September 25, 2008





These notes were prepared by Polly Ward to the best of her understanding. If you find any inaccuracies, please contact the Superintendent of Schools Office at 871-0555 within one week after receiving the notes.


Present:  Lee Akerley, Molly Aldrich, Steve Bailey, Ralph Baxter, Sr., Ralph Baxter, Jr., Ellen Benson, Tom Blake, David Brochu, Ralph Cabana, Dan Cecil, Jeanne Crocker, Kathryn Germani, Suzanne Godin, Carrie Hall-Indorf, Carol Marcoux, Randall Martin, Dan Robbins, Gene Swiger, Jake Viola, Polly Ward, Megan Welter, Kevin Woodhouse.


Guests:  Rick Carter, Sarah Goldberg – School Board; Kendall Fassett, Steve Onos, Nate Jones – The Sentry, Chanel 8– Public.



Community Dialogue


Steve Bailey introduced the Community Dialogue.


1. At the last three meetings, the Committee has addressed the following:

A. Different sites across the City were discussed with Tex Haeuser who recommended that the current high school site is the best site among those that were large enough to be a high school site.

B. Water issues at the current site were discussed with Pat Cloutier and Frank Crabtree, including DEP requirements.

C. A smaller bare bones project and a project that would be an interim step between where we are now and the high school plan that went to referendum.

2. It is generally felt by many people that $56 million is too expensive.

3. There is a concern about phasing – the concern is that Phase I will be the project. Phase I needs to encompass enough that we get the educational spaces that we need.

4. All of the needs of the school district need to be looked at for the next 20 years -  long-range planning.

5. There is interest in having a “green” building.

6. Timeline

A. About 12 months from approval to bid.

B. 30 months of construction at a minimum

C. 3.5 to 4 years for Phase I

7. Possibility of looking at a new stand alone building using a campus type concept.

A. A major emphasis has been to improve circulation around and within the building.

B. Major energy, economic and educational reasons not to build a stand alone building.

8. The referendum didn’t do a good job of explaining the “why” of redoing the building.

A. Information described what needed to be done, but not the whys.

B. There is a need for the big picture of the facilities needs.

C. More lead time for people to learn about the needs.

9. Inflation from November 2007, to November 2009, adds about $6-$7 million to the cost of the project that went to referendum.

10. In the original high school plan, the costs were $32 million for new construction - $8 million for renovation - $5-6 million of site work.

11. With a renovation project, the extent of the work to be done and/or the amount to be spent on the project may require that the entire area be brought up to code.

12. A lot of people don’t see the need for the High School project.



Committee Meeting


  1. Welcome –
  2. Minutes of September 11, 2008
    1. Approved
  3. Review of Scheme Updates
    1. Harriman has refined Scheme L and made sure that all spaces needed are included
    2. The projected amounts are based on 2009 referendum numbers and reflect inflation in costs from 2007 (the project that went to referendum would be approximately $62 million using 2009 dollars).
    3. One idea is to swap the tennis courts and the field hockey field, build underground chambers under the parking lot outside the cafeteria/kitchen. This may eliminate the need for the costly additional retention pond.

1) This would impact the sliding hill.

2) There was a question about moving the tennis courts to the park across Mt. View Road

3) There was a suggestion to move the tennis courts to Wainwright. There needs to be a conversation with City staff.

    1. The lower floor of A Building would have to be renovated to get the number of rooms that are needed.

1) Move the steam boiler to A Building

    1. Otherwise, not touching A Building would keep rooms in A Building that are below State standard, rather than upgrading the size of the rooms.
    2. A parking garage would cost about $6.2 million
    3. Next meeting – greater detail on Scheme L. Second meeting in October  - Green Design.

4. Other Considerations of Schemes

A. Not discussed

5. Consideration of How to Access Feedback During the November Election

A.  Use absentee ballot lists and have representatives at each polling site to request feedback on the high school project.

      B.  Ask the following questions:

1. Do you agree that there is a need to renovate SPHS?

2. Prioritize the following items in terms of their importance:

a)  e.g. – bus loop, classroom space, green building, water infiltration

i) Jeanne anticipates that NEASC is going to indicate that significant repairs to the high school must be made in order to maintain accreditation.

ii) Our purpose of the survey is to keep the public aware of the needs for the high school.

3. How much are you willing to pay to support the high school renovations?

4. Are you willing to pay an X% additional to make this a “green building”?

5. Your comments

C. A draft of the survey will be brought to the next meeting.

D. Manning the polling stations needs to be discussed.

1) See if Committee members can identify other community members who might be available to sit at the polls.

            6. Other

    A. The date of the next Secondary Schools Facilities Committee Meeting is Thursday, October 9, 2008, at Brown Elementary School. Community Dialogue will begin at 6:00 p.m., and the SSFC meeting will begin at 7:00 p.m.