/schools/orhs/orgs/cac/minutes_980730.html

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