The Building Committee membership at the close of 2006 included: Ben Mayerson, Chair; Nancy Burleson; Craig Burcalow; John Carpenter; Bob Demers; Conrad Deutsch; Katie Kelley; Reed Leberman; and Jean Tremblay. We continue our role of facilitating the process of school renovation and construction project planning. Our purpose is to help us all make objective decisions. We will never circumnavigate your choice. Our vision is to provide school facilities that are healthy, safe, modern, efficient, and support lifelong learning for our students, faculty, staff, and local communities, now and for future generations.

In March of 2006, the Committee reported its findings pertaining to the study of prior proposals brought forward to the Gorham School District. None of them were viable to support the current and future needs of the schools. Our conclusions reported at the District Meeting, were to move forward to develop a new plan, based on extensive research and most importantly input from the local educational professionals, NH Department of Education, and the citizens of the Cooperative. That night the GRS Cooperative School District agreed and overwhelmingly voted to continue and support the work of the Building Committee. Voters approved $340,000 for the completion of a needs assessment study, which included a comprehensive engineering, structural, and systems report for the GMHS and EFS. Subsequent to that; the Committee proceeded to facilitate hiring an architect and construction manager to execute and estimate new plans based on current information, lessons learned, and future needs/expectations.

Just prior to the meeting, the Building Committee sent out a Request for Proposal (RFP), to qualified firms to respond and bid on the needs assessment. Four finalists were interviewed, and after a long night of discussions the Committee recommended Banwell Architects to oversee the study. Within three weeks of Banwell's hiring the Committee and Board held a series of public forums to ask the communities what they wanted and needed in a school. The biggest item that we came away with from those meetings was the sense that the GMHS should stay on site, and if any of the old building could be saved, it should be due to its architectural uniqueness and beauty. Several open meetings were held with the teachers of both schools to hear and record their needs and observations. Meanwhile HEB and Allied Engineering did a thorough top to bottom assessment of the buildings and their systems. The entire report was compiled and delivered to the District in June of 2006.

Immediately afterward, the Committee sent out another packet of RFPs to find an architectural firm for the project. The field was narrowed down to four. After two very long nights of interviews and deliberations, the Committee unanimously recommended Banwell Architects for this very important project. Though they were the facilitators of the needs assessment, that document was one of the items that all applicants were asked to review and comment on. Banwell's role in the needs assessment was to facilitate the process not direct it. All respondents felt the document was impartial and didn't bias the screening process toward or away from Banwell.

With an architectural firm in place, the Committee set its sights on choosing the best method of construction for the project. After extensive research which included discussions with the NH Dept. of Education and the District's legal counsel, the Committee chose to pursue what is referred to as a Construction Manager at Risk. Unlike the previous defeated proposal of 2003, the Committee learned that having an Architect working directly for the District offered us direct accountability and control over our project.

Once we selected a construction delivery method, we began our search for a construction manager, to work along side the architect. Bringing in a CM sooner, allows us greater control and monitoring of the cost and scope of the project, by having the firm that will oversee the project onboard now. It also adds a further safeguard, by having the architect and CM each contracted directly to the District; to check and balance their respective areas of concentration. Another RFP was written, and a mailing to over 25 construction companies yielded a group of four finalists. The interviews were held over a two night period in early September. The Committee unanimously recommended Lee Kennedy Co. (LKC) to the Board, based on their size, experience, proven track record of bringing in projects at or below budget - on time, and their uncompromising attention to safety on the job site. LKC has been building schools throughout New England for decades, and their clientele reads like a who's who of academia. They offer us superior construction management at a cost that is at or below that of all other companies that were considered.

With the team now in place, Banwell set to work to create a series of conceptual drawings. In mid October another series of public forums were held in the Cooperative's three towns to show the drawings and solicit public feedback. A lot was learned from those meetings, and next we took the drawings to the teachers and staff of the schools. Their feedback was invaluable, and resulted in many changes that brought the project into a perfect harmony of design and flow, when their educational expertise and experience was incorporated. All of these steps helped us to design and understand the scope of the project. LKC took the concepts and began to budget out the costs of the two schools. In early December, LKC delivered their latest estimates that put the total project price at almost $28 Million. The Committee reported this to the Board and was asked to look into trimming back the size (cost) of the project to the point where 'the best project would be offered at the best price.' The Board also asked that no program be affected, as a result of those cuts. In mid December the senior administrators met with Banwell and LKC. The result of that meeting trimmed almost $4 Million off the project, by consolidating spaces, reducing administration space, hallways, and more. The result was a project that now stood at a little under $24 Million. Due to the required upgrades needed on Mechanic Street for water and the storm drains (that are connected to the parking lots) an additional $700,000 was added back in to cover those costs. Representatives of the District, Committee, Banwell, and LKC have already met with local town officials, such as the Highway and Water & Sewer Departments, to establish open communication lines along with a strong cooperative working relationship.

Throughout the entire process Banwell and LKC have identified many areas where costs can and will be mitigated. However, experience has shown us that it is always best to budget for the worst possible situation so that funds are earmarked and available to cover the unexpected. Once the bond vote is approved, the Committee will work aggressively with Banwell and LKC to solidify the pricing. Only then will the District purchase the bond to finance the project. The construction management system we have selected will enable us to carefully monitor and control the costs, which should result in funds being available at the end of the project. At that time the voters will decide whether they are to be earmarked for something else, or returned to lower taxes. We know the Board shares our focus on cost control and the citizens' right to choose.

We are also committed to using as much local labor and suppliers, as possible on this project. We informed all the architectural and construction management firms of this requirement at their respective interviews and have instructed Banwell and LKC to keep local businesses and contractors in mind for all phases and materials, whenever possible as we move forward. LKC has begun to contact and solicit contractors in our area to ascertain their interest and qualifications, so that we may include them on the list of eligible providers of goods and services. We have also stipulated to both firms that the District will have the final word as to who is hired to work and supply this project.

Once the project is voter approved, an aggressive fundraising campaign will begin to offset taxpayer money, and decrease the impact for all of us. This will take the form of private donations, energy grants and rebates, and institutional grants.

The Committee remains dedicated to total transparency and inclusion through every phase of this process. All background materials, pictures, and the minutes from the meetings can be found online at www.SAU20.org/building.

I wish to personally thank the members of the Building Committee, School Board, Faculty, Staff, Administration, staff of the SAU20 office, and mostly you the public; for your involvement, support, and patience throughout the last 19 months. It has been a long time, but we know we have a project that is best for our communities and most importantly the students of the GRS Cooperative School District.

Respectfully submitted,

Benjamin W. Mayerson
Chair, GRS Cooperative School Building Committee