Present: Committee Members: S. Heinrich, W. Morrison, D. Miller,
T. Koenig, and B. Triolo
School Board Members P. McGrath and J. Flis
Merrimack High School Administrative Team Members: B. Marston,
R. Walker and T. Bezos
Excused: M. Morrison
S. Heinrich called the meeting to order at 7:30 P.M.
On a motion from W. Morrison, seconded by B. Triolo, the minutes of March 24,
1998 were approved 4 - 0 - 1 ( D. Miller abstaining) with the following
corrections:
Pg. 3: Mrs. Marcel asked what site the committee might recommend for a new
school.
Pg. 4: On a motion from T. Koenig, seconded by B. Triolo, the following
schedule was approved:
*subject to determination of the date for meeting with the School Board
J. Flis reported that there was some confusion regarding whether the School Board would be attending a PBC meeting or the committee would be attending a School Board meeting. He said he was in favor of the School Board attending a PBC meeting. He noted that three School Board members indicated a choice of April 28, 1998 for such a joint meeting. He said he would notify the clerk as soon as possible to finalize the date.
Ted Kimball asked about some rumors concerning noncompliance to state standards with regards maximum number of students enrolled in various courses. B. Marston and R. Walker answered that the state standard is 30 students in an "regular" course, 24 students in a lab course and 16 in an Industrial Arts course. There are several sections of some courses that are above these standards. They also noted that there are some instances where furniture and/or books are shared between classrooms to meet the student enrollment. They mentioned the lack of space in the building for students and staff. It was noted that in early 1995 the School Board voted to limit class sizes to 20 students in grades one and two and 25 students in grades three through twelve.
Evan Fulmer asked for a definition of block scheduling. B. Marston explained this is a method of scheduling for which students take only four classes per semester and do a full years work in just one semester. Class periods are longer. He noted that this type of scheduling, while eliminating the need for study halls, usually requires more space and an increase in the number of credits required for graduation. Mr. Fulmer asked about a staggered schedule or double sessions to help alleviate the space crunch. B. Marston told him that double sessions are only tolerable if they are tied to an approved, definite plan for more space. Mr. Fulmer ended his comments by asking about the possibility of a combined public and high school library.
J. Flis noted that there is a difference between an "empty but in use" classroom and an "empty but truly available" classroom.
T. Koenig asked what the space needs at the high school really are and if the current space situation affects the high school's ability to present a good program. R. Walker answered that the high school space is currently being used well beyond what how it should be used. Further he noted that space needs vary by department and, within departments, by the subject matter and curriculum needs of the courses being offered.
J. Flis asked how long the high school has been creatively dealing with space issues and why the Space Needs Committee was led to believe that all the high school needed was cafeteria space. B. Marston discussed the "good soldier syndrome" which is to ask, try to make a case, and then deal with what you get. R. Walker noted that you can only "hit a cement wall" so many times before you stop talking about what is really needed. He further explained that the building was constructed before the current special education laws were passed and there was a perception in the town that the high school had a capacity of 1600 students. He noted that special education needs have greatly impacted the way certain spaces within the building are being used as well as the realistic number of students that can be considered as maximum capacity.
T. Bezos and B. Marston discussed tours of and discussions with other schools with space problems. R. Walker stated that comparisons with other schools are not realistic because the tenor of Merrimack seems to be to solve a specific problem with band aid solutions rather than long range plans.
B. Triolo said he was dismayed that the high school has been creatively solving their space problems for many years rather than pushing for more space. B. Marston noted that those needing more space are "across the board": counselors, administrators, students and teachers and other staff. However, the driving concerns are twofold: what will the community buy and what will the community bear. B. Triolo asked the committee to remember the students and their needs.
There was a brief discussion about the need for better communication between all parties as well as good public relations with the community. There were comments about some members of the School Board who seem to have already decided what the space solution is before the PBC has completed its study. R. Walker noted that it is important to verify everything and ask the right people the right questions. B. Triolo wanted to be sure that the committee did not lose sight of the fact that there is a lot of good going on at the high school.
It was decided to meet on April 21, 1998 at 7:30 P.M. with R. Walker for a tour of the high school and brief discussion. The meeting on April 28, 1998 with the School Board needs to be posted and a location for the meeting needs to be determined. The meeting on May 12, 1998 will be a work session with R. Walker.
B. Triolo asked the committee to consider how large the community wants the high school, middle school or elementary schools to be before they will consider new buildings.
W. Morrison reminded the committee that they need to look at all space issues, including accessory space areas, not just classroom spaces.
B. Triolo wondered if the June 1 deadline was a realistic deadline. S. Heinrich replied that this will depend on the outcome of the meeting with the School Board, how much information the School Board wants in the report and whether the committee feels it can adequately finish by June 1. J. Flis reminded the committee to be sure to determine just what the School Board wants.
S. Heinrich thanked T. Bezos, B. Marston, and R. Walker for their attendance and the committee took a five minute recess at 9:15 P.M.
At 9:20 P.M., the meeting resumed.
D. Miller had questions about what type of field was being planned in the softball outfield of the lower field. P. McGrath replied that the field will not be a regulation soccer field and has always been referred to as a field hockey field. He noted that the plans currently call for use of this area as a football practice field and back up training field for other sports. D. Miller asked about cutting into the hill and the need for a retaining wall. He also wanted to know if any type of access down the hill to the lower field was planned. P. McGrath noted that a serpentine path down the hill is planned with new plant growth for the rest of the hill. Erosion control and location of a water meter were also discussed. There was a question about whether the orientation of the softball field will be changed. Comments were made about the need for some chain link fencing and effects of field construction and this fencing on trees under observation by various middle school science classes.
Drainage problems and reconstruction of the access road were also discussed. The road will need to be ungraded but will be addressed under the second year of the proposed paving program.
P. McGrath told the committee that fifteen feet of space has been added between the school and the track to meet the need for bleachers and other structures. There is a conceptual plan for an athletic storage building with power and water to be built near the high jump. It was suggested that the building might be built by the IA classes.
B. Triolo talked about the field at the elementary school. Approximately ninety percent of the trees will be removed. Potentially there should be an athletic storage building with bathrooms at this field as well. Options such as heavy screening or Lexan were discussed for use as window protection at the school. The fire marshall will be contacted for advice. There was discussion about netting near the condos and placement of fencing.
At the middle school, the biggest issues seem to be improved drainage and fencing. It appears there will be no need to move the baseball field in order to accomodate the proposed drive-through in the parking lot behind the elementary school.
P. McGrath noted that there will be is a tight bid and construction schedule. The committee requested an opportunity to view the final plans as soon as they are available.
When discussing the paving program, the committee reminded P. Mcgrath that DiGeronimo is also supposed to be preparing plans for all phases of the parking proposals, not just those that have been funded for the next fiscal year. They would like to see the completed plans as soon as they are available as well. P. McGrath noted that any concerns anyone has regarding the paving planned for the high school (like July 4th needs and basketball hoops) should raise them immediately so they may be addressed before the final plan is completed and work starts in July. He noted the biggest issues now seem to be pole removal and power access. He also noted there have been discussions about what type of barriers/guard rails will be used. D. Miller reminded the committee that Chip Chesley, Department of Public Works, has expressed interest in assisting with the project by removing downed trees, stumping, leveling, etc. This may be a way to keep costs down. Scott Isabelle needs to contact him before this project goes to bid to coordinate these efforts.
On a motion from T. Koenig, seconded by D. Miller, the committee unanimously voted to adjourn at 10:23 P.M.
Last Updated: May 21, 1998 by Wayne Morrison