HIGH SCHOOL SPACE NEEDS STUDY COMMITTEE
Al Elwell, John Lewis, Dave Nichols, Dave Penniman, John Randall, George Rief, Bill Schoonmaker, and Ann Welsh
One member of the press
John Aber, David Brown, Cozette Carroll, and Cynthia Nizzari-McClain
Dr. Elwell reported to the committee that Superintendent Powers had stated that whatever support the committee needs the district will attempt to provide. Along these lines, Mr. Everngam asked for some ideas of the scope of the committee's needs so that he may make a recommendation to the school board re the funding of those needs. Dr. Elwell agreed to speak with Mr. Everngam.
Next, Mr. Nichols reported his progress of researching schools which had used block scheduling and the effect they had seen on space needs. He stated that the several schools he had spoken with had not seen block scheduling as a substantial space saver. Additionally, he reported that staggered block scheduling also did not seem to save substantial space, as reported by those with whom he spoke. Mr. Nichols reported that none of the schools had switched to block scheduling because of space needs. He spoke to administrators at Portsmouth and Newport schools, ConVal School District, and the high school in San Clemente, California. Mr. Nichols stated he would report on the effect of split sessions and year round schools as space saving alternatives at the next meeting.
Mr. Penniman informed the committee that the issue of year round schools had been previously researched and the information had indicated that unless the school gets to 1600-2000 students, year round schools would not be feasible. It was the general consensus of the committee that year round schools was not an option to be considered further at this time.
Mr. Penniman gave a history/briefing of the prior high school space needs facility study. He reported that at one time 10-12 options had been "on the table." These options included building a new elementary school, a new middle or a new high school. He stated that, in his opinion, the new high school would have been the best use of space. But the option of building a new high school was cost prohibitive (16-17 million dollars). So the focus for space utilization at the high school at that time was first to hold the expansion of the student body for approximately 10 years and second to have expansion capability. The DRA report outlines the options under consideration for the high school at that time.
The DRA study found that the major shortfalls of the high school, given a projected student body of 850, were the gym, the cafeteria, and lack of academic space. The result was a recommendation by DRA to build a new gym, build an auditorium, perhaps build a new cafeteria, and to build a classroom extension off of the music wing towards the library. The conclusion was that expansion was needed and that the needed expansion would cost $8-9 million.
Mr. Rief asked if any consideration had been given by DRA to build a second story to the existing building. Mr. Penniman answered that due to new fire and building codes, it is more expensive to build up rather than out horizontally.
Ms. Welsh mentioned that the town's new Shoreline Protection Act might affect plans to build horizontally. Mr. Rief asked Dr. Elwell to locate the old plans which show the site plan for the existing high school.
Mr. Penniman reported that high school teachers had input into the DRA recommendations re space utilization. Also, he noted that the committee at that time did not explore the option of two separate high schools due to the fact that the four high school grades have so many programs in common.
All members of the High School Space Needs Study Committee agreed that the arrival of a new high school principal would indeed help the current planning process along as he may have ideas re correlating programmatic needs with space needs. There was a general consensus, however, that general work can be done before his arrival. Additionally, a general consensus was reached that the options of 1) doing nothing and 2) building a whole new high school were not acceptable options and, therefore, would not be considered further by the committee.
Mr. Rief stated that the committee should start with "software" of school programs in order to get to schematic suggestions. Along these lines, Dr. Elwell noted that many changes in high school programs had taken place since 1992 with the DRA recommendation had been made. Mr. Penniman agreed, but thought that the core of the high school would not be affected by any academic program changes. A general consensus decision was made that the core facility changes should be projected for an enrollment of 1150 students, although recommended changes to other academic areas should be sized for 850 students.
The committee also agreed that the hierarchy of needs for the core are:
Dr. Elwell noted that an auditorium would serve programmatic needs in the fine arts areas. He also noted that flexibility was very important.
After input from Mr. Nichols, the committee agreed that the specs set forth in the 1992 DRA report re gymnasium needs was accurate for an 1150 student core.
After a general discussion was held about the specificity of the committee charge, Mr. Rief stated that it was his belief that the committee needed to arrive at a cost estimate to present with various options to the school board. Mr. Penniman agreed and noted that with square footage estimates, it would not be hard to get a cost estimate from an expert along with space utilization suggestions.
Mr. Nichols noted that without having an auditorium, the programs the school can hold simultaneously in the gym and the cafeteria are limited. Dr. Elwell agreed to call Dover High to ask about the rental of their auditorium (the demand, cost, etc.). Mr. Rief noted that if the auditorium is to be rented to the public, it must be more than bare bones. Dr. Elwell agreed. Dr. Elwell noted that there is a draft district policy re use of district facilities. He promised to present the draft on June 11.
Dr. Elwell suggested that an architect may be able to suggest ways to combine the music/arts use of an auditorium and, therefore, suggest a feasible means of cutting back on overlapping space needs. Mr. Rief suggested that an auditorium need not be sized as the other core facilities and that perhaps a target optimal size for an auditorium was 750 students.
Next a discussion was held regarding the specificity of the options to be presented to the board. Mr. Rief thought that the options presented should include a schematic "wish list" and that the space needs should be presented as a compilation of needs into numbers (construction cost estimates). Ms. Welsh noted that the board needs enough information to be able to weigh the pros and cons of each option and that cost estimates would be a good idea. Mr. Schoonmaker noted that cost estimates are just that -- estimates. He stated that it would be reasonable to think of hiring an architect to assist in the development of options. Mr. Rief noted that the goal in hiring a third party to help would be addressed by writing a Request for Proposals. Dr. Elwell noted that the RFP could he used by Mr. Everngam to solicit proposals from qualified architects. Mr. Schoonmaker agreed to draft an RFP.
Mr. Schoonmaker noted that a balance must be struck between what the committee can do on its own and having more responsibility turned over to someone else. His sense was that the committee would want to keep its hand in the process.
Future meeting dates were set for May 30 at 7:00 p.m., June 11 at 7:00 p.m., and June 26 at 7:00 p.m.
There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 9:20 p.m.
Recording Secretary,
Eileen L. Koehler
Commons
Schools
Newsstand
Library
Voting Booth
Soapbox
Last update on 29-Mar-99 at 11:09 PM.
http://www.orol.org/schools/orhs/orgs/space_needs/minutes_960521.html
This page is edited by David K. Taylor. Please send questions or comments to editor@orol.org.