Task Force II: Final Report
Task Force Members (regular attendees):
Background of Task Force II
In the summer of 2007, the School Board hosted a series of public conversations about the proposed plan for Concord’s elementary facilities. Three big questions were asked at these meetings:
Ø What will be the improvements in programming that investing in rebuilt or renovated facilities?
Ø How much will it cost?
Ø What will happen to the buildings that are not needed for school purposes at this time?
The school Board decided to form three task forces to look at these three questions. The Task Forces would be comprised of community members, representatives of the city, school district staff and administrators, and School Board members.
The first Task Force worked during the 2007-2008 school year and reported its findings to the Instructional Committee of the School Board.
The second Task Force (“Task Force II on Costs”) was organized in late winter and began meeting on a biweekly basis beginning on April 26, 2008.
The charge of this ad hoc committee was to look at and compare the costs to renovate or to newly build elementary schools as the district deals with declining enrollments, rising energy costs, accessibility and equity among elementary schools. At the initial session the Task Force members agreed to evaluate the costs of renovating and the costs of building new schools at Conant and Kimball using model populations of 300 and 500 students.
Task Force II has met regularly since April 2007. Over the summer, the Task Force went on a field trip to Laconia School District to view construction of a new building and a completed elementary school renovation. It also hosted a variety of guest speakers on topics ranging from available state funding amounts for schools to energy conservation and “green” building methods. The Concord teachers and other members of Task Force I presented the Educational Specifications for Concord Schools. Additionally, the Task Force toured district facilities.
The Task Force met with Concord teachers where issues of equity among Concord elementary schools and surrounding New Hampshire communities were discussed. The strategies teachers use to compensate for deficiencies in their schools were discussed at length, as was the limited amount of technology in the classrooms due to lack of electrical capacity or space.
The Task Force learned about state funding and the fact that Concord Schools are eligible for 40% state building aid, and an additional 3% in “Green” building technology. The Jordan Institute conducted a “portfolio manager” analysis to evaluate the Energy Star rating of Conant and Kimball schools. Conant scored 41% efficiency, and Kimball 9% efficiency. “Green” buildings or Energy Star-rated buildings typically score 75% or higher.
Charge:
The first meeting of Task Force II was spent in a vigorous discussion of the composition of the Task Force and the purpose of the Task Force. The group agreed that it would conduct the feasibility study by looking at two specific sites, Kimball and Conant, and consider and compare the costs of renovating or building new schools on these sites to house both 300 and 500 students.
Task Force II Outcomes
Members of Task Force II have listened, discussed, debated and weighed in on a number of issues related to the proposed elementary facilities master plan. Following is a summary of their perspectives on a variety of important issues.
1. Do we renovate or do we build new?
In an earlier study in 2004, the Dore and Whittier architects evaluated each of the sites of the current elementary school and each of the elementary school buildings for the potential to renovate and build new. At that time there was some evidence that building new schools was going to be as or more cost effective than trying to renovate the existing 100 year old schools.
This Fall, 2008 Harriman Associates architects and engineers evaluated the sites and buildings and reported to the Task Force that they felt the two schools were good candidates for renovation and has developed preliminary sketches of a facility to house 500 students on the Kimball site. Kimball itself would be renovated; an addition would be added with many of the core facilities such as a library and gymnasium.
Advantages
In this plan, Kimball would be a downtown elementary school – a goal of the many who have participated in this process. Kimball is a historic building as it was originally the high school building in the early 1900s. Kimball is in a walkable area.
Dan Cecil of Harriman Associates called Kimball a potential educational “gem.” The arrangement of classrooms around a common area is a very modern plan that provides space for individual as well as small group and large group work.
Renovating and addng to Kimball would make Kimball handicapped-accessible and improve energy efficiency – a significant financial consideration. . The project at Kimball would increase the equity of opportunity among the elementary schools.
Disadvantages and concerns
Renovating and adding to Kimball is likely to cost $20million plus. Kimball School is in a congested site and the Task Force members worried about traffic and parking issues. Members suggested looking at the design if it is for 350 children..
A project at Kimball would require the Central Office organization to be relocated perhaps to Dewey.
There is limited lot area at the Kimball site, even with the purchases of adjacent properties. The early designs for Kimball appeared very large with inefficient spaces. There is limited playground space as well.
The Kimball facility will have limited ability to go beyond 500 students in the future. If Walker School is closed, the district has not increased capacity within the school district.
2. Do we renovate or replace the Morrill Building as part of Kimball project?
The architects developed two alternative plans for Kimball, one which tries to use the Morrill building and one that does not. The Task Force talked about the pro’s and con’s of keeping Morrill.
Advantages
The appearance of Morrill is consistent with Kimball, built by the same architect. Maintaining Morrill is potentially less controversial to the public and historic preservation community. Maintaining Morrill would lessen the disruption to the character of the neighborhood as its scale is appropriate to the site. In addition, there would not be demolition costs or costs associated with hazardous materials.
Disadvantages and Concern
The most challenging aspect of maintaining Morrill is the fact that the levels of the two buildings do not match. An elevator that opens on both sides and make ten different stops would be necessary.
Using Morrill limits the creative and efficient design. The Morrill building has restricted dimensions with limited core mechanical elements. The paybacks on a system designed for Morrill may not be as large as paybacks on a new facility. There is a lack of information about the building’s structure as the original construction plans have not been located. The structural integrity of the building is unknown at this time and there is concern that adding mechanical penetrations and doorways to Morrill would threaten its structural integrity. There is also concern about potentially hazardous materials that are used in the building.
3. Do we use the house lots along Pleasant Street as part of the Kimball project?
4. Use house lots on Pleasant Street as part of the project
Advantages
The architects felt that in order to maintain a neighborhood school downtown for 500 students it is necessary to use the house lots along Pleasant Street.
Advantages
Preliminary plans have playspace (“green space”) in this area. It also provides land for additional parking. An access way to Pleasant Street may provide a lane for cars and/.or buses. The apartment buildings on the corner of Rumford and Pleasant are in very poor shape. There is more traffic control with an internal drive that exits onto Pleasant Street. The purchase of the house lots is eligible for reimbursement at 40%.
Disadvantages and concerns
Using the house lots on Pleasant Street changes the streetscape and removes property that could be renovated for housing. It would leave the landscape to a more suburban look. The apartment buildings provided affordable rental housing near downtown.. Using the house lots means losing seven 100 year old buildings – an historical loss. There will be significant disposal costs if the properties are taken down.
An exit onto Pleasant Street may cause traffic congestion on Pleasant Street
Using the house lots means a loss of tax base and revenues to the city.
4. Should we renovate or build new at the Conant School site?
The architects’ assessment of Conant School was that it had great potential for renovation with an addition.
Advantages
Renovating and building an addition at Conant enables the community to ,maintain a neighborhood school Conant School is a 1935 building with historical significance. There is plenty of land and room for expansion if necessary.
A renovation and addition at Conant would enable to the district to achieve savings in energy use. The proposed addition would connect the gym to the rest of building. In addition, the current gym building has no insulation and is very inefficient.
Disadvantages and concerns
Members of the Task Force worried about the wisdom of investing $10 million in a 1935 building. Conant has no basement and there is some concern about moisture and mold.
A project at Conant would increase traffic and potentially fewer students would walk to school. Potentially busing costs could increase.
If Rumford School is closed, there is no increase in student capacity for the school district. Because of the concerns about future enrollments, the district should consider moth balling the Rumford for a period of time in case it is needed in the future.
5. Should we strive to renovate the buildings with additions to be “green” schools?
Advantages
Building green schools is the responsible thing to do. Decreasing our reliance on fossil fuels provides a good model for our children. We would be conserving natural resources while creating healthy buildings for staff and students. This would benefit the educational performance of students as well as provide physical benefits.
Green schools have long range operational savings. There is an addition 3% building aid from the state available. Utility rebates are available to help decrease cost and many systems have reasonable paybacks. Having energy efficient buildings is essential given the dramatic increases in energy costs in the future.
Contractors now have increased expertise to build green buildings and the service market is better developed.
Disadvantages and concerns
Building green schools will have higher up front costs. It may be difficult to do in a renovation project compared to building new. We should make a serious effort at Conant and Kimball to design energy efficient buildings, balanced with an eye toward budget. A future school upgrade at one of the other campuses will afford a “ground up” opportunity for a LEED/CHIPS certification. It should be easier to design a green building from the ground up
Maintaining a sophisticated system requires a higher level of expertise for staff. This could limit who works on the controls. It may be difficult to hire and retain qualified instrument and controls technicians. Constructing a green building will require careful monitoring and careful commissioning.
Our existing buildings could be made greener.
6. Should we do nothing?
If we do nothing, there will be no bond issues, resulting in short term savings to our taxpayers. Doing nothing means small neighborhood schools remain preserving space for future population growth. The historic buildings remain as is. Doing nothing means there is no disruption to students during construction.
There is no crisis right now so doing nothing would provide time to coordinate with the city and its capital projects. It also provides time to evaluate future population growth. Given the economic crisis in the country, doing nothing avoids any big ticket projects right now. It will also lessen pressure for the city council to take over the school budget.
Disadvantages and concerns
Doing nothing means the problems of small schools (education, accessibility, equity) remain. In fact inequities may increase with the aging of these buildings.
Poor internal environmental conditions remain – poor air quality, possible PCBs, accessibility issues, existence of hazardous materials, affecting the health and safety of our children.
Given the inefficient buildings, the district faces increased costs for heat and maintenance. There will be higher operations and maintenance costs in the future. Major maintenance repairs will be needed to be done at a higher cost. Investing in short term upgrades in these old building is questionable.
Right now the market is competitive. Doing nothing means losing the opportunity for 40% state building aid.
Doing nothing means forgoing the opportunity to put some properties, the surplus schools, back on the rolls.
7. Should we have equity among the elementary schools?
Advantages
Achieving equity amokng the schools would enable the staff to offer a broad program to all students. All the schools would be accessible – a very important goal.
Equalizing schools may reduce neighborhood house value inequities in the community. Increasing house values in the community means increasing revenue for the city.
Having core facilities like libraries and gymnasiums on site increases the student/teacher instructional time. Adequately sized cafeterias also helps with maximizing the use of instructional time. Better technology will be available to all students.
It is a question of fairness.
Disadvantages and concerns
Achieving equity will be costly. Existing schools are very different. Achieving equity will take a long time to achieve. It is alsonearly impossible to completely measure “equity.” Equalizing opportunities to learn in the schools may require more staff.
More equity is possible with larger campuses. Land allows for future needs. Downtown schools have limitations. Three campuses at Beaver Meadow, Conant, and Broken Ground provide land for future needs
Other
Task Force members recommended that the Board evaluate the costs and needs of all the schools rather than just a couple. Taking action on only a limited number of schools does not take into consideration the costs, needs, flexibility and potential problems on the whole system.
Task Force members recommended that the Board develop cost estimates for bringing all the buildings up to ADA and modern energy standards and for addressing other identified needs such as gymnasiums. Then we can directly compare the costs of renovating all schools vs. costs of closing and renovating and building new..
In addition, evaluate population projections, which predict growth in elementary school aged children to exceed what existed in 1995. Consider closing smaller schools temporarily, giving the district more time to complete the necessary ADA, energy and other improvements to those buildings so that they are ready when needed again in ten to fifteen years.
