| Joanne Cole |
Facilities improvement bonds for MSAD 15 schools were the focus of a community presentation in New Gloucester last week and then a school board meeting in Gray to consider next steps.
The projects proposed to be bonded include HVAC overhauls to improve air quality at four schools and upgrades and expansion of performing arts, cafeteria/kitchen, gym spaces and athletic fields to address needs at the High School.
The July 22 presentation at Memorial School was the second of two public sessions; the first took place in Gray on July 17. (Read about the Gray presentation, which the New Gloucester version paralleled, at this link.) At each, architects, engineers, and school board members outlined the projects, their rationale and estimated costs.
One bond would replace outdated and ineffective HVAC equipment at the High School, Middle School, Memorial and Dunn. Engineers described inspecting systems and collecting CO2 levels and other data in classrooms and elsewhere.
Among the conclusions: the 50-year-old equipment at the High School is “not working well at all.” Ditto for the Middle School’s 35-year-old systems (“not working”), which has air handling units an engineer tactfully called “vintage.”
Similarly, the older section of Memorial is 50+ years old, the engineers noted, with outdated equipment and controls, and no ventilation in the library. Dunn has ventilation in its library, but it doesn’t work.
The goal of the upgrades is healthy buildings for students and staff and compliance with Maine law and applicable standards. A one-time $6.5 million combination grant/no-interest loan from the Maine Department of Education would take the District much of the way to the project’s estimated $8.9 million cost, presenters said.
For the High School projects, architects shared sketches intended to address the school’s limited, shared performing arts/cafeteria spaces and gym facilities and athletic fields that haven’t kept up with student use. Student participation has increased dramatically, along with the number of teams, since the High School was built in 1962.
Designs for the High School include these proposed elements:
- A purpose-built auditorium with seating for 450 to replace the dual-duty “cafetorium.” A new entrance would allow the performance space to be self-contained. The cafeteria would be a cafeteria, and students would no longer need to use the hallway or stage for lunch seating.
- A second gym, regulation-sized for player safety and spectator seating. The High School previously had two gyms, but one was eliminated to create the cafetorium. The added gym would provide space and flexibility for P.E. classes, concurrent practices and special events. Lockers rooms would open directly onto the fields; parking would be added.
- Outside, fields would be re-oriented, baseball, softball and track and field areas improved, and a new synthetic turf field added. The designers initially proposed multiple turf fields, but the board dialed back the plan to a single turf field. Improvements to grass fields, irrigation, drainage and septic are also planned.
At both public meetings, school board members provided context about the District’s buildings, their age and condition, the few renovations made over the years at the High School, and the District’s low bond debt relative to state and nearby averages. Repayment on the new borrowing would not begin for two years, when the District will have little debt remaining on past bonds.
Voters are asked to approve an ‘up to’ amount; it’s not all borrowed at once, nor might it all be needed, board member Sam Pfeifle explained. To illustrate budget and tax impacts, he used the highest-case $57.7 million figure for all projects, including the HVAC work. The $57.7 million includes $6 million for contingencies, but does not reflect contributions the District might make from its own surplus or capital reserves that would bring the number down. With those assumptions, a New Gloucester resident with a median value $350,000 home would pay an additional $667 per year in taxes, according to Pfeifle’s ballpark estimate. The comparable figure for Gray is $770.
On July 24, with both presentations done, the school board met to de-brief, discuss community comments, and settle on some next steps.
Among their decisions, the board unanimously agreed that the bond referendum be held as part of the November 5 general election. Board Chair Penny Collins told fellow board members that she and Superintendent Craig King had consulted with the towns’ clerks on scheduling considerations, including the turnaround time needed for ballots to be printed.
The upshot, Collins said, is that August 15 is the latest the board can finalize the wording for the referendum ballot and still make the November election. Board members agreed to take up draft ballot language at their August 7 business meeting.
Along with the ‘when’ of a district vote on the proposed bonds, the board discussed at length the ‘how’ and the ‘what,’ including how to present the High School projects on the ballot and what information to include. (The form and content of the separate HVAC bond ballot will be dictated in large part by the terms of the Maine DOE grant.)
The board focused on topics listeners had raised in Q&A, particularly the High School fields component and its turf field. A single full-size multi-purpose synthetic turf field is proposed, along with upgrades to and rearrangement of existing fields, plus new irrigation, drainage and septic.
The turf field would allow spring season teams to get outside in February, board member Sam Pfeifle explained in the presentations. Currently, spring teams practice in the parking lot or the gym until the fields are playable, perhaps in April or May, depending on winter snows and spring rains.
The updated fields would also provide flexibility for practices and competitions and permit currently overworked grass fields to recover, presenters said. That, in turn, would allow community groups like Patriots Soccer to use the fields. They can’t now, because the existing fields are already overtaxed by student use, listeners were told.
In Q&A residents raised specific concerns about the costs of a turf field, its lifespan, and the risk of injuries or of adverse health impacts from the materials used. Pfeifle acknowledged that initial costs are higher with turf but said maintenance is lower, resulting in net cost savings over time. He also noted that turf designs and materials have changed in 20 years.
At their own meeting on the 24th, board members discussed how best to share cost and other information about turf with the public. One suggestion was a public ‘turf session’ with Activitas, the fields’ designer, which designed Yarmouth’s fields and those at many colleges, board member Gary Harriman said. (Activitas’ website includes the Patriots’ Gillette Stadium, among many other projects.)
Regarding costs, board member Lauren Meek, an engineer by profession, suggested a life-cycle cost analysis of turf versus grass as a way to capture and convey the comparative expense over time. The board will have that cost comparison information from Activitas at their August 7 meeting.
“I’d like to have somebody come with the current choices, current research, current practice, because there are turf fields going in all around us,” Harriman said. He pointed out that Lewiston, Sanford, and Bath schools all put in turf, suggesting that turf isn’t chosen just in affluent communities.
Could the District swap in grass for turf on the central field and keep the proposed footprint? Yes, said Penny Collins, who also chaired the bond committee that worked closely with the architects and took input from the community, students and staff. It may, however, affect other elements of the plans, since the design assumes turf.
Gary Harriman cautioned that if grass is chosen, the fields would be improved—new sod—but in two years, the fields will again be worn out, Harriman said, and the community will again be kept from using them. “The turf field is what lets us bring more people onto our campus in bigger numbers with bigger use,” Harriman said.
Member Sharon Morey, who heard detailed pros and cons of turf as a member of the bond committee, echoed the point about turf’s capacity for heavy use. Morey said she was struck by how much use one turf field can absorb compared with grass. “It can handle enough hours to bring the rest of the fields back into their normal wear-and-tear schedule,” Morey said.
The board also discussed presenting the three High School components—performing arts/cafeteria, gymnasium expansion, fields improvements—in combination or as standalone items for voters to consider.
On the one hand, combining them risks residents voting down the whole due to concerns over a single element, members acknowledged. None of the needs would be met.
On the other hand, the oath that board members take is to “represent the best interests of the children of the district. Period. That’s the job,” said chair Collins. “We have spent over a year finding out what this district needs, and it is this.”
With turf a particular focus of community concern, the board decided the ballot should offer that specific option for an up or down vote. The board will consider specific ballot language to that effect on August 7.
Also at the August 7 meeting, the board will consider how much, if any, of the District’s own funds to contribute toward the proposed projects. Using funds from surplus and/or capital reserves would reduce the amount the District would need to borrow–-and reduce the impact on taxpayers going forward.
By meeting’s end, it was clearer what’s ahead for the board: providing voters more information on costs and project specifics and, for the board members themselves, more decisions.
