Chair Heinrich called the meeting to order at 7:35 PM. He introduced the members of the PBC to the public present and explained the purpose of the meeting was a work session with the School Board to discuss space needs. He gave copies of the meeting agenda to the School Board and the public. He explained that public participation at the end of the discussion would be limited to space issues.
S. Heinrich began the work session by explaining that the PBC had presented a Master Plan to the School Board in January. The PBC had done a complete analysis of current district needs and had attempted to determine what the district would need five years hence. He gave an overview of the issues and the research the PBC had done and explained that the reason the PBC was hosting this work session was to more thoroughly explain these issues and research to the School Board.
S. Heinrich told the committee that the School Board had recently voted to use the following as maximum enrollments when determining space needs: 20 students in grades R - 2 and 25 students in grades 3 - 12. He also noted that Mastricola Elementary capacity figures are greater than the Ferry schools because the classrooms are 900 square feet; however, the core facilities are not big enough to support the capacity figures.
K. Coleman expressed a concern about the method used to determine how many classrooms in an elementary school were set aside for readiness through second grade because it cannot be determined exactly how many classrooms will be needed for each grade at each school. He suggested re-doing the figures by looking at class to class variations to determine standard deviations. He was concerned that if people looked at the maximum school figures only, there could be some grades that were over the maximum capacity while other grades that were below them. He felt that an explanation of how the figures were arrived at should be part of the chart. M. Eberle and K. Coleman agreed that because of population deviations the actual school capacity figures are below the figures given. S. Heinrich added that was one of the reasons the PBC had included the recommended capacity figures with the report and he noted that the recommended figures were in line with what the school board had voted on. K. Coleman requested that S. Isabelle look at enrollments and come up with a standard grade/ classroom deviation that the PBC could use to revise the capacity figures. S. Uscinski felt that the deviation in classrooms and staff were already accounted for as the students moved through the system. She asked whether the PBC was projecting a total of 1000 more students district- wide for the year 2000. S. Heinrich confirmed this.
K. Coleman pointed out that the School Board had recently agreed that for the next three years that the system should expect a 150 student increase per year. He felt that number plus the expected fall, 1995 enrollment and the need to get classroom sizes back to a maximum of 20/25 put the number of expected students near the higher end of the figures given in the master plan by the PBC. He felt that further discussion regarding long term demographics was probably unnecessary. G. Twardowsky still wanted to sure that it is agreed that population projections have not been accurate. S. Heinrich disagreed and cited several long term projections that he felt were accurate. He also pointed out that there are many methods that could be used to determine populations. Some are more accurate than others. The committee had found the superintendent's projections to be the most accurate. K. Coleman again stated that discussion of long term projections was unnecessary because the School Board has agreed to that over the past few years there has been an increase in 150 students and they have decided to project the same type of increase over the next three years. He suggested that both committees agree to this figure and use it as a planning tool. S. Heinrich requested that the committee receive a copy of the minutes of the June 5th School Board work session that dealt with population figures. M. Eberle ended the discussion in this area by pointing out that the Master Plan was presented in January with the intention of opening up a dialogue and having a workshop to go forward with looking into the space situation.
S. Heinrich summarized the property owned by the district. The parcel on which Thorntons Ferry is located is now divided because of the Camp Sargent Road Bypass. There are fourteen acres on the other side of the bypass. The Mastricola complex has three schools and several athletic fields located there. This is the only piece of property for which the district has a complete and current survey. The Reeds Ferry complex is a large piece of property which is mostly clay with an underground spring running through a portion of the property. The MYA uses the fields extensively under agreement with the district. The district also owns the small property where the P.T.A. Kindergarten is located. Unused property includes the Timmins and Buker sites. S. Heinrich noted that the Timmins site has access problems and that some plans had been prepared for Timmins that had never been presented. It was noted that the first thirteen acres of the Buker site have been surveyed. However, the remaining 47 acres have not. Also mentioned were the various opinions that townspeople have regarding whether this property is suitable for a school. S. Heinrich indicated that the PBC felt that both properties need to be completely surveyed in order to better assess their potential for school building sites or possible land swap or sale.
B. Hamm summarized the land search that the PBC performed in 1988. Two hundred parcels of 25 acres or more were reviewed and categorized by the committee based on the following criteria: size, location (geographic and demographic), site and development costs, access, building placement, availability of utilities (sewer, gas, water), operational costs, environmental concerns, public perception, attractive nuisances and tax impact. The list was narrowed to forty specific sites that were walked and then evaluated. Finally, a list of twenty parcels rated 1, 2, or 3 was presented to the School Board to look into further. B. Hamm stated that the list needs to be updated because some of these properties have been developed. He indicated that discussion of the specific properties on the list should take place in non-public session.
S. Heinrich explained that the School Board had followed up on the suggested list further eliminating some properties. He noted that the committee had rated Buker "1" and Timmins "3". B. Hamm explained that Timmins has very dangerous access.
B. Hamm and S. Heinrich brought up the survey of the 14 acres at Thorntons Ferry that the state was to provide after the bypass was complete. J. O'Neil confirmed the district had received a basic boundary survey.
C. Ager and G. Twardowsky asked about updating the land search as to current status of the recommended properties and to include additional property that may not have been available when land search was done. It was noted that updating the search was a PBC goal for 1995-96 and that the original search had included all parcels of land in Merrimack over 25 acres, not just those that were available.
C. Ager noted that land development cost was a key factor. B. Hamm said that somebody independent is needed to assess Buker; completely surveying and determining development costs because then perceptions and emotions will be set aside and people can work with strictly business facts. D. Miller felt that it was important to note that the district owns Buker and would only have to pay development costs as opposed to purchasing a new piece of property plus paying development costs. He said none of the suggested sites was perfect or inexpensive. K. Coleman noted that, for contrast, the site Reeds Ferry is on is by far a worse piece of property than either Buker or Timmins. G. Twardowsky asked about selling one or both of these properties. D. Miller, B. Hamm and S. Heinrich explained that the PBC had discussed several ideas along these lines: selling one (Which?) or both parcels, a land swap for one or both parcels, building on a portion of Buker and selling the rest to a developer and splitting development costs, etc.
C. Ager asked if the committee had looked at year-round schools. K. Coleman reported that he had been on a study committee that had researched this issue. The town of Hudson had tried a high school only year round school program for ten years. The study committee had met with officials from Hudson about their program. Hudson reported that there were academic advantages and disadvantages. They also reported a small increase in the per pupil operational cost mostly because of installation, upkeep and maintenance of air conditioning. Overall maintenance costs went up because without building "down time" substantial building maintenance projects had to be done over weekends and holidays at extra pay. K. Coleman also has data on a national study that had been done in California which is pro year round school. It reports that while year round schools are beneficial academically, they do not save in operational costs. The savings in capital costs are outweighed by increase in maintenance and operational costs. K. Coleman offered to provide this report to the committee. He also noted that one of the reasons that Hudson did away with the program was the family disruption it created especially in regard to vacations. J. O'Neil reported that currently there is no school system in New England that is using or planning to implement year round schools.
D. Miller reported about the option of portable classrooms: He felt they should only be used as a temporary solution for a bubble situation. He said the current space problem was not a bubble. He noted the committee had looked the additional strain to the core facilities and where would portables would be placed which would resulst in loss of parking and play areas. S. Heinrich commented that portable/temporary classrooms tend to become permanent. J. O'Neil noted portable classrooms are expensive to lease. S. Heinrich noted that portables had been proposed before and overwhelmingly rejected. M. Eberle mentioned that she had a problem putting tax dollars into a temporary solution instead of a permanent one.
S. Heinrich addressed additions to current schools. He suggested that at Thorntons Ferry an all purpose room could be built off the current art room but noted problems including septic system, parking, security, upper playground ledge, and size of building. At Reeds Ferry, problems to be considered if adding to the building include clay soil, the berm, underground spring and the size of building. Additions at Mastricola would impact the play area and parking plus the current core facilities are already over-taxed. The committee did not find any acceptable way to add to the middle school. They did suggest the possibility of enlarging the high school cafeteria toward the parking lot and adding toward the parking lot onto the E-112 wing and moving the superintendent's office. S. Heinrich noted that none of the current buildings can be added "up". The PBC felt that if additions were proposed, there should be additions to all three elementary schools plus one at the middle school. They had a concern about management and safety issues regarding four simultaneous building projects. They also felt that additions were a dead-end because, while they dealt with current space problems, did not provide for future growth. As a result the PBC felt that additions to current buildings were not the best solution.
Discussion regarding additions followed. J. O'Neil noted that management of four simultaneous projects would not be a problem. S. Uscinski felt that safety issues would be thoroughly addressed. She also noted that the School Board had hired a competent architect who had come up with a plan for an addition to the middle school. D. Miller noted that the PBC's master plan was only a recommendation. C. Ager felt that in order to get a two thirds vote at school district meeting a solution that was tied to strong back-up data and not emotions was needed. B. Grady felt that the School Board needs to show the voters that the district that it has explored all options and is proposing a plan based on sound educational values. B. Hamm felt there were three common sense steps to a capital project:
S. Heinrich said the PBC recommended a new school as part of the master plan because they felt it was the a most desirable option. The committee noted that they looked at several possibile scenarios. Though the high school is in the best shape, long term a new high school is needed. If a new high school were built now, the current high school could be converted to a middle school. However, the current middle school has many undersized classrooms that could not easily or cheaply be converted to 900 square foot elementary classrooms and a new high school would cost approximately twenty-five million dollars. Building a new middle school still leaves the problem and expense of converting the current space at the middle school for elementary use. An additional concern was the potential size of that elementary school. As a result, the PBC recommended that a new elementary school be designed that could be converted to a high school. Additionally, the committee recommended that Mastricola Elementary be downsized in combination with re-districting and the middle school utilize the newly available space in Mastricola Elementary. S. Heinrich also noted that the committee had taken into account short term and long term costs and the costs of additional staffing.
M. Eberle stated the PBC would like to know what additional research the School Board would like done to help them be more comfortable with the recommendations of the PBC. S. Uscinski asked about costs of building a new elementary school. S. Heinrich told her the committee had used a square footage building costs provided by Keyes Associates and had a figure of 4.3 million dollars. J. Flis clarified that this figure was for construction and did not include land acquisition. S. Uscinski asked for data about converting an elementary to a high school. She had a concern about taking a building scaled for small children and converting it to a building for adult sized people. J. Flis explained that the idea was to build a school that had adequate space for the current needs and adequate potential for future growth. He said he could obtain data about converting school buildings. M. Eberle re-iterated that the purpose of the master plan was to open a dialogue and determine what additional information the School Board needed. She noted that since the School Board had not opened the dialogue and several months had passed since the initial presentation of the master plan, the PBC had decided to hold this particular forum. J. Flis noted that the PBC recommendations were not necessarily complete and he requested that, if the School Board had information that the PBC did not have or had a suspicion about any data that the PBC had presented, the PBC be told.
K. Coleman explained that the School Board had agreed to establish a new broad base committee to look at the space issue. He noted that the idea was not to replace the PBC but to provide a wide variety of opinions that may put together a plan that the entire town will buy. He suggested that the PBC should be the research arm of the new committee and noted that a representative of PBC was to be on the new committee. C. Ager felt that when the School Board had decided to establish a new space needs committee, it became unnecessary for the PBC to continue researching data to support its master plan. He hoped the PBC would be a resource for the new committee, in particular, updating the land search. J. O'Neil explained that the new committee had thirteen definite members with a potential for eighteen total. Their first meeting was scheduled for September 14th at 7 PM. At that meeting, the new committee will be charged with providing a report by early December. J. O'Neil noted that he has arranged to have the population projections, updated using the first Monday, 1995 figures, available on September 14th. He provided the list of potential members of the new committee for all present. Discussion ensued among the School Board regarding whether the new committee had too many people connected with education and not enough ordinary people on it. The School Board decided to confirm the final make-up of the committee at their September 5th meeting.
S. Uscinski asked about the recent article in The Nashua Telegraph regarding the slow growth in Merrimack. J. O'Neil has a copy of the report referenced in the article and he noted this report is based on assumptions. He said he had spoken with Jay Minkareh, Merrimack Community Development Director, who disagrees with the report and feels that the Merrimack School District has the best data regarding school populations. J. O'Neil was asked to provide copies of the report for members of the PBC.
C. Ager re-iterated that space was his number one priority and he was determined to have a warrant article at school district meeting to provide the best option to the problem.
S. Uscinski asked if the committee had considered a possible joint high school with Bedford. She was told that this had been discussed at the last PBC meeting. J. O'Neil pointed out this has been discussed in the past, especially when Bedford and Merrimack were part of the same SAU. Bedford is happy with it's current high school arrangement. He noted that a joint high school with Bedford would necessitate building a new high school and still dealing with the current space crunch at the lower levels.
Roseann Moore thanked the PBC for looking ahead at least five years with their master plan. She stated that she thought that sound education values should be used to give direction to planning for future school space needs.
Phil Hayes felt a three year standard deviation in enrollments could be used to clarify elementary population figures. He said he knew of two schools in Golden, Colorado that had been successfully converted to other school uses and offered to provide back-up data. He said converting schools makes sense if you plan the right space ahead of time. He also thought the school district should think small and flexible rather than plan big enough to get lost in just to save a few pennies.
Andrew Gaudreau asked if the school population projection figures take into consideration the number of students that are home schooled or enrolled in private or religious schools. J. O'Neil explained that the figures do take into account that approximately 10% of all school aged children in Merrimack do not attend the public schools.
On a motion from B. Hamm, seconded by M. Eberle, the committee voted unanimously to adjourn at 10 PM.
Planning & Building Committee
Last Updated: February 2, 1998 by Wayne Morrison