Committee members present:
Reed Leberman, Chair                          Jo Anne Carpenter
Robert Demers                                     Jeff Hill
Kathleen Kelley                                                Dennis Pednault
Jean Tremblay

Central Office Staff present:
Pauline Plourde, Business Administrator

Public in attendance:
Keith Parent, Principal                          David Goyette, Head Maintenance

1. Meeting called to order at 6:30 p.m.
2. Jo Anne Carpenter moved to approve the minutes as amended to reflect the estimated renovation budget as $11,000,000. Motion seconded by Jeff Hill. Two abstained and the remaining approved the motion.
3. Pauline Plourde cautioned the committee members to present the information to the public as the committee has recorded in the minutes. If a question arises that a committee member cannot answer from the minutes, then they are to refer the questioning party to Patrick Low or to Reed Leberman. Pauline also cautioned the board to not forget the cost difference between building new and renovating the high school building because of the economic reality of the Town of Gorham.
4. We have been meeting for almost six months and we need to prepare a report for the Gorham School board and perhaps the public on the progress made to date.
5. Pauline Plourde reported that Ed Murdock, State Department of Education Building Aid, is warning all districts that the costs of building supplies have increased substantially and will continue to do so probably at a rate of 8.9% annually. So he suggested looking at what needs to be fixed versus what needs to be repaired as we make a decision about how to proceed with our projects. Such items as enhancing the fire safety systems, roofs, electrical work, windows, and repointing the bricks require labor but not much in materials.
6. Reed attended another David Provan seminar on high performance buildings. He summarized the main points:
a. If a school has to be operated while renovations are on going it is disruptive to the educational process.
b. High performance buildings do make financial sense
c. A good project has a “team” of experts working on it early on, incorporates high performance standards early on, integrates all major building systems, considers life cycle when specifying materials, considers utilities savings, etc.
d. Commissioning the buildings ensures that the building functions as designed.
e. The project delivery system can determine project success, i.e. design/build vs. construction management, etc.
f. There are additional resources to help a town build a high performance building
g. The school planned renovations must be a part of the town’s overall capital improvement plans.
h. We should consider using a website, newsletter, and news articles to not only inform the public about what we are working on but also instruct them on the science of building successful buildings.
i. Form needs assessment study group to explore the ideas for the project within the written charge, and prioritizes the needs and does feasibility study.
j. Use a master schedule to manage the project start to finish
k. Use decision making tools such as a decision quadrant to prioritize the needs versus the wants and the important vs. the not important
l. Consider specifying the acoustics, materials emissions, indoor quality, thermal comfort and other issues not immediately obvious.
m. Remember sometimes simple changes in the building will create energy savings and provide better lighting
7. We discussed the lack of experience some area contractors have with high performance buildings, yet the committee recognizes the need to keep the construction project local. We will have to balance fresh air and day-lighting with perceived extra costs over the short run.
8. We discussed how to set priorities in the GMHS building when so much of the NEASC accreditation report is centered on many of the renovations identified. The accreditation committee must see significant progress in five years and we are in year two of that five-year period.
9. There were differences of opinion on how to proceed, because clearly the high school has high priced pressing issues, but they are not as well defined. The elementary school has issues that are better defined and less expensive.
10. We need design help to finish specifying the Ed Fenn renovations and so we should ask for that in the budget for next year.
11. We need scoping and exploring option help to finish specifying the GMHS solutions.
12. Kathleen Kelley motioned to form a subcommittee to develop a plan and scope of work for renovating the Ed Fenn School so that the cost estimates can be obtained through a design consultant. Jeff Hill seconded the motion. We then discussed the intent is not to actually do the renovations to the Ed Fenn prior to the GMHS project, but rather move the committee forward with a more defined and manageable project. After discussion, the motion carried one against, six for.
13. The next meeting will be October 26 at 6:30 p.m. . at GMHS Library. The meeting following that will be November 16 at 6:30 p.m. . at Ed Fenn.

Sincerely submitted,

Kathleen Kelley
98 Randolph Hill Rd.
Randolph, NH 03593

603-466-5324 (o)
603-723-9734 (m)