Town of Jackson, NH - Facilities Committee Minutes for October 16, 2007

3. Consider Options and Recommend Floor Plan with Multi-Purpose Room to School Board: Mr. Thompson reported the School Board met on Oct. 15^th and has agreed to continue the support of the concept of the Whitney Community Center being placed approximately where the Trickey Barn is located. They agreed to work with the Whitney Trustee group for the next 30 days, addressing all the concerns we have, for the intention of bringing it up for a vote with the School Board at its November meeting. The Chairman invited any citizens who has any concerns they feel have not been addressed, to pass them along to him. Mr. Thompson noted we have not finalized the agreement as yet; there will be some contingencies that will be entered into that Nov. 19^th motion.

Mr. Andrews stated Option C is his preference, with the 2680 gross sf. He likes the lines of it better, and it is not infringing on the playground as much. He said if there is going to be a multi-purpose room, C is the best option. Mr. Weeder expressed a preference for Option B because of the storage being taken out of a classroom in Option C, and he likes a lot of what Option B does with the multi-purpose room. Mr. Edgerly agreed, stating he does not see taking more space out of a room for storage that just barely meets the requirements already. Mr. Dougherty stated on Option C it is already enough square footage to accommodate what needs to be accommodated.

Ms. Kebler questioned whether the plan includes a library, and was told it is in the multi-purpose room. Mr. Bordash questioned on Option B, why there is so much storage, noting that initially they had been talking about the small storage area (122 sf), but he does not recall the large storage area in that plan. Ms. Kebler stated it was for musical instruments and physical education equipment.

Mr. Badger said he prefers Option C because the more we keep adding on, the less chance of it getting voted through. He said he is not sure about the way the storage is outlined, but other than that he would rather stay with Option C. He noted the difference in total square footage of new construction – 3007 sf in B and 2690 sf in C – is not a substantial amount.

Mr. Bordash suggested polling the members, stating he does not think we are gaining anything by shrinking a classroom just for storage space, which Option C will do. He said in Option B there was a lot of discussion about having a bathroom accessible for visitors where they would have access to this bathroom (in Option B) without going into a classroom or the nurse’s room bathroom. He said there was distinct support for that concept and the fact that, if this room were going to be used for community activities, there would be no need to unlock the rest of the school for access to that. He felt if we vote for Option C we are shrinking a classroom and limiting the functionality of the multi-purpose room. He acknowledged that he does not have a vote, but would recommend Option B.

Mr. Andrews stated this room [in which the meeting was being held] is going to be effected. He said we will lose the windows and it is not a great deal of space to be losing; however, Mr. Bordash makes a good point about the bathroom - if we are going to sell this to the people, everything we add on is going to make it more difficult.

Mr. Badger said if you are going to use this room for the public, it is a good idea to have a bathroom; the storage space is overdone, we should be able to have a bathroom where it is presently configured, assuming there will be an area under the safe for storage. He noted also there is a full basement that should be able to be put to some use for storage. Mr. Badger said as regards reducing the size of this classroom, our class sizes vary from year to year, we can move the bigger class into the other room even if this room is smaller. He said he agrees the bathroom is important. and would like to see it kept within the footprint of Option C – would like to see Plan C, but with the bathroom added to it. Dr. Nelson advised the option to use the space under the safe would cost in excess of $60,000.

Ms. Kebler said regarding class size, this year we have two classes of 13 each, one of 17, and one with 7 students, and currently have three more children enrolling within the next month. She said the two classes of 13 in those smaller rooms are very crowded; this plan only allows for one large classroom to meet the standards of a normal class size.

Mr. Benson said in looking at this through DOE eyes, they do not care how many kids are in a class, they go with minimum size, and he cannot believe they will want us to make a nonconforming classroom more nonconforming - they will say you cannot make a small classroom smaller based on today’s standards. Mr. Weeder said that has been brought up before, it is just a matter of confirming; it is solving a lot of problems. Mr. Andrews said he is surprised the State does not give us more flak on the small classrooms that we have. It was noted they are grandfathered.

Mr. Thompson said we are talking about 300 sf at $280 per sf, or $90,000, plus will have to spend $60,000+ to make the space under the safe available. Mr. Edgerly said he feels it is a 300 sf minute amount; to be more conforming we should go with the larger space because it will give us more options. It was his opinion that overall Option B, without touching the existing classrooms, is about what we need.

Mr. Thompson said we can look at Option C with the bathroom carved into the storage area, or approve Option B without the jut out on the left, or approve Option B with no changes. Mr. Badger suggested a compromise on Option B, that we shrink the storage area down, saving some square footage in the hallway, and shrink the dimension on the multi-purpose room – using Option C and shrinking the multi-purpose room. He questioned whether we have to have a multi-purpose room that large. Mr. Thompson stated the history is that was the exact dimension of the multi-purpose room which was designed to house art, music and library – that is where that size came from. Mr. Badger said he would cut off the jut-out there cutting the storage area in half. Mr. Edgerly stated the problem would be the doors, they cannot open into the hallway. Mr. Weeder said he does not feel we can just chop a section off one room, say we are going to reconfigure it, and vote on it.

Mr. Thompson said if we have a bathroom accessible to the multi-purpose room for the public to meet community needs, and shrink storage a little, we are still looking at a 2680 sf renovation. He wished to know whether that would address the concerns. Mr. Stevenson questioned why not stay with Option B, get rid of the storage room in the hall, and leave the bathroom where it is? The answer was the doors from the multi-purpose room cannot open into the main corridor because of fire code.

Mr. Bordash said this room we are in would be the multi-purpose room, without storage; what you do not have is space for library stacks. He said in looking at the storage in Option B, it may be that that is too large and could become library area. If we wanted to shrink dimensions of the room we could gain square footage and rework the hallway, we could reconfigure Options B & C and reach a compromise between the two. He stated if we are going to try to fit three things into one space, it will get very crowded if we are going to make the dimensions smaller.

4. Consider Options and Recommend Floor Plan without Multi-Purpose Room to School Board: Mr. Thompson provided floor plans Options F & G which represent what we asked David Lauren to come up with at the Oct. 1^st meeting. Also provided were Options H & I which represent Jerry Dougherty’s idea of taking a different look at the multi-purpose room renovation.

Mr. Edgerly said the biggest issue with Options H & I is that you cannot dead-end a hallway, would have to take either H or I and get rid of the toilet on the left, or the OT/Speech room on the right, in order to have a direct egress out. Mr. Dougherty said he does not like Plans F & G as one of them messes up the driveway; the other aspect is that it is mostly visual – it looks like a trailer. Also we would lose the retractable wall. He stated he based the plans on acceptance of the Whitney Center and it would probably come to within about 26’ of the Whitney Center. Mr. Edgerly questioned whether there would be enough room to go between the corner and the parking lot. Mr. Dougherty acknowledged that it might not be doable.

Mr. Thompson invited comment on Mr. Dougherty’s criticism of Options F & G which, basically, is that he does not like the renovation taking place in the front. Mr. Badger agreed, stating he would suggest using none of these plans, taking a modification of the addition would still end up with a library in this building, and shrinking it down to something that would fit - working on Option C, cutting off part of the end, rearrange it, shrinking C down and getting a bigger conference room/library.

Mr. Weeder said the difficulty is the minimum size classroom - we are talking about the multi-purpose room as a classroom, and questioned what the need for square footage would be. He said he agrees with the front not being the answer and feels we need to come up with a better plan.

Mr. Thompson questioned whether everybody is equally as unhappy with Plans F & G, the two options with the additions on the front, as Dick and Jerry. Mr. Benson commented as regards buildability, it would be easier to do it off the back; the only positive he sees on building on the front is the big white wall; however, it is a small consolation. Mr. Edgerly said the main reason for going off the front was cost – not having to deal with the utilities, drainage. It is not the best, but for buildability, it is probably the cheaper, just basically moving the driveway. Mr. Thompson questioned where the septic pump and the 1500 gallon tank that David Lauren said would have to be moved are located. Mr. Bordash said the two tanks are between the driveway and the picket fence, more toward the front. Mr. Weeder said he is not sure that moving them is a huge deal - Mr. Lauren has stated it is all doable.

Ms. Kebler said if we took two of these rooms off the back – the problem would be the cellar stairs and utilities running across the back, sump pump and a sewer line, if the multi-purpose room were there, would we have to fix those problems? The answer was yes. She pointed out also the kitchen could not be one of those two rooms because people would have to walk through it to get to guidance or vice versa.

Mr. Thompson commented it does not seem like we are at a point where we are ready to pick a plan, we have a timetable, have made progress tonight, but still need to pick one non multi-purpose room renovation. Mr. Andrews noted that Mr. Dougherty had said he would be agreeable to tweaking this for us somewhat. Mr. Weeder, making reference to Plan H, said he thought we were looking at something bigger than 225 sf for conference room/library. Mr. Thompson noted we agreed to have Mr. Lauren work on 380 to 450 sf. Mr. Badger suggested looking at whether we can add onto the back wall (using Plan C). Mr. Thompson noted Mr. Dougherty’s intention was to work on the plans we have here and he is more than willing to do that.

Mr. Benson said he thinks going off the back is cleaner for this building, the less you have to touch the existing building, the better off you will be. He said he thinks the other issue is the sight line as it gets closer to the Whitney Center - the play area between the two buildings gets utilized more by the kids.

Ms. Kebler said to answer the question about space, she believes we will have a better answer about that in Nov. since the DOE is coming to the school as this is our last year of conditional approval. They, in a more thorough review of our file, learned a lot of things and they want to tour our school. There will be a lot of answers on Nov. 8^th. It would be helpful to have some sort of final options to show them.

5. Next Steps: Dr. Nelson said the next step is to consider how this will impact our goals of getting these to the Board – we would have to have recommendation to the Board by Nov. 19^th, will have to get a price to the School Board - on the 19^th will have to have both of these things available since that is the meeting that will be addressing the Whitney Center. Mr. Benson stated the critical piece is not the 19^th, it would be more important, in his opinion, to have two concepts available for the meeting with the DOE people on the 8^th – they are the ones that have to sign off on this, they are going to want to see some movement forward. Mr. Weeder questioned whether we could go to that meeting with Mr. Dougherty’s plans. Mr. Badger said if he were on the School Board he would want to know if they do not accept the placePlaceNameWhitney PlaceNameCenter, what is the dollar differential and the utilitarian differential, without the multi-purpose room. They need to weigh in on why the Whitney Center is of value to the school both in terms of dollars and the utilitarian aspect.

Mr. Thompson said he will be looking to have two more completed floor plans without a multi-purpose room for the Committee to review; if we can get down to one recommendation, he will pass that on to Mr. Lauren and ask for cost estimate, and present those two ideas to the Board.