Your Federal Quarterly Tax Payments are due April 15th Get Help Now >>

MANCHESTER BOARD OF SCHOOL COMMITTEE by wanghonghx

VIEWS: 142 PAGES: 37

									               MANCHESTER BOARD OF SCHOOL COMMITTEE
                    Building & Sites Committee Meeting
                             January 28, 2008


       The Building & Sites Committee met at the School Administration Offices on
Monday, January 28, at 7:00p.m. Present were Chairman Beaudry and Committee
Members Craig, Cote, and Gelinas. Non-Committee Member Labanaris also was
present. Present from Administration were Ms. DeFrancis, the Business Administrator,
and Asst. Supt. Burkush.
       Chairman Beaudry presided and called the meeting to order. The clerk called the
roll. There was no public forum.

APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING
    Comm. Gelinas made a motion to approve the minutes of the previous meeting.
Comm. Cote seconded the motion. The motion passed by unanimous vote.

PRESENTATIONS
School Building & Grounds Presentations
        Chairman Beaudry welcomed Principal Ken DiBenedetto of McDonough
Elementary School, Principal Rick Norton of Green Acres Elementary School, and
Assistant Principal Keith Puglisi, of West High School. He asked the principals to speak
to what deficiencies there may be at their schools and what they would like to see getting
done as far as with the building and/or site moving forward.
         Mr. Puglisi said that during the extensive renovations that were done at West
there was work done on the HVAC system but there seems to be an imbalance with the
heat, There are some classrooms that are 90 degrees and some that are 60 degrees. There
is a great fluctuation with the heat. This is a concern as there are kids and faculty that are
uncomfortable as they move throughout the building. In the old part of the building some
of the windows are still single-paned and the glass panes are loose. That is a concern.
       On the 2nd floor behind the auditorium, all of the floor was repaired and the
asbestos flooring was removed but a section that goes down behind the auditorium has
asbestos tile that remains and that is chipping. The Building Maintenance Department
comes in and makes repairs as needed but that is something that should be addressed and
those tiles should be removed.
       A major concern is with the upper lot outside of the school. There is a large
amount of traffic moving through there and it seems to be a danger for the students. Mr.
Puglisi said that he has gone to a number of meetings at City Hall in regards to the
parking in the area. And with the recent snowstorms people are parking in the parking lot
creating a disruption for the school day because when the people from Parks & Rec come
to plow the driveway they can‟t because people have parked their cars up there. Teachers
are coming in and there are less spaces. Tow trucks need to be called to pull parked cars
out and that is a major disruption. Mr. Puglisi said that school personnel have tried to
talk to the neighbors but at this time the only solution the school can think of is to gate
that upper lot.



Building & Sites Committee                    1                         January 28, 2008
       Comm. Craig said that the assistant principal mentioned an issue with the HVAC
system and it was recently worked on. Mr. Puglisi said that was part of the renovations
and the addition at the school. He said “even with the renovation I still have rooms that
go up to 90 degrees and others that are at 60 degrees.” Comm. Craig said “you would
think that if that was part of the recent renovations that it would work properly.” Mr.
Puglisi said “I would assume that but it doesn‟t seem to be happening.” He said it is a
daily chore for him to be calling in to the Public Works Division in regards to the
temperatures in the building. He has to call them to come over to address either the air
conditioning in the computer labs or the heat on the 3rd floor. He said “it is absolutely
with renovations having just been completed.”
       Comm. Labanaris asked “Mr. Puglisi, when you call the Building Maintenance
Dept. what do they give you as a reason as to why you‟re having such a variation in
temperature?” Mr. Puglisi said “when they arrive I don‟t always typically have the time
to meet with them but I know that there seems to be an imbalance with the return in the
feeds. I have areas in the building that have no returns. Besides that I‟m not too familiar
with the entire system.” Comm. Labanaris asked “how often do they come over there to
address this problem for you?” Mr. Puglisi said “I‟d say at least 3 times a week that I‟m
putting work orders in.”

       Mr. DiBenedetto spoke about the concerns regarding McDonough School. He said
there are some similar heating issues, where with one side of the building it is very warm
and on the other side of the building it is pretty cold. He said “I will say when we call
Public Services they do come over and they normally do remedy it for us. But it is an
ongoing issue and it has been an issue ever since the school got a new heating system. It
is much better than it was when it had been first installed and it is getting better but I still
have to make about a call a week. When it was first installed it was incredibly hot.” He
said the school also has some rooms that are on a different heating system. There is some
system that is located on the roof and if there is snow on it or something isn‟t working
then only part of the building will get heated. There have been problems with valves and
sometimes when a valve goes off it kicks the heat automatically so we don‟t burst a pipe
but it at times does get extremely hot. He said “this is a deficiency in the building but
actually this item is not at the top of my list to bring to the Committee.”
       Chairman Beaudry said “it is very discouraging to see that we spent $105million
and every school we go into has a problem with heating and ventilation. I don‟t
understand it. Some of the Board members have been going around to the schools and
that is one of the issues. The issues are noise problems and heat problems and it is
rampant throughout the District.”
       Mr. DiBenedetto said they had hoped that during the design/build McDonough
School was going to get the hallway floors and the bathroom floors done. Those never
got completed. They have tile floors in the hallways and they‟re breaking apart. There
are holes where one can see down into the basement. He said “they‟ve been fixed in
many different areas but they‟re not the same type of tiles and it just doesn‟t look good
and the tiles are continuously chipping. The flooring is old and it needs to be redone.”
He said there are nice new floors in the classrooms and the walls were painted and new
windows were put in. The school looks really good if one were to compare it to what it
looked like 3 or 4 years ago but there are a few things that didn‟t get finished and the



Building & Sites Committee                     2                         January 28, 2008
hallway and bathroom floors are a major issue.” Chairman Beaudry asked if those tiles
are asbestos or if they are vinyl tiling. Mr. DiBenedetto said “I think that everything that
was asbestos got removed. The hallway floors were not asbestos tiling and that is why
they were not a priority.”
        The second issue with the school would be the lockers. Mr. DiBenedetto said the
school is an elementary school. They are lucky that the school at one time had been a
high school because the school has a beautiful gym and a separate cafeteria which is
wonderful for an elementary school and the school has a stage also. It is a great school
with a lot of advantages. “But having lockers is not one of them”, he said. He said that a
year ago they had 4 lockers fall down in the middle of the day. Thank goodness nobody
was near them at the time. He would say that 5 or 6 times a year he has to get kids out of
a locker because they‟re little and they can fit in them and sometimes they get shut in
them. He said “that has happened a few times so we would like to see the lockers
removed.” He said that he has spoken with Mr. Clougherty and he has priced out that
work.
        Finally, there is an issue with lighting. They have had some lighting put up and
that is on a timer but in the teachers‟ parking lot it is completely dark. Mr. DiBenedetto
said “I‟m nervous about any teacher walking out of the school when it is dark. Central
has basketball 4 days a week and they‟re there until 9:00 in the evening. Those people
either park in the school‟s main parking lot or across the street in the teachers‟ parking lot
and that lot is pitch dark. There are a few street lights on the street but in the parking lot
it is completely dark. So that lighting issue is a concern.”
        Comm. Labanaris asked “have we talked about exterior lighting in that parking lot
previously at this Committee?” Chairman Beaudry said “no, we haven‟t. The only
exterior lighting we talked about was we put some lights up at Highland because they had
a similar situation with a safety issue for the teachers. There was a pole there because of
the portable so a light was put on that pole to light the parking lot. We have not talked
about exterior lighting for McDonough.”
        Comm. Labanaris said “the lockers seem to be a life-safety issue. If they are
falling and they could fall on kids and the kids are getting stuck in them and they have to
be pulled out of them I think that needs to be addressed as soon as possible.” Mr.
DiBenedetto said “besides taking out the lockers we would have to replace them with
cubbies or something so there would be another cost to that. If they get removed we
would need something where the kids could hang up their coats and put their books. I
agree though it is a safety issue. They‟re old. The lockers are 40 years old.” Chairman
Beaudry said “they‟re high school lockers, right.” Mr. DiBenedetto agreed.

    Mr. Norton, the principal of Green Acres School, spoke about Green Acres School.
He said that he was always taught to start with positive comments and he would like to
do that this evening. He said “thank you to the Building & Sites Committee for your
support of what has gotten done at the school already. The big thing was the closing in of
the library with walls. A lot of the key players on that project are at the meeting this
evening and I thank them as well.” He invites everyone to come to the school to see the
library. It is such a difference and it looks wonderful. Chairman Beaudry said the plan is
for the Committee to go to the school to use the library for an upcoming meeting. Mr.
Norton said he has been the principal at Green Acres for 10 ½ years and aside from the



Building & Sites Committee                    3                         January 28, 2008
library project the school has had some beautiful safety mats mounted on the gym walls.
Those were a much-needed item. The school has had electrical updates, lighting updates,
new floors, new ceiling tiles, a new ventilation system, and fresh coats of paint. Also,
thanks to the Manchester Airport and the federal government along with the City of
Manchester they received new walls and windows at the school a few years back as part
of the big sound-proofing project. So there have been a lot of improvement made at
Green Acres. The school has a very conscientious cleaning staff that does a great job
keeping the school clean. Everyone is grateful for those things.
    Mr. Norton said that when he started to prepare for this meeting he walked around the
building and really paid attention to some of the things that were going on. He said there
are a lot of things that have just become commonplace and that we have just come to
accept because it is par for the course. To really step back and look there are some things
that truly need some attention. For example, an intercom system. The intercom system
at the school is antiquated and it works in part of the building but not in other parts.
There are parts in the building where there are no speakers so the intercom system
doesn‟t work. Mr. Norton said “I was trying to figure out and quickly realized that it is
because some people are in rooms that were meant to have people in them. For example,
the guidance counselor is in an old supply closet. Naturally a speaker hadn‟t been put in
a supply closet when the intercom system was put in however many years ago. The
assistant principal‟s office was built by Jack Devine who put up a wall himself in order to
have an assistant principal‟s office and that space has no speakers. In the teachers‟ room
there are no speakers. There is a parent workroom that is housed in a supply/electrical
closet.” Mr. Norton said that as part of the emergency procedures he has to assign people
to go into those rooms to make sure that the people in those rooms hear those
announcements that would be made in the drills that are involved practicing for an
emergency situation. Thankfully nothing has happened in such a case but that is part of
the school‟s procedures.
       Also, the school has a portable stage that is kept folded up when not in use. It has
to be unfolded when someone wants to use it. It is very rusty. The custodian says that
every time he opens up for someone to use it something falls off. It would be nice to get
a permanent stage or at least a replacement for the old beat up one. Their cafeteria tables
are starting to become outdated. Those items are going to need to be replaced in the next
few years.
       Mr. Norton said “the big thing is the lack of space at the school. The school nurse
shares a space with the occupational therapist. To an outsider that would seem insane. It
is because if any place should be a private place it should be the nurse‟s office where kids
are being treated and administered to. The occupational therapist has a desk in the
nurse‟s office and he serves his kids at a table in there and he also does OT services in the
hallway. Again, that is not a great thing. As mentioned, the assistant principal‟s office is
a make-shift office that was „built‟ a few years back. The reading specialist services
children in the hallway. The school‟s conference room is used as the string instrument
lesson room. The C wing still has portable walls and the classrooms in the C wing have
zero storage in them. The C wing at Green Acres was an addition that was built
sometime in the „70s and it was one of those open-concept designs. Since then they have
portable walls. They certainly serve a purpose but they‟re not ideal.” Much of the
storage of items are in the hallways. This presents safety issues. The C wing boiler room



Building & Sites Committee                   4                         January 28, 2008
is no longer function-able since 2 years the school was converted to gas. That boiler
room is a pretty good size room and the boiler was supposed to have been dismantled and
that room was to have been cleaned. For whatever reason that has not been done. Mr.
Norton said if that was to happen they could use that room for storing a lot of the things
that are being stored in the hallways. It could be a very function-able room. He would
think it could be something that is do-able and not at a lot of money.
        Finally, there are 3 portables currently at Green Acres. Two belong to the Deaf &
Hard of Hearing Program and the 3rd portable is used on one side by the school‟s 2 LD
teachers and the teacher for the visually impaired. And the other half of that portable is
used to house 5 staff members. That is way too many for a half of a portable. There is a
speech person, a health person, a reading specialist, an ELL teacher, and an EH teacher
all in that one half of a portable. Mr. Norton said “interestingly enough, Mr. Wallace
who is the Director of the Deaf & Hard of Hearing Program came to me Friday and said
he is anticipating an increase in the enrollment next year and he asked if there was any
room in the building. I said „no.‟ In fact I was going to be going to him to see if there
was any available space in his portables. But he has the same issue with crowding; or at
least that is what is anticipated for next year.”
        Mr. Norton said that Green Acres now is 2nd to Northwest Elementary School as
far as student population. Green Acres is hovering around the 600 mark. Northwest has
about 640 or 650 students. And construction is still going on in that part of the City. So
there are some concerns with space. He said “we‟re crunched and I don‟t see things
getting better and if anything I see things getting worse. According to the NESDEC
study a few years ago the operating capacity was 471. Again, they‟re at 600 students plus
about 60-70 staff members. So we are crowded.” He said that the items he brought
forward does not include items that were cited in the most recent fire-safety inspection
that took place. He knows there are some items with regard to doors and taking coat
racks out of hallways but those are in the report and he didn‟t bring those up at this time.
        Comm. Labanaris asked “with the cafeteria tables, isn‟t that part of the CERA
account? If the cafeteria tables are aging and they‟re not usable, maybe we could bring
this to the attention of School Food & Nutrition Services so we can get some of those
replaced for the students.” Chairman Beaudry said “that‟s where it should be.” Mr.
Norton asked “what procedure would I follow for replacing tables?” Ms. DeFrancis said
“normally you would call the Food Services director and once we have one in place we‟ll
get back into looking at the equipment and replacing anything that is needed. In the
meantime, if you want to send in your request you should determine how many tables
you need and once we get someone on board we‟ll look into replacing those.”

       Chairman Beaudry thanked the principals for their presentations. He said „we
welcome your comments but everything comes down to money. We‟ve got to prioritize
the list that we‟re compiling. Hopefully we‟re going to be able to achieve some of the
goals and address some of the concerns that have been talked about today. I don‟t want
the principals to think that coming here is for nothing because the Committee really
wants to know what is going on in our buildings and what the principals feel is a concern
in their building. We appreciate them coming and spending their time at the meetings.”




Building & Sites Committee                   5                        January 28, 2008
MST Renovation Project
       Principal White of the Manchester School of Technology came forward to update
the Committee regarding the school‟s renovation project. She said it has been a few
months since the last update. Everyone has been working very hard in getting ready for
construction. Since October they have been having meeting after meeting with engineers
and the Fire Department and with Red Robidas about security. They have meeting more
with the teachers to make sure that everything is just right as the project goes forward for
design. The drawings are nearly complete and they are very soon going to the Facilities
Division for review. The hope is that within the next month to 6 weeks the bid will go
out for the construction team. At very best, the hope is to start the project in April and at
the very worst in June to get everything going.
       Principal White said that one thing they are looking into with the State right now is
site construction. There isn‟t an exact list of things that the State is saying may not be
eligible for the matching funds that we have. So there was a conference call made this
morning with Tim Clougherty, Ms. DeFrancis, and herself and they talked with Ed
Murdoch and the person at the State who is responsible for this project with the Dept. of
Education. They wanted to be sure everyone is clear with everything that the District is
able to put in to get matched on. They clarified about the building aid that the District is
eligible for as well. That is the 55% building aid. They‟re waiting to hear back from the
State within the next week to make sure what to look for when crafting the budget.
       Comm. Labanaris asked “does that site construction work that we‟re talking about
impact the scope of the project at all?” Principal White said “it does because specifically
there are a couple of additions that are going on and that is where the impact is going to
be. We are looking at doing more improvements with the parking situation also because
obviously it is not very good at MST. There will be an addition to the auto wing and that
will be pushing out so that means that the road that is there already has to be moved
around that addition. That is why we need to get clarification on those type of things.”
Comm. Labanaris said “but the addition as we saw it and as it is planned will be built that
way at that size with that many rooms. Is that going to be impacted at all because of this
site construction that doesn‟t have any matching funds or is that not the case?” Principal
White said “we‟re still planning on going forward with that.” Comm. Labanaris said “it
will be as large a project with that many rooms and with that square footage as we had
talked about last spring.” Mr. Matuszewski came forward.
       He said “the addition that you‟re speaking about is the addition to the auto tech
program. These are necessary additions to satisfy accreditation and the improvements to
that course component at MST. The addition, by its very nature, is pushing out into the
existing driveway so therefore that driveway and utilities located beneath the driveway
and alongside the driveway need to be relocated. That piece of site work is directly a
result of the building improvements. The remainder of the site improvements are the
reconstruction of driveways and of parking. There is insufficient parking right now;
certainly for the students during the day and people who come to the night school
functions are parking on lawns and all over the place. Lighting is going to be affected so
the project will include improving the lighting there. So, yes, the site is directly impacted
by the building and its curriculum and its additions as well as site enhancements.”
       Comm. Labanaris said “the PASS Program is supposed to be 90 students with
classrooms in one section. Are those classrooms going to be built as part of the plan?”



Building & Sites Committee                    6                        January 28, 2008
Principal White said “yes, I did get clarification from the head person at the Dept. of Ed
and he said that absolutely the Governor has said that our renovation funds are going to
be used to expand the PASS Program. The hope is that will be done this summer.”
       Comm. Craig asked “as a new Board member I was wondering if I could get a
copy of the plan and the timeline for this project.” Principal White replied “absolutely.”
Comm. Craig asked “with the timeline, are things going according to the plan and are you
on target currently?” Principal White said “we‟re hoping that within the time that we
start building that it will be 18 months so we will finish within the 2 years that we are
allowed for the biennium. So far, so good.” Chairman Beaudry said “I think the toughest
part will be the start time.” Principal White said “right, and we‟re really pushing to make
that happen.” Chairman Beaudry said “you‟ve done a great job keeping up on this and
we appreciate the work.”

FY09 and FY10 CIP—Parks & Recreation
       Mr. Chuck DePrima from the Parks & Recreation Department came forward. He
said the Parks & Rec Dept. has identified 5 school site projects for the CIP list. He would
share the items in no particular order of importance. The Committee sets the priorities
with what they decide is most important. The first project is the Gossler/Parkside site
rehabilitation. The construction plans for that project are completed. They were funded
by the District in the previous year. Several presentations have been made on this project
to the Building & Sites Committee. He can provide new Committee members a set of
those plans. The construction estimate for the project is $1.6million. The hope is to
expedite this project if construction funds are obtained. It would be nice to be able to
break ground for the project the minute school lets out. It is a big project and it would be
good to have the site substantially complete by the time would start again in the
following fall. The parking at both sites will be drastically impacted by the project.
       The second project is the athletic field rehabilitation at Hillside Middle School.
That project is estimated at about $550,000. That would provide a rehabilitated athletic
field of the field that exists right now and it will get an additional athletic field adjacent to
the other. The third project is the Clem Lemire Sports Complex phase II project. The
estimate for that project is $1,650,000. That would result in several fields to the north of
the existing phase I project which is the track and the out-buildings and the synthetic field
inside the track. And in 2012 a request for an additional $1.2million would be requested
to renovate the existing baseball field to the south and the soccer field that is in the
outfield of that baseball field. That project would be to rehabilitate that area possibly
with synthetic turf to save wear and tear and maintenance costs.
       The fourth project would be the Parker/Varney design for $65,000. They would
meet with the principal and do basically the same thing that was done at the other 2
schools. In year 2 of that project, there would be a request of $750,000 to complete the
construction. With Highland Goffe‟s Falls School it would be a similar thing. There
would be a cost of $65,000 to get a completed design done by an engineer and to get the
project ready to go out to bid. In the 2nd year of the project an amount of $265,000 would
be requested to complete the renovations to that field. That would be the final and fifth
project.
       Chairman Beaudry asked Mr. DePrima that the Gossler/Parkside project is also to
be done to eliminate the traffic problems at those schools. Mr. DePrima agreed. He said



Building & Sites Committee                     7                          January 28, 2008
the project is to eliminate the traffic problem out there and to rehabilitate the athletic field
at the site. Chairman Beaudry said “and the Clem Lemire Complex was supposed to be a
2-year project but it kind of got left to the wayside. It was to build the 2 softball fields
and the all-purpose field in the middle.” Mr. DePrima said that was correct. Chairman
Beaudry said that these items would be prioritized on the entire CIP list with other CIP
priorities once all of the information and items were received by the other City
departments.
        Comm. Craig said “we have 5 items here. Are there any more? How did we come
up with these five items?” Mr. DePrima said “these were carried over from last year‟s
list that did not get completed. They were set in priority by the previous Committee.”
He said he would take suggestions if there were any other projects or sites to be added.
This is not a final list.
        Comm. Labanaris said she had a question regarding the playground sand issue that
the principals had brought to the Committee at last month‟s meeting and the month‟s
before. She asked “has anything happened?” Mr. DePrima replied “yes.” He said that
last Friday he drove around to the schools with one of Parks & Rec‟s contractors, JG
Construction, and they looked at each site individually. The sites were at Jewett Street
School, Smyth Road School, and Parker/Varney School. A rough estimate is around
$8,000 to $10,000 for him to remove the sand to a depth of 8 inches and then put down
fabric so that the sand doesn‟t work its way up through into the new wood surface. That
area would be loaded to 8 inches with a wood surface. Comm. Labanaris asked “do you
think we will complete those 3 projects in the spring, is that the hope?” Mr. DePrima
said “ if the money becomes available I‟d turn him loose the minute it does.” Comm.
Labanaris asked “do you think that will be the case that we will get the money and get it
done in the spring?” Mr. DePrima said “that depends on the Committee‟s decision.”
Chairman Beaudry said “one suggestion is to look at Community involvement, maybe
something like Adopt a Block, and working with the principals where people could come
in to clean the sand out and that would cut down on the cost. Then Mr. DePrima could
come in with the new material and put it in. This could be a Community-type event.”
Comm. Labanaris said “certainly the PTO at Parker/Varney was more than willing when
members came before the Committee to do whatever was necessary to make it happen so
I think they would be very happy to help.” Chairman Beaudry said that he believes the
same would be true with the other 2 schools and that should be something to look at with
the principals to see if something could be worked out in order to get this done this
spring. Comm. Labanaris said “so that is something we can look forward to getting done
this spring.” Chairman Beaudry said “I would like to see that as a priority to get done
this spring.”

FY09 and FY10 CIP—Facilities
       Mr. Tim Clougherty of the Facilities Division of the City along with Chief Burkush
of the Manchester Fire Department came forward. Chairman Beaudry asked that the
gentlemen go over the life-safety issues that are on the CIP recommendations of the
Facilities Division. The top 5 items on the list from the Facilities Division are life-safety
issues. He asked the Chief to speak about the timeframe and the plan to get the needed
work done.




Building & Sites Committee                     8                         January 28, 2008
        Mr. Clougherty said he would explain how they came up with these items. He and
his staff have been working with the Fire Department, mainly Chief Burkush and his
inspectors, in order to assess the inspection reports that were generated between the
period of last August to October. There were significant deficiencies that were identified
at some locations. They have taken those deficiencies and categorized them and then
included them into a capital program. Those are the top 4 items on the list furnished by
the Facilities Division as shown on page 19 of the Committee‟s agenda material. Items
that need to be addressed include corridor doors, fire suppression, separation of spaces,
and sprinkler installations.
        Chairman Beaudry said that a question he had as far as sprinkler systems and door
closures is extensive work was done at a lot of schools with the design/build regarding
new doors and there was a lot of major construction done. He asked “why wasn‟t that
incorporated in the design/build right from the onset. While they were up there ripping
down ceilings would have been the time to put in a sprinkler system and it would have
been cheaper to do it at that time. Now they‟re going to go back to do it all over again.
When I saw this that was the 1st thing that came to my mind. The question was why
didn‟t we do that under the design/build where it was such a major renovation project and
a lot of the work would have been able to be somewhat done to put a new sprinkler
system in when the ceiling work was being done.”
        Chief Burkush said “we looked at all 23 schools but not all of the 23 schools were
part of the design/build. The code that was probably referenced during that project
probably didn‟t have those included. The code is very specific and it talks about smoke
separation and sprinklers. That is what the code attempts to do which is to make a smoke
barrier in buildings that are not equipped with sprinklers. That is Citywide in all of the
schools.” Mr. Clougherty said “as far as the sprinklers go, the sprinklers that we‟re
talking about are primarily in buildings that didn‟t have major renovations like Memorial
or Central. With buildings like Hallsville Elementary School, for example, parts of the
building are sprinkled but there are other parts that aren‟t. This would recognize fire
suppression systems in the areas that aren‟t.”
        Chairman Beaudry asked “can we defer some of this to the Joint Building
Committee?” He said this is over a million dollars just in life-safety issues. I know with
the OCEP money there is going to be about $750,000 that will be coming back to the
School District. Can that money be used to be put in to the life-safety issues that we‟re
talking about right here?” Mr. Clougherty said “my opinion would be that it could but I
think that would have to be verified by the Finance Officer as well as with the City
Solicitor‟s Office. I would recommend keeping these at a high priority in the CIP process
with the list that the School District submits to the City in case funding doesn‟t come to
fruition through the design/build.” He said “we‟ve made a commitment to address these
deficiencies and we want to keep that at the forefront of our thoughts regardless of where
the funding is.” Chairman Beaudry said “I agree. I think life-safety issues are definitely
paramount. It is somewhat frustrating that we have priorities that were set by the District
yet it seems that year after year something comes up which bounces the priorities of the
School District down because some emergency issue comes up. I look at this stuff and I
still question why this wasn‟t acknowledged throughout the design/build project. Life-
safety issues should have been the main thing that we looked at during that project.
There was a million dollars worth of work that was left undone. You know, closing in of



Building & Sites Committee                  9                        January 28, 2008
the schools was a top priority of the School Board but we only have so much bonding.
Looking at a million dollars in addition to others could knock down that project of
closing in of the open-concept schools for another year. So it may be another year where
we may not get another school closed in. That is a concern that I have with the
priorities.”
       Chief Burkush said “we‟ve been working with Public Services on this for the past
year since I have been in the office. We are mandated by the State Fire Marshall to
enforce the code. We don‟t have any leeway. The only thing we can grant is a time
schedule to address the deficiencies. That is what Mr. Clougherty has put together. This
CIP list gives us an actual schedule for us to work towards code compliance. We went to
the schools, we found these deficiencies, and we‟ve talked to Mr. Clougherty about this,
and we don‟t see where there is any leeway. What we need to do is to have an actual
plan and this is a good plan and we want to see it followed. We can grant time but we
really need to stay on a schedule.”
       Chairman Beaudry asked “if those 4 items were done would that take care of our
life-safety issues in all of our schools at this point or is there going to be more coming
down the road?” Mr. Clougherty said “as soon as the code changes I‟ll guarantee there
will be more coming down the road. I think I can say with confidence, and correct me if
I‟m wrong, Chief, that these would take care of the current code.”
       Comm. Craig asked “are these new places to have this implemented. We, a few
Board members, were at Southside and the magnets on the doors were not working and
they had those doors propped open. So would that include fixes to things that are broken
or is this just for schools that don‟t have this?” Mr. Clougherty said “it is a mixture of
both. The issue at Southside, I believe the contractor started on that work today and the
hope is to have that done within about 2 weeks. The contractor is saying 2 weeks but I‟ll
say it may be closer to 4 weeks.” Comm. Craig asked “so these are schools that don‟t
have sprinklers and are we looking at all schools to make sure that everything is
working?” Mr. Clougherty said “we‟re looking at all schools to make sure everything is
working. The lion share of the list here on page 19 is not to address deficient door
hardware like a broken magnet or things like that. It would be for door hardware that
doesn‟t exist. What we‟re talking about is for example at Jewett Street School or at
Green Acres School the classroom doors don‟t have any automatic ability to close. So
we would be putting pneumatic door closures on them so the door would automatically
close when someone opens it and walks away. That creates a barrier for smoke.”
       Chairman Beaudry said “at Southside, those closures were done in the
design/build. They were garbage and that is why they broke. They removed metal ones
and put plastic ones in and they‟re not holding up to the beating that the kids give. So
that should be done within the design/build project with the contractors coming back and
repairing that.” Comm. Craig said “I just want to make sure that if we‟re going through
the exercise of making sure that all of our schools are compliant I want to make sure that
they are.”
       Mr. Clougherty said “I think it necessary to say that there has been quite a renewed
effort to look at some of the code issues not just those that are local but also from the
State. The State did play a part in reviewing the plans that were submitted for the
design/build project. That $105million was eligible for State aid and it is being
reimbursed through State aid. So the State Fire Marshall‟s Office as well as the DOE



Building & Sites Committee                  10                        January 28, 2008
took part in approving said plans. While there are some issues that remain we did take
great strides in replacing fire alarm systems at Southside, Hillside, Memorial, Central,
and West. We installed new sprinkler systems throughout Southside and Hillside and we
put in fire separation barriers in all of the high schools and the middle schools. I‟m
keying in on the middle schools and the high schools because those are the ones that
require things such as fire separation barriers because of their mass, the large area that
they have, and their height. The smaller schools don‟t require that.” He said “I may be
preaching to the choir Chairman Beaudry with your background but life safety was a key
component in the $105million project. Unfortunately, looking back, now 8 years since
we put the scope together it fell a little bit short today but I think we did make some great
strides. And I think this would really close that loop.”
       Chairman Beaudry said he had a question with the door closures. He said that at
the fire station that he had worked at they put a door closure on and the thing was so hard.
The comment that was made was that because it was a commercial building it had to have
a certain rate of pressure for closure. He asked “how is that going to work in the
elementary schools? Those closures work so hard that the kids won‟t be able to open the
doors.” Mr. Clougherty said “they can be adjusted. Actually there is a foot pound rating,
a force rating that they have to be adjusted to so that they meet the Americans with
Disabilities Act. It can‟t be too heavy to use. The door magnets are supposed to slow to
slow down the action of the door as it gets to a 90-degree position but they weren‟t doing
that and they were allowing the doors to smash into the magnetic hold-opens on the floor.
So it‟s not just the magnets but it‟s the door closures as well.”
       Chairman Beaudry said that a concern of the principal at Southside was there was
one door that had no handles. Once the door closed, the students couldn‟t open the fire
doors to go through the hallway. If they were tall enough they could grab the magnet on
top and pull the door open but if they were egressing out of the front of the building
heading west they wouldn‟t be able to go through that set of doors because there were no
handles. Mr. Clougherty said “as I said, they‟re starting that project today. If a situation
like that exists I would invite the principals to call Barbara Connor or the Superintendent
or call me.” Chairman Beaudry said “I‟m telling you tonight that it does exist. We were
there just the other day visiting there. It‟s the hallway that runs east and west by the
office. If you walk into the main door and you go by the office and you take a right it‟s
right there. It‟s the first set of fire doors and there are no handles on the east side of the
doors.”
       Chief Burkush said “the inspectors go through every school and they compile a list
and they forward the list of the deficiencies to the principals. And now we‟re working
with Mr. Clougherty. We need to hold to a CIP list. Going forward we would hope that
the School Board would continue to sprinkle the buildings. We‟d like to see all of the
school buildings in the City with sprinklers. That is the best protection, by far, for life
and property. We saw in Malden, MA where they had a school fire. We had a fire in
Central last year in a bathroom that was extinguished by the sprinklers. We would
encourage this Board to continue on a CIP program of doing at least one school a year. It
would make a tremendous increase in life safety. We can‟t say that enough. For
instance, the cafeteria at Webster School is below grade. It is required to have a sprinkler
system but there is no sprinkler system there. We want to keep this moving and we want
a CIP program to continue like this so the State Fire Marshall doesn‟t come in and note



Building & Sites Committee                   11                         January 28, 2008
the deficiencies. They have closed a school in Rochester. It is good we have re-
established a new relationship with Public Buildings Services and that is going to
continue going forward in our administration.”
        Comm. Craig asked “is there a plan in place that outlines the schools and what their
deficiencies are and then a timeline associated with it?” Chief Burkush said “this is the
first step in the addressing of the deficiencies. The deficiencies are noted and Mr.
Clougherty has reacted to them and he has come up with a plan which we need to see in
this process.” Chairman Beaudry said “I think what Comm. Craig is asking is with the
top 4 items, for example with #4, it‟s a recommendation for $525,000 to have a sprinkler
installed. Is that for one building or is that for 3 buildings? Can you give us a breakdown
of what that is going to and for what building is it going to?” Mr. Clougherty said he
could provide that breakdown but he didn‟t have it with him at the meeting. Chairman
Beaudry said that would be helpful to have.
        Comm. Craig said “and Chief, if you are requiring or asking for a timeline of other
things if there are more than these what is the recommendation from your perspective as
to when things need to be updated.” Chief Burkush said he could put together that kind
of recommendation. He said that some of these items on the list are for partial sprinkler
systems. The City of Manchester, by ordinance, doesn‟t allow for any partial sprinkler
systems in any buildings. In buildings such as Wilson School and Hallsville School that
have partial sprinklers that is probably what this is referring to. The buildings need to be
fully sprinkled and that is according to City ordinance.
        Chairman Beaudry thanked Chief Burkush for coming to the meeting. He said “
I‟m glad that we have a working relationship together. If there is any other information
that you can disseminate to this Committee, please do so.” Chief Burkush said “this is a
good forum. If you need to have an inspector come to one of your meetings just email us.
I think that a lot of communication issues would clear up just by having this venue.”

       Chairman Beaudry asked Mr. Clougherty to continue with the rest of the Facilities
Division requests. Mr. Clougherty said “we have 30 items plus and they all have quite a
bit of back-up. I‟m happy to go through them one by one but some of them are pretty self
explanatory.” Chairman Beaudry said “these are not in any priority order either. We‟re
going to prioritize them this evening. I‟m assuming the life-safety items would be a
priority of the Committee.” Mr. Clougherty said that he had written a letter to Ms.
DeFrancis. He said that they prioritized these items based on what is called „capital asset
preservation‟. If you were to do nothing to your buildings, program-wise, and they were
all fine; just to preserve the asset that you have, that is our approach to this. The
additions and changing the way that you teach, ie open-classroom eliminations, would be
low on the priority list. But obviously from an educational perspective you‟re going to
want to prioritize them however you want and submit that to the CIP Committee.
Chairman Beaudry said “it is already on record that the Board has voted the top priority is
to close in our schools. That was a top priority of this Committee and of the Full Board.
But the MST project came about and we dropped the closing in of the schools because we
needed to fund MST. Now we have safety issues that are coming up and they may get
done depending on where we get the money from. It was a top priority of the Full Board
for a number of years to get the open-classrooms closed in.”




Building & Sites Committee                  12                        January 28, 2008
       Chairman Beaudry said “I understand that you‟re looking at the maintenance of our
buildings but we‟re looking at the educational atmosphere of the building also.” Tim
Clougherty said “I know there are 2 different perspectives and hopefully we‟ll find a way
to meld those.”
       Comm. Labanaris said she had a question on the HVAC complaints that come from
principals time after time when they come before this Committee. She asked “is it
common for you to send a person to check a heating system three times a week? Is that
the way things should be going or why are they going that way?” Mr. Clougherty said “I
don‟t think that is the way things should be going. I think in some instances that is the
way things are going. I certainly appreciate Mr. Puglisi‟s concerns and I‟m going to look
into how many work orders we‟ve gotten from West and what the nature of those work
orders are and what the „resolution‟ has been and talk with some of our technicians. If
there is a systemic problem over there we certainly want to address it rather than just
keeping going back 3 times a week and putting a Band-aid on something.”
       Comm. Labanaris asked “do you think you could share that information with this
Committee?” Mr. Clougherty replied “most definitely.” Comm. Labanaris said that that
would be helpful. She said “but it isn‟t just West. I mean every principal to a person
who comes before this Committee shares that same problem. Some parts of the building
are very cold and others are very warm and the air is very dry and they just can‟t seem to
regulate it. And even when I talked with Principal Battistelli the other day she told me
that sometimes in the morning when they come in it is very hot and then it gets very cold
and then it gets very hot again. So it isn‟t even just a section of the building. It can vary
with the time of day where the temperatures change dramatically.”
       Mr. Clougherty said “a time of day does have some influence on it. I know for a
fact that the south side of the building at McDonough is hot but the front of the building
that has a southern exposure is cold. That building actually generates heat. I‟m not
exactly sure how, I want to bottle it and sell it because I‟ve a lot of engineers and
mechanical contractors go through there. We‟ll shut off the heat and then through the
night it stays warm. Other buildings, I don‟t want to make light of the situation, but at no
point in time are we going to make everybody happy. That‟s a fact. Some people like it
at 68 degrees and some people like it at 78 degrees and some people would rather have it
at 62 degrees. If you do a survey of any school and it is 72 degrees throughout the school
you‟re going to find people tell you that it is hot or it is cold or it is drafty or it is too
humid. What I concentrate on are those areas where it is 90 degrees or it‟s 60 degrees. It
certainly shouldn‟t be at those extremes. We should see lows of 67 degrees and highs of
74 degrees or 75 degrees at the outset. I‟ve spoken with Ms. DeFrancis and at the time
Supt. Ludwell about establishing a District temperature control policy both for energy
management as well as for years of maintenance. If the Board adopts a policy that says
that we heat to 68 degrees or 69 degrees and we air condition to 74 or 75 degrees that
would help me do my job. I‟ll be able my staff if they walk in somewhere and someone
tells you that it is too hot or too cold or the heat is on or it‟s off but the temperature is in
the designated range they can walk away because it is an occupant-comfort issue. It
would help with the District‟s energy bills. He said they get requests in the summertime
on a regular basis to run a school‟s air conditioning 5 days a week because “I‟m not sure
when I‟m going to be in here”. He said “well, we don‟t say no but we don‟t do that but
that is the way that some of the buildings are operated.”



Building & Sites Committee                    13                         January 28, 2008
        Comm. Labanaris said “you control the heat from where you are and the school
itself doesn‟t control the heat. Or does it?” Mr. Clougherty said “we have the ability to
control the heat in most areas. A lot of areas still have local control where there are
pneumatic thermostats or they aren‟t what is referred to as „direct digital control‟
thermostats.” Comm. Labanaris asked “what is the advantage? The principals with
whom I speak always have that complaint. They have to call to say that it is too cold or it
is too hot and then somebody turns the thermostat down but then it gets to the other
extreme. Their inability to control the temperature in their own buildings is the
frustrating part for them. So how does that work with whoever controls that? How does
that work throughout the District?” Mr. Clougherty said “we generally have the
temperature setting set in the area of 68 or 69 degrees to heat and somewhere in the area
of 74 or 75 degrees to cool.” Comm. Labanaris asked “is there a control panel?” Mr.
Clougherty said “it‟s a computerized system. We talk to it through the school network
through the City network. It is an Internet-based system. The guys can access it from
their house so that if they get a call at night they can call it up on their computer and
check out what the issue is. Maybe it is a boiler failure or a pump failure or something
like that. They try to solve it without getting in their truck. The advantage of that is
you‟re standardizing the system and if in fact it is heating or cooling to 68 or 69 degrees
as it is and you don‟t have the opportunity for local control you don‟t have the
opportunity for people turning it up to 76 or 78 degrees.” Comm. Labanaris said “but
they‟re still suffering though with the idea that they‟re going from a 30 degree variance
with the temperature in their buildings at various times of the day.” Mr. Clougherty said
“again, those are the areas that I would like to concentrate on fixing. If we go in and it‟s
67 or 69 degrees and someone is telling us that it is cold and a lot of times that is the case
but I‟m not saying that the case all of the time because some times that is the case. That
is not that grave of an issue and it will be low on our priority list.” Comm. Labanaris said
“I‟ll be interested to see that back-up information that you have, at least with West High
School. Mr. Clougherty said he would provide a history of all of the work orders that
they have. He can give the information by location, by type, air conditioning and
heating, and whatever.
         Mr. Clougherty said “one other thing I wanted to mention when we were talking
about energy is I mentioned to Ms. DeFrancis that we‟re going to be undertaking a
benchmarking study of the schools. We‟re going to be looking at the history of all of the
utility bills over the past few years, our fossil fuel consumption, the electricity
consumption, and putting an aggregate analysis together to compare to some other cities
in New England and their schools. You know Portsmouth, NH may have some different
days and Hartford, CT or whatever. We‟ll use that as a general analysis but we‟re going
to be able to look at one school versus another. For instance, Highland versus
Parker/varney or Southside versus Hillside and Smyth, Gossler, and Jewett versus each
other. We want to try to figure out where the areas are that have a potential for savings.”
        Chairman Beaudry said he wished to go back to a question that Comm. Labanaris
had asked. He said “with the example you gave with the school that has the southern
exposure, what happens to the northern part of that building that doesn‟t get sun until
2:00 in the afternoon. They‟re going to be cold and if you have a central location that is
keeping the heat at 68 degrees it may be 80 degrees on the south side but it may be 68 or
even colder because there is no sun coming in on the north side of the building. So how



Building & Sites Committee                   14                         January 28, 2008
can we change that so maybe that south side doesn‟t need any heat at all?” Mr.
Clougherty said “in that instance at McDonough, each classroom has a thermostat. So
you have more than one zone. Say it gets down to 15 degrees tonight and the classrooms
on the south side heat up to maintain a set-back temperature of 62 or something like that.
Then at 6:00 in the morning we turn it up to warm it up for the teachers and the building
heats up. On the south side all of the valves open and it heats up to 68 or 69 or 70
degrees or whatever it is. Then the sun comes up in the east and it goes over and you get
sun coming in in the classrooms. Well in the morning the heat was on in the south side
because there was no sun coming in in the classrooms. So the classrooms are heating up
and the sun is beating down so it overheats a little bit. On the north side that isn‟t seeing
the sun the heat continues to run and it cycles to maintain the 68 degrees or whatever the
thermostat setting is. So you have multiple zones if you will that just maintain whatever
that set point is, hopefully.” Comm. Craig said “so the heat does kick on and it will turn
off.” Mr. Clougherty said “it will kick on and turn off. What we have at McDonough is
it heats up and it shuts off but it continues to radiate and it continues to gain heat from
solar gain. We did such a good job insulating the school with the new brick and window
systems that the heat isn‟t dissipating anymore like it used to through the leaky
windows.”
       Chairman Beaudry said that that is a concern with some of the schools. He said
that he knows that at Bakersville School the windows are in rough shape and that causes
a problem because there is air coming through the windows. Mr. Clougherty said that
Bakersville has no southern exposure other than a stairwell and it is brick.
       Chairman Beaudry asked Mr. Clougherty to give a brief explanation of #5, the
State mandated oil piping upgrades for 11 schools. Mr. Clougherty said “the DES
requires us to upgrade the piping that goes from oil tanks to schools on a given basis
based on the age of the piping. Each of the oil tanks has a number and we have to have
them tested each year in accordance with DES regulations. There are some locations
where I believe by 2010 we have to have that piping replaced between the tank and the
boiler room.” Chairman Beaudry asked “so this $75,000 for 11 schools, would that take
us through to 2010 or would we have to have more again next year?” Mr. Clougherty
said “it‟s $75,000 for FY09 and there is a request of $90,000 for FY10.” He said that is
not a matter of simply replacing piping when talking about oil tanks. It is a highly
regulated industry. We have to submit a plan to the State and it has to be stamped by a
licensed engineer. So it is not like just replacing a piece of pipe in a boiler room. That is
why it is quite a cost.
       Chairman Beaudry said “I know you were here when the principals were speaking
so can you give us a little overview as far as the tile complaints they have and tiles being
broken and with West where there still are asbestos tiles. I thought in the major
renovation all asbestos tile was supposed to be mitigated. We spent over a million dollars
to get the asbestos abated yet we still have asbestos tiles at West.” Mr. Clougherty said
“we still have asbestos tiles at West and we do still have asbestos in a lot of our schools.
We have the asbestos management plan that follows the Aheera Act. The design/build
was never meant to rid our schools of all asbestos. That is a misnomer that has been out
there for a number of years. That was never the intention by any stretch of the
imagination. We would have been tearing some buildings down in order to get rid of all
of the asbestos. For example, Memorial High School. Memorial has asbestos in the



Building & Sites Committee                   15                        January 28, 2008
plaster that is underneath some of the walls. You‟d have to basically tear it down to get
rid of all of it economically. As far as the floor tiles go, at West I am familiar with the
area that Mr. Puglisi mentioned but I am not familiar with the condition of the tile. I will
certainly make myself familiar with it and if it requires replacement or it is in a condition
that we don‟t want to see we‟ll address it.” Chairman Beaudry asked “and about the floor
tiles in the hallways that Mr. DiBenedetto was talking about?” Mr. Clougherty said that
those are non-asbestos containing material. Those are ceramic floor tiles. They are
original to the building. I believe it was 1959 or something that the building was built. It
was Immaculata High School at the time. Yes, they‟re in tough shape. We‟ve repaired
them over the years. It is a significant capital project not only for the cost perspective but
a timing perspective. To tie up all of those hallways we‟d have to do the work over the
summer. It is on our the Facilities Division CIP requests and it was on last year and I
believe the year before as well. I welcome the opportunity to improve that for the
students, staff, and faculty at McDonough along with the removal of the lockers which
are also original to the building. They‟re in tough shape. That would be another pretty
significant project. When you take the lockers there is a bare cinder-block wall behind
them and that would have to be patched and prepped and painted in order to receive the
cubbies that they‟re looking for. He said “ we‟d have to work with the Chief and the
Manchester School District to come up with a feasible alternative. The Fire Deparment
often discourages the hanging of coats and other things in hallways because it limits the
amount of egress that you have but in this particular situation I‟m fairly confident that
we‟d be able to work something out because the lockers sit on platforms that are actually
outside the path of travel.
        Chairman Beaudry said “speaking of that, Mr. Norton mentioned his coat cubbies
that they may have to put that in the classroom. Has that been verified through the Fire
Department and is that something that is going to be worked?” Mr. Clougherty said „m
not sure exactly where that stands. The inspection reports speak not just to building-
related issues but there are also program-related issues. For example, how the School
District uses a building. For example the elimination of storage in electrical rooms and
elimation of storage in hallways and things like that. It‟s really a combined where the
Facilities Division will help the Committee help the School District meet those goals and
meet the expectation reports in their totality and we‟ll spare the effort on the capital
improvement side.”
        Chairman Beaudry asked “when these reports come through do you get a copy of
those?” Ms. DeFrancis said “I believe that they go to the principals. I have seen some at
the beginning of the year but they don‟t come directly to me.” Chairman Beaudry said
“maybe we should send a memo out that any life-safety issue that is being brought up in
an inspection the District should be notified.” Ms. DeFrancis said she was sure they are
sent to Dr. Aliberti and they were forwarded to me.
        Comm. Craig said “I keep going back to the bench-marking study that was
mentioned. I‟d be really interesting to see that. I‟m wondering what the timeline of that
is.” Mr. Clougherty said “we‟re collecting the data now. Actually on Wednesday
morning we have someone coming in to get the data. We have data that goes back to
1998 but we haven‟t had the time to assemble it for at least the past year so we have a
couple of file boxes that need to be sorted through.” Comm. Craig asked “will you look
at window updates because that would affect energy costs and will you take that into



Building & Sites Committee                   16                         January 28, 2008
account or are you strictly looking at bills that you‟ve paid?” Mr. Clougherty said “no.
I‟m going to be looking at McDonough Elementary School for example. Unless you
have a real in depth knowledge of what was done at each location it is hard to just say
we‟re using less electricity or more of this or that. We don‟t care about the cost, we want
to look at the consumption and how many BTUs per square foot are we using.
McDonough is a good school to look at because we replaced the boilers there a couple of
years ago and then we replaced the windows and the roof. So what did our heating bills
look like in 2001 and what do they look like today? Did that improve things?” He said
that there is another grant that they‟re looking at. He has been talking with the Planning
Department about that and it would allow us potentially to have money to take advantage
of the technologies that we see working. Right now they have been running by the seat
of their pants, if you will. He said “we‟ve instituted some great technologies and we‟ve
put on some white roofs and we‟ve put on total energy recovery units throughout our
schools and energy-efficient pumps and boilers and things like that but we haven‟t had
the time or the resources to go back to look if these things actually worked and how much
did it work. So we‟re trying to take advantage of that right now.”
       Comm. Labanaris asked “could you speak briefly about the boiler room
dismantlement at Green Acres that Mr. Norton brought up?” Mr. Clougherty said “I‟d
want to go into that boiler room myself and give a recommendation on whether or not I‟d
put someone in there. It‟s been a boiler room since 1972 when the building was built. It
housed an oil boiler all that time. We‟ve had oil leaks. I‟d be real hesitant to throw
someone in there without looking at it in detail. I don‟t want to put the District in a
position of liability if there is oil encased in the concrete there. I don‟t how you would
encapsulate that. I would really be hesitant to throw somebody in there. I‟m not
denegrading Mr. Norton but there is more to it than just putting up some walls I believe
in this case.” Comm. Labanaris said “and taking out the boiler.” Mr. Clougherty said
“taking out the boiler would be the easy part.”
       Chairman Beaudry said “as far as the federal projects, the ADA door hardware,
what is that? And the Bakersville elevator? Is that something that will be done this year?
I mean they‟ve been waiting for the elevator for quite some time and it has been a big
concern over there because with disabilities have to be transported to a different school
and if there is a teacher that is injured they end up having to get transferred to a different
school because they don‟t have accessibility to all of the floors.”
       Mr. Clougherty said “I‟ll answer the first part of your question. Item #13, the ADA
door hardware, what we‟re doing is continuing with our program of replacing door
hardware to make sure that all of the door hardware in all of the schools is in accordance
with the IDEA. That is what that $450,000 is for. I believe that would complete that
program. Item #21, the Bakersville elevator addition, has been on the list. It was on
there last year. I can‟t speak to whether that is going to get funded or not. That is a
question better answered by City Hall and the CIP staff.”
       Chairman Beaudry said “you say CIP but if my memory serves me right I thought
someone came before us at one time and told us that federal money pays for one elevator
a year and they were talking about the Manchester Fire Department last year was the next
building to get an elevator put in and then Bakersville would have been behind them. I
don‟t know if they‟ve put an elevator in yet at the Central Station but Bakersville has
been waiting for quite some time. Can you tell us at all about how the federal money



Building & Sites Committee                   17                         January 28, 2008
comes in and do you know about that program?” Mr. Clougherty said “I don‟t. That
would be with our Planning Dept. and I don‟t know what type of allocation we get and
how it is prioritized but I can tell you that there was no elevator installed at the Central
Fire Station last year.”
       Chairman Beaudry said “maybe we can find out who that was and have them come
to our next meeting.” Ms. DeFrancis said “it was a conversation I had last year with the
Planning Dept. and they said that the fire house would have an elevator installed. I guess
each year there are some federal funds, some community funds, I don‟t remember the
terminology that they used, but each they receive enough to fund an elevator. So if we
wanted to have Bakersville on the list we could apply for that funding.” Mr. Clougherty
said “that‟s the Community Development Block Grants, the CDBG, that you‟re referring
to.” Chairman Beaudry asked “is that the money that the door closures will be coming
out of?” Mr. Clougherty said that was correct. Chairman Beaudry asked “do you know
how much we receive a year?” Mr. Clougherty said that he did not.
       Chairman Beaudry said that he had a question that should have been brought up to
Mr. DePrima of Parks & Rec before he had left. He said “Comm. Craig and I talked
before the meeting about the plowing. Parks & Rec does our plowing. The question is
why Webster so expensive to plow when most of the building is on Elm Street which the
City plows. We‟re looking at the difference between Webster and say Highland or Green
Acres, which has a large parking lot, and the cost was fairly similar.” Comm. Craig said
“and other schools that have not a large parking lot?” Mr. Clougherty said that he didn‟t
have an answer for that. Ms. DeFrancis said she would call Mr. DePrima and have an
answer for the Finance Committee meeting to be held next week.

ACTION SESSION
City Service Invoices
    Chairman Beaudry said he had several questions regarding the invoices as copied on
pages 44 and 45 of the agenda material. He referred to page 44 and the notation of
Central‟s James Building plumbing and a pipe sticking up out of the floor. He said that
the James Building got a lot of work done in the design/build so how would a pipe be
sticking up out of a floor that is quite a few years old and why wasn‟t that taken care of in
the design/build. Mr. Clougherty said “I don‟t have the answer for every one of these. I
apologize for that. I do know what a lot of them are but not every single one of them.”
He said “these are held-back invoices from FY07 so these monies have already been set
aside and these things have already been paid for by the School District, if you will.”
Chairman Beaudry asked “how would we pay for something before we OK it?” Ms.
DeFrancis said “they weren‟t actually paid but they were encumbered from last year‟s
funds. We were aware that these projects would be done so we encumbered the funds so
that we did not have to take it out of ‟08. Now the projects have been done we have to
pay the City for the services.” Mr. Clougherty said “it wasn‟t that it took this long to
complete all of these. There were a few outstanding that we needed to close the
paperwork on and we had some delinquent vendors that didn‟t get us the paperwork.”
        Comm. Labanaris asked “what are „q balls‟? Mr. Clougherty said “they are the
little rubber things that we put on the bottom of chair legs to prevent them from tearing
up the floors.” Comm. Labanaris said she had a question about the Classical Building
and the repair of the yellow-brick columns on the Beech Street entrance. She asked “am



Building & Sites Committee                   18                        January 28, 2008
I correct in saying that we did some pretty extensive work there and also on the Practical
Arts Building at the entrances? Does this have anything to do with that or is that
something different?” Mr. Clougherty said “we did and it does have everything to do
with that. We did the entrances to the Classical Building on the south elevation which is
the courtyard. We also did the west elevation and we did the concrete walls along Beech
Street from the Practical Arts Building heading south. That is what you see here.”
Comm. Labanaris said “so this is all part of that same project then?” Mr. Clougherty said
that was right. He said “it is stuff that was done last summer.” He said “when I said we
were looking for paperwork we weren‟t looking for paperwork for every one of these but
we wanted to send them all together so that we could all clean our books at once rather
than going back and closing out items one by one.”
       Comm. Labanaris said she had a question regarding the buckling of the gym floor
at Parkside. She said “first it starts at $22,000 on one listing and then it goes to $29,000
and then finally there is another listing of $52,120. All of these were for the damaged
flooring. Does that complete everything all the way out as far as it was molded and
rotted?” Mr. Clougherty said “it does. Page 49 has a pretty good breakdown. We started
off with the 1st three items; the demo of water-damaged flooring, the damage to the
pressure-treated plywood, sand refinishing, and the relining of the floor. Those 1st three
things were what our estimate of what the damage was because that was what we could
see. That is where the floor was visibly distorted. When we got into it and started cutting
it away I came to this Committee and said we had a problem that was much more
substantial than we had anticipated and was given authorization to move forward until we
found clean, dry wood. And that is what we did and that what is that $29,750
represents.” Comm. Labanaris said “so the total cost of the project then is $52,120.” Mr.
Clougherty said “I think that is correct.” Comm. Labanaris asked “when are we going to
see the remaining amounts on this since this particular chargeback only comes to
$22,370. Will that be coming forward later or …..” Mr. Clougherty said “I think you
have already seen that; the initial $22,000 previously.” Comm. Labanaris asked “and that
$22,000 is included in the $52,000 cost or is that a separate charge in addition to the
$52,120 that appears on page 49.”
       Ms. DeFrancis said “I think I may be able to clarify. I think the total invoice is
$52,120. What they‟re doing on page 49 in the little handwritten marks on the side of
that page is reducing $22,370 because the City‟s Facilities Department budget had set
aside $22,370 to fund the project. Mr. Clougherty said “which is shown on page 45.”
Ms. DeFrancis said “so the balance that we owe or the balance on this invoice is the
$29,750. So $22,370 was reserved out of their budget from last year and when the
project came in for more money we said that we would reserve that money out of the
FY07 surplus.” Comm. Labanaris said “so we owe them $29,750 now.” Ms. DeFrancis
said “right, because that $22,370 was included in a previous City Service invoice.”
Comm. Labanaris said “that‟s good.”
        Chairman Beaudry referred to the item listed as „Parkside, the old building,
HVAC, drop sprinkler heads heat detectors, and lights‟. Again Parkside was part of the
design/build I believe. Why wasn‟t that stuff done then? Then there is another item
listed as „Parkside, the old building, insulate and install ceiling‟. If you had to take the
ceiling tiles out to drop the lights and the sprinkler heads why wouldn‟t they have
insulated while the ceiling tiles were out instead of double billing us like that?” Mr.



Building & Sites Committee                  19                        January 28, 2008
Clougherty said “we didn‟t do anything with the ceilings at Parkside under the
design/build. That was done in 1998 when the addition was constructed. The entire
building was sprinkled. There was no addition at Parkside and there were no ceilings
necessary to be messed around will, if you will.” Chairman Beaudry asked “if the
building was sprinkled back then why weren‟t the heads dropped at that point? Did they
do something differently that they had to drop the heads?” Mr. Clougherty said “it could
have been just a remodel of the small area. It‟s $850. That‟s basically the size of a
classroom for ceiling work.” Chairman Beaudry asked “now the insulating and installing
in the ceiling, would that be the same building and again why wouldn‟t that have been
done at the same time if the ceiling tiles had to be taken out to drop the lights?” Mr.
Clougherty said “the work order is the same, it‟s #7263. What we have the ability to do
is to generate an invoice based on a partial work order so it is not necessarily completed
when we‟ve performed some work on it. I‟ve been working extensively with our new
computerized maintenance system to understand our invoicing to the District and also
how we can disseminate the information a little bit better to you. In working with
Barbara Connor, we‟ve decided on a process, if you will, that we won‟t be sending any
bills to the School District until the entire work order is complete. Part of the issue is
what you‟re talking about right here. You may have item #7263 about dropped sprinkler
heads and the next month you have an item #7263 to put in a ceiling, well gee they‟re the
same things. Why wasn‟t it done? So what we‟re going to do is we‟re going to
completely close out the work orders and then send the bill. We‟re going to make it a
little bit easier and the District will be able to see all of the different line items associated
with whatever task or work order there is.”
        Chairman Beaudry said “with Jewett Street, I know that that building has all new
HVAC but there is a work order to repair damage and missing insulation with the
breachings. Why wouldn‟t that be part of the design/build?” Mr. Clougherty said “we
didn‟t do anything with the boiler with the design/build. That boiler was installed
probably in the late „90s or early 2000. You see „repair, damage, missing insulation on
breaching‟ well the breaching may not have been insulated so we went back for this.
With Jewett, Smyth, McDonough, those all boilers that are about 10 years old. There
didn‟t just happen to be a problem with insulation where it was just falling off at these
schools. We look at them and recognize that we have the funding available to perform
some upgrades at the end of the fiscal year and we recommended doing those for energy
efficient measures.”
        Comm. Craig said “I have a question based on what you just said. Do you have a
list per school of fixes that have been done of major fixes like the replacing of a boiler
with what needs to be done so that we can look to the future and say this is what we‟re
going to need to do in 10, 20, 30 years.” Mr. Clougherty replied “no. I have a list of the
stuff that has taken place. We also have a capital asset plan. Unfortunately the mode that
we have been operating in since I‟ve been with the City, and I think it is going to
continue for some time, is more of a reactive mode than proactive. Most of our
maintenance dollars are spent on fixing things rather than preventive maintenance which
would allow us to do more preventive maintenance so that things don‟t break down.
They type of maintenance program that you are referring to would be more of predictive
maintenance where if we know that we‟re maintaining things properly and we know that
the boiler is going to last 25 years or something like that than we could rely on that. We



Building & Sites Committee                     20                         January 28, 2008
could put something like that together but given the way that our maintenance is
structured right it really wouldn‟t be worth anything.”
       Chairman Beaudry referred to another item regarding Central‟s James Building and
some HVAC work. He said “I know that‟s heat and ventilation but if that is a boiler I
don‟t know why it doesn‟t mention a boiler. This listing says „copper piping in a boiler
room‟. Didn‟t we put brand new boilers in Central?” Mr. Clougherty said “we put one
new boiler back in 2001, I believe. There is a total of 3 boilers at Central. One of them
was new about 6 or 7 years ago. It had nothing to do with the design/build project.”
Chairman Beaudry said “I thought we did something with the boilers because there was a
problem with one of the steam pipes going to where the parking garage was. There was a
problem there with one of the pipes broke and it had to be repaired.” Mr. Clougherty said
“we‟ve done re-piping and we installed a new steam to hot water converter to serve the
new Burns Building. There is work that has happened in the boiler room but that is a
pretty sizable boiler plant.”
       Chairman Beaudry referred to an item regarding Green Acres School and the
HVAC units on the roof. He asked “aren‟t they fairly new? Wasn‟t that done maybe 3 or
4 years ago?” Mr. Clougherty said “I think it was done about 5 years ago with the airport
sound insulation program. The products they used were failing so we had to fix them.”
       Chairman Beaudry asked “with the repairing of the Beech Street south retaining
wall at Central, again, a lot of work was done in that area when they put the parking
garage in and wouldn‟t that be part of that project?” Mr. Clougherty said “no, this was
south of the new entrance to the elevator on the south side of the Practical Arts Building.
So this is a retaining wall that goes from the sidewalk that goes to the elevator south
toward the Industrial Arts Building. I can provide you with pictures of these. These have
really changed the appearance and the aesthetics of Central High School.” Chairman
Beaudry said “and with the next item regarding the Classical Building‟s components and
the repair of the mortar joints.” Mr. Clougherty said “I‟ll get you some before and after
pictures and I‟ll send them over.”
       Comm. Labanaris said “so these projects here are not part of what I asked you
about earlier.” Mr. Clougherty said “they are. We had corded them out separately as we
weren‟t sure how much money was going to be allocated for it and then we were able to
take advantage of that.” Comm. Labanaris said “I know the stairs at the Practical Arts
Building were about $150,000 to do, were they not?” Mr. Clougherty replied “they
were.” Comm. Labanaris asked “and this is all part of that program, that same project?
For example, the PA Building building components and the retaining wall and the mortar
joints?” Mr. Clougherty said “the south retaining wall is separate from the mortar joints.
The mortar joints are on the Classical Building.” Comm. Labanaris said “so there are
separate work order numbers but they were all part of that project?” Mr. Clougherty said
“yes. When you say „that project‟…..” Comm. Labanaris said “I‟m talking about the
project where we did all of the stairways over and re-pointed all of the brick or whatever
we had to do.” Mr. Clougherty said “there have been 3 different major projects in that
area. We reconstructed the stairs on I forget if it was the east side or the west side first of
the PA Building, those stairs that go down in either direction.” Comm. Labanaris said
“those are the ones that I‟m referring to.” Mr. Clougherty said “we did one set one year
and another a couple of years later. Those were $150,000 a piece or something like that.
These repairs have nothing to do with that. These are further repairs.” Comm. Labanaris



Building & Sites Committee                    21                         January 28, 2008
said “but not part of the original work we did a few years ago.” Mr. Clougherty said “no,
these are entirely separate.”
       Chairman Beaudry asked “with the Classical Building where was the „demo of the
reconstruction of cement landings‟ done?” Mr. Clougherty said “I believe that is the
south entrances that face the courtyard.” Comm. Labanaris asked “didn‟t we talk about
those earlier, those south landings that face the courtyard?” Chairman Beaudry said “that
was part of the design/build.” Mr. Clougherty said “no, it was not. Reconstruction of
those was not part of the design/build.” Chairman Beaudry said „the southeast stairwell
was, right. That was the one where the stairs weren‟t compacted enough and the front of
the rises there were stones coming out of the risers. This is in the rear of the courtyard
side, the southeast entryway to the Classical Building. Right in front of the bench.” Mr.
Clougherty said “right, those stairs that go up from the memorial, in that area, to the left,
those were redone as part of the design/build because those are new. Those are over the
parking garage. But there is a flight of stairs that goes out from the courtyard to a landing
area and from that landing area you get onto original ground, if you will, and then there is
another set of stairs that goes up into the Classical Building. Those are the ones that were
redone as part of this that the design/build didn‟t touch.”
       He said “I can get you before and after pictures for every one of these individually.
Chairman Beaudry said “the more information we could get the less questions we would
have when it comes to this. A lot of it looks like it should have been associated with the
design/build, especially when you have that much work done in the courtyard area. You
would have thought that the stairwells and the walls and everything else would have been
part of it.” Mr. Clougherty said “there are a lot of things that we thought should have
been part of it.”
       Ms. DeFrancis said there were some other Facilities invoices. On page 46 are the
normal monthly chargebacks from Aramark for the custodial contract. On page 48 is the
invoice regarding the Parkside gym floor.
       Comm. Gelinas made a motion to approve the City Services Invoices. Comm.
Craig seconded the motion. The motion passed by unanimous vote.
       Chairman Beaudry said a letter was received from Mr. Eric Krueger from the
Facilities Division requesting approval to move the remaining money that is left over
from the Parker/Varney School project to fund the Highland Goffes Falls roof heating
and ventilation project. Mr. Clougherty said that there were 2 units that failed at
Highland in the month of November. They were not repairable and they needed to be
replaced. They took action and ordered the units and they were installed last week. They
should be up and running tomorrow. This is a potential funding source that was
identified for that work. It is the balance from the bond for the Parker/Varney for the
open-concept classroom conversion and we‟re asking for the Committee‟s approval to
use that money toward that fix. Chairman Beaudry said that this would go to the Joint
Building Committee also.
       Chairman Beaudry said “hopefully the HVAC systems that are going on the roof at
Highland will be compatible when we close in the walls and they will run off of the CO2
detectors. That was one of the things brought up about that school when the Turner
report came in that when we do close the walls in we‟re going to set up the HVAC
systems to the CO2 detectors and not with the way it is being done right now.” Mr.
Clougherty said that was correct. He said they would be instituting what is called a



Building & Sites Committee                   22                        January 28, 2008
„demand-basead ventilation system‟. Chairman Beaudry asked “and these will be all
right for that?‟ Mr. Clougherty replied “yes.”
       Comm. Gelinas made a motion to approve the request to authorize the
remaining $45,931 of the balance from #310207 Parker/Varney open-concept
classroom project to the Highland Goffe’s Falls’ rooftop heating and ventilating
replacement project. Comm. Craig seconded the motion. The motion passed by
unanimous vote.

PRESENTATION
FY09-FY10 CIP—Security
       Mr. Red Robidas came forward. He said with the CIP request regarding security
there is a line item for $100,000. He said “I understand there are an awful lot of priorities
of the School District and there an awful lot of projects and needs that need to be met.
Quite unfortunately, as we go through time, security is looked at as a necessary evil. And
that is usually what happens with the funding source for security as well.” He said that
there are a number of security items currently used throughout the District. Many of
these have been in place since about the year 2000. Things began in 1999 and
installation was completed around 1999 to 2001. He said that some of the
recommendations he would speaking about is because some of the equipment is now 9
years old. He said “it was stated earlier that we act in more of a reactive mode than a
proactive mode but that aside we do need to allocate some funds because we do have
some equipment that will be falling along the wayside, particularly some of the monitors
that are utilized for the exit and entryways to the schools. At the elementary schools
particularly and also at the middle schools and high schools we request entrance and
within the office areas there are color monitors so office staff can see who is requesting
entrance. Those units are 9 years old and they operate 24/7. They‟ve started to see some
failures with those and quite frankly the cost of repairing them is more expensive than
replacing the units. So they want to keep those things in mind. He said “now that they‟re
at the 9-year level, if you run any television set 24/7 for 9 years things are going to start
to let go. And the technology has improved considerably. So this is an area that we need
to give some consideration to.” Generally speaking with the ones we would use to
replace they‟re in the ballpark of $300-$350 per unit. Some schools have more than one.
They have been able to modify with the technology that is out there now with digital
versus what was available 9 years ago. They have consolidated the number of units
utilized so in some cases where there are 2 or 3 doors they can now bring those to a
single monitor through a switching device.
       Mr. Robidas said “if you would ask me for some priorities one of the priorities is
quite frankly something that is approaching us later this month. Back-up systems to our
alarm panels will no longer be functional. Technology is changing and we‟re operating
off an analog system as a back-up to our alarm panels. Alarm panels currently go out
through a phone line system which are existing phone lines within the schools; however,
if those should fail for a variety of reasons our back-up for notification to the monitoring
station uses an analog technology. Those are no longer available to us effective February
1. Those have to be converted to digital. The cost to convert to digital versus the cost of
changing out the panels really comes small in nature considering what we gain for
upgrading our panels. Our panels will be updated to a network system which allows us



Building & Sites Committee                   23                        January 28, 2008
current technology in future expansion in all of our schools. And the cost of changing
from analog to digital versus replacing a panel and putting us on a network as a back-up
is about $200 difference. So I think it would be better to spend the additional $200 per
unit and getting ourselves additional technology that will allow us to grow well into the
future as well as to get the latest technology that is on the market.” He said “apparently
there are no existing funds to allow this to take place. The School District does
understand that that back-up technology is no longer available to us effective February 1.
Dollars and cents-wise, to bring everything up to speed to where we would need to is
about $20,000. That is with all of the School District facilities. As we‟ve gone through
the design/build and the expansions, our high schools all have the upgraded panels with
the exception of MST. But that is being included as part of the upgrade construction
project. Those panels that were put in at the high schools during the design/build were
put in because of the extra capacity that the panels needed. So now we‟re primarily
dealing with the middle schools and the elementary schools to upgrade the panels.”
       Chairman Beaudry asked “why weren‟t the middle schools included with the high
schools? The middle schools had major renovations and we added new wings to both
Southside and Hillside so you would have thought that would have been part of it.” Mr.
Robidas said “security was not included as part of the design/build so we mixed and
matched some things where we were able to get some funds from Mr. Clougherty. We
did exceed capacity of our existing panels at the high schools so we had to make an
upgrade at that point. If not, that would have left us without any protection.”
       Chairman Beaudry said “I‟d like to raise something about this issue. Homeland
Security had all kinds of money coming in to different states. I can‟t understand why the
School District can‟t tap into some of that money for some of these issues because it is a
security issue.” Mr. Robidas said “I did go to a conference about a year ago on homeland
security. I had asked about school districts. Currently Homeland Security does not allow
their funding to be utilized in the schools even though the schools are considered a
critical infra-structure within the homeland security. But to this point they have not given
that as an area of authorization to spend Homeland Security funds. Secondly to that,
even if Homeland Security would approve authorized expenditure in the funding we
would need approval from the State of NH and for the State to say that the State of NH
recognizes that as an acceptable area to spend funds. Currently all of the funds trickle
through the State. Let‟s say the federal government says there are 22 areas that they
authorize expenditures for Homeland Security funds to be used, when we get to the State
level it has to say it recognizes all 22 areas. They generally do not do that. They will
recognize certain areas. So there are double hurdles that we need to cover before we‟d
even be able to apply for some of this funding.” Chairman Beaudry said “I‟d like to see
somebody go over some of these hurdles. Manchester is a host city for the Seabrook
Nuclear Plant. If something happens over there, they‟re coming in to our schools. So
that is a safety issue. I can‟t see why we can‟t tap into some of these agencies that are
using our facilities for emergency situations and we‟re footing the bill for all of the safety
issues.” Mr. Robidas said “along those lines, we had a meeting about 3 months ago in
conjunction with the School District and the Mayor‟s Office and the Fire Department
because generally the Chief is the Emergency Operation Director for the City of
Manchester. All of the grant applications go through the Emergency Operation Director
of the City subject to the approval of the Mayor and the Finance Officer for the



Building & Sites Committee                   24                         January 28, 2008
application process. What we were discussing at the time was getting Homeland Security
funding. So we need Congressional approval and we need approval from the State of
NH. Quite frankly, that is beyond my scope and my expertise when it gets to the federal
level and the need for Congressional approval so we needed the political muscle of the
City to see if by chance at some point they would start approaching those topics with the
federal level to say that we could utilize some of these funds and we need some of these
funds for our City. So you need to clear the hurdles at the federal level and then at the
State level and then ultimately things would trickle down to the various communities as
an acceptable funding source.”
       Chairman Beaudry referred to the CIP list of requests from Security. He said “on
this request for CIP you just put the $100,000 down. Is it possible to have a list on what
buildings the money would be used for and what priorities you would recommend for the
money?” Mr. Robidas said “the reason we did that was to put a marker in with the City
CIP. I wanted the opportunity to come to the Committee to get some insight to see if
there were some additional areas it would like to address. I know there are things that
have been discussed in years past, for example, access control. That has been on the
table since about the year 2000. There was supposed to be a phase 2 with our installation
of intrusion-detection systems. This never took place. My recommendation would be
that we probably do give that some consideration; again, not as a full-blown aspect but at
least to begin the process and at least putting a controller in each facility.”
       Mr. Robidas said “not only would that give us access control going down the road
which will be beneficial to us with alarm responses but we would no longer be relying on
people to put digital numbers in. We could either use their identification cards or we
could give them those little plastic things called fobs that identify the individual person.
The reason for that is because we integrate the access control with our intrusion system.
We have the system in effect basically at Central High School with the parking garage.
That was done as part of the design/build. If we could scope this down properly to some
of our exterior doors, even 1 or 2 to begin the process, if a faculty member is allowed
access after hours, whether nights or weekends or holidays, and whether it be to the
athletic facilities or whatever the case may be, not only would give us a record of the
individual coming through the door but it automatically would disarm the areas they are
authorized to be in. The purpose of that is multiple. Again, it would reduce the number
of alarms because people sometimes forget their codes or they make mistakes in using the
key pads. And we have run across issues where people have given their codes to other
people to utilize and allow access to buildings. We‟ve stumbled into those along the
way. Very recently I had a conversation with an assistant principal and they had found
some people who were authorized to be in a building at one time but they didn‟t have
them on their code sheet and when they spoke to them they asked them where had they
gotten their code. The people said they didn‟t know because it had been passed along 2
or 3 or 4 generations. At least with the access control, when we find the individual is no
longer participating all we need is the school to notify us and we kill the access card. If
the access card is dead or the fob is dead, or whatever instrument we utilize becomes
irrelevant, as soon as we eliminate that from the system it doesn‟t matter who it is handed
off to because it is no longer valid. That would help out tremendously, especially when
we‟re talking about our larger facilities.”




Building & Sites Committee                  25                        January 28, 2008
       He said “going back and remembering previous conversations I‟ve had in previous
years with Dr. Ludwell and Dr. Aliberti and Dr. Bass understanding where they would
like to go with that process over a period of time and understanding where some of the
school districts have gone with them, they have become very sophisticated with them and
they actually use them as far as attendance in some districts not for their entire attendance
sheet but to quickly tell which students are actually in the building and which ones have
left. Some districts have gone to that extreme so at any given moment they can tell who
should be in the building and who is not in the building at the time. In those previous
conversations that was a goal the Administration wanted to achieve at some point.”
       Mr. Robidas said that he had another item to bring up. He said “if it is not under
the CIP I would like for it to have some consideration for some cash flow because it
would be beneficial to the District. In the past we‟ve asked for portable, close-circuit
camera units. I‟m saying because they‟re really portable kits. It would be beneficial
because 1 or 2 of these kits, depending what the funds would allow us to purchase, the
request would be for about $7,000, because when we do run across some vandalism
issues that seem to go in a trend what we could do is literally bring in a portable, closed-
circuit TV system. We would put it in a place that is inaccessible to folks and monitor
those particular areas to determine who is responsible for these activities so we could turn
that information over to the police and help identify. This is particularly helpful because
the cameras that we have in the elementary schools are primarily only there to recognize
authorization into the building during the daytime hours and those cameras in themselves
aren‟t recorded. It is just for the convenience of the administration and staff at that point.
We‟re lacking those types of units. I think that within a short period of time they would
pay for themselves in helping identify who is responsible for some of the vandalism
within the schools.”
       Comm. Labanaris asked “are we going to put that as part of our budget? How
would we do that?” Ms. DeFrancis said “Mr. Robidas can send me a request and if we
have some available funds at the end of this year we could consider purchasing it this
year based on our priority list. Or we can build into next year‟s budget.” Mr. Robidas
said “and to cover all the bases I could include it in the CIP list as well as a separate
request so out of the 2 places we may be able to succeed with one.”

ACTION SESSION
Alarm Monitoring
       Chairman Beaudry said that this Committee voted to change from Aramark to
Reliable Security. There is a letter in the agenda material, pages 55 and 56, saying there
is a concern of bonding with Reliable Security. It would be a considerable cost savings.
The question I would have is can we get this company bonded or are there companies out
there that are bonded to alleviate the concern that Mr. Clougherty has so that we can get
this cost savings for the District.
       Mr. Robidas said that at the time the Committee was considering the proposal it
revolved around when there was extensive vandalism at Central High School. It was
looking at maybe using a private security firm doing some checks of the buildings to
ensure that they were secure. Reliable Security had given a price at that time. Mr.
Robidas said that what he did when looking at the alarm monitoring was to contact the
company to see what the price would be to have become the District‟s first responder.



Building & Sites Committee                   26                         January 28, 2008
There was no discussion about the bonding issue. Mr. Robidas said that a few months
back he also received a copy of Mr. Clougherty‟s letter. He respects the concerns. He
has no qualms about approaching the company and requesting a bond. He said “quite
frankly whatever the cost of the bond is going to be passed back to us in billing. My only
question that I need before I approach them is to find out what type of bond the City and
the District is looking for. If one of those keys were lost probably unlikely considering
the number of keys we are giving out and there is only one who is responsible for that
particular key. But in the event that that does occur, that aside, what I need is an actual
cost figure that someone would be looking at for a bond amount so I can broach the
company and say we‟d like them to post a bond in x number of dollars so they can go out
and find out what their cost would be for that bond.”
       Comm. Craig asked “what do we currently have for the company that provides the
service?” Mr. Robidas said “currently the company that provides the service is Aramark
but I don‟t know if that is part of the Aramark contract. Now Aramark is bonded for the
services that they are providing to the School District. I don‟t know if it is an actual
written portion of their existing contract for the alarm response.” Mr. Clougherty said
“the Aramark contract does call for if there is a loss of any keys, any of the building
doors‟ key-way systems that are compromised because of that people either replace them
at their cost or in the case of a lack of action we would replace them and bill them
whatever that cost is. The case that we‟re talking about is we‟re handing over a key that
as my letter says would compromise quite a few locksets. Mr. Robidas did get in touch
with me and he sent me an email last week and he asked me what amount the bond was
and I didn‟t have a chance to respond to that yet. Subsequently I‟ve learned a little bit
more about what exactly the bond was that was in question and we can probably put a
ballpark number to that bond. I don‟t know what kind of cost that would be associated
with the security service but we can at least get that number together.”
       Comm. Craig said “I noticed that Reliable Security provides service to the Airport.
Do you know what the Airport requires?” Mr. Clougherty said “I‟m not familiar with the
company.” Mr. Robidas said “their services at the Airport are considerably different than
what we would utilize them for. If we were to utilize them, again, it would only be for
alarm response and to become our first primary dispatch. At the Airport you have
probably seen them without realizing who they are. As you approach the screening
process before you would get to the Federal Transportation Safety folks, those are the
folks who match up your boarding pass with your drivers‟ license at the pre-screening
area. That is how the Airport utilizes Reliable Security. They are more of a check-in
point prior to you actually arriving at the screening area. What their actual bond is, I‟m
not sure. It is probably higher than what we would anticipate because the number of
personnel that they have there and some of the federal requirements. And their duties are
considerably different there then what we‟re asking them to perform.”
       Comm. Labanaris said “you said earlier that they replace the keys at their cost. Is
that a large amount of money?‟ Mr. Clougherty said “if it‟s a single key, no, it is not a
large amount of money. Maybe $50 or something like that. The key-way systems that
we have in the schools is a pyramid key-way system. You may have a key if you are a
science teacher that opens that door to your classroom. The BLICs might have a key that
opens 8 doors and the chair of the entire department has one for all of the doors. Then
the principal has one that opens 8 different department doors and he has one key for 300



Building & Sites Committee                  27                        January 28, 2008
doors. At Memorial alone there is around 400 doors. Then we get to different levels for
instance with elementary schools. They each have their own master key and several
different sets underneath that and there is another grand master key that will do all of the
elementary schools. And there is another key that will open all of the schools; any door
at any of the schools that we have keyed in the past 4 years. That is the key we‟re talking
about giving to somebody.”
       We control those very, very, very closely. My guys have them for convenience.
There‟s a couple of folks that have one. They have one for their security responder. The
Superintendent has one and I have one. We don‟t just give them away to anybody that
wants one. I note the schools in my letter that would be compromised and that is not an
exagerration.” Comm. Labanaris said “what I‟m saying is we probably have 10 of those
master keys that you talk about and Aramark has one of them.” Mr. Clougherty said
“that‟s correct.” Comm. Labanaris asked “if we decided to employ Reliable Security
could we not give that key to them and would they not exercise the same caution and
responsibility with the key as the people at Aramark are? Is that what your question is?”
Mr. Clougherty said “that is my question. It is more not would they employ the same
judgment because whether they would employ the same judgment or not and the key is
lost what are the consequences to the City of Manchester. In the case of Aramark we
have a contract with them that calls for replacement of any of the compromised locksets
at their cost. They also provide us with a performance bond that guarantees performance
through an underwriting company. If we give this over to ABC Security we don‟t have a
contract with them and we don‟t have that same underwritten guarantee that talks about
replacement of locksets. And at whatever dollar amount you‟re talking about per hour it
is certainly not implied that they are going to be replacing locksets if the key is lost.”
       Comm. Labanaris asked “if you for example were to lose your key or one of the
men who works for you were to lose h is key what would happen in that case?” Mr.
Clougherty said “that would be a question for the City Soilcitor or someone else. But the
keys do exist. You know it‟s not labeled that this key opens every door in the schools in
the City of Manchester but it is a concern. Honestly, whether Aramark is the first
responder or not, from a control perspective, I couldn‟t care less whether we administer
that or not. Honestly, what we‟re doing right now is we‟re passing bills through to the
School District. I don‟t see the Facilities Division providing a big benefit with that. I
know the system that we have in place right now works. The individuals that respond on
behalf of Aramark know our buildings. The guy that responds 95% of the time to my
understanding is one of the lead custodians at Central High School. He knows who to
call when something happens and he knows how to secure doors when something
happens. And he knows a lot of the protocols. For the amount of money that is being
saved, I recommend staying with the system that is in place because it works.”
       Comm. Labanaris said “but it‟s $49.50 for Aramark with the new cost. I think
they‟re going up about $4 or $5 and Reliable says that it can do it for $16. I mean if it
were $10 or even $20 but it is $30 more and now it is going to be $35 more. I don‟t see
where it wouldn‟t be a good thing if we could get a bond or whatever it is you‟re looking
for to use this other company.” Mr. Clougherty said “I think that you also need to take
into consideration is the service that this company is going to provide. Aramark will
secure the doors if there is a break-in or some other anomaly without calling anyone in.
If you go with Reliable then they‟re going to call somebody and it‟s going to be one of



Building & Sites Committee                  28                         January 28, 2008
my guys who comes out at a 3-hour minimum call back.” Comm. Labanaris asked “and
how much is that?” Mr. Clougherty said “I‟d have to get you the exact dollar amount.
It‟s probably in the neighborhood of $20 or $25 an hour.”
       Chairman Beaudry asked “why wouldn‟t Reliable Security lock up the doors and
leave? Why would they do anything differently than Aramark?” Mr. Clougherty said “I
believe that would be a question for Mr. Robidas.” Chairman Beaudry said “I would like
to see that we incorporate our concerns in their contract. If they lose a key they‟re liable
to have to pay for all of the other keys. Now if they choose to go out and get a bond to
cover themselves for that liability, that‟s up to them. But if they‟re willing to sign a
contract with us saying that they are going to provide service and if a key gets lost they
will change all of the locks or all of the keys then our risk is gone and it is on them. I
think that the savings is phenomenal. Again, not to say that there is any impropriety
going on but with Aramark in charge of our schools it is kind of like the fox guarding the
hen house. Granted they‟re not supposed to charge us if their employees don‟t lock the
doors or don‟t lock the windows but how do we really know that. We have so many
alarms going off with open windows or open doors. Who left those open? There is
always that question. If we have an independent person coming in and following through
I think there would be a little more checks and balances. That is my opinion.”
       Comm. Cote said that he had a question and a comment. He asked “can anybody
tell me an average number of bill-able responses the District sees?” Chairman Beaudry
said “we‟re averaging about $1,300 a month.” Comm. Cote said “my concern is that
we‟re comparing apples and oranges. I think we need a real quote. We need to look at
the exact same services. You know this Reliable Security quote says $16 for a one hour
period and nothing else. I think if we engage them in working out a contract the quote is
going to be different. I encourage that we maybe seek out a real quote that compares
exactly the same services but until that time I don‟t think we can make an accurate
assessment of the situation.”
       Mr. Robidas said “as a little bit of background information, prior to settling on the
name or the recommendation we looked at other companies and what they were charging
per response. We were not looking to get into a long-term contract with anyone because
we didn‟t know if it was going to be feasible for us or it was going to be feasible for
them. When we had the discussion with them I think we talked about probably a 6
month‟s base as a trial period to see if this work. Now understanding what they would do
and what they would not do is they would respond to the buildings. They would try to
determine the source of the alarm. If there are occupants in the building they would
identify who the people are in the building at the time and if they didn‟t have the proper
identification or they didn‟t have the proper access code they would be asked to leave the
building. And if need they would contact the police if the situation so determines.” He
said that the police generally respond anyway when an alarm activates. The police
require a first responder to meet them on site. So 9 times out of 10 the police are going to
be there prior to them or at the same time they would be. Now, what they would not do is
for instance there is a window that is busted they‟re not going to replace the window. At
that point what they would do is they would call the Facilities Division and stand by until
someone would arrive and secure the window. But if a door is unlocked or a door is ajar,
those are things that they will deal with and those are things that will secure. The $16 for
the response is for the hour. If Facilities were to respond in a case of a busted window



Building & Sites Committee                  29                        January 28, 2008
where someone is needed in order not to leave the building unsecured they would contact
the number for someone from Facilities and give them a response time and they would
not leave the site until someone took over the site from Facilities. If time extends beyond
the hour the quote says it would be an additional $16 an hour to stay on site. Again,
we‟re primarily talking about after-hour events. Aramark is generally in the buildings
until 11:00 or midnight anyways and that is what they‟re paid for. So we‟re talking about
situations primarily from 11:00 p.m. to generally 6 a.m. as an average and Saturdays and
Sundays and holidays.”
       Comm. Craig said “so it sounds like they would provide the same service as
Aramark does currently.” Mr. Robidas said “correct, they would provide the same
services. I think if someone now has to secure a window the person would take a piece
of plywood that he finds available and screw it into place for the night. I‟m not sure if he
really does that but we‟re liable. That‟s not their job, that‟s not their function and it‟s not
the line of work that they‟re in. So I believe they in turn would call Facilities and say
there is a busted door because someone busted out the glass and it cannot be left
unsecured for the night so someone would need to come to replace the glass or secure the
glass. So they would turn the building over back to the person from the Facilities
Division. So with the exception of that they would be providing the same service.”
       Mr. Robidas said “we talked about that initially it would be for 6 months to see if it
works. Part of the reason is we thought in addition to having a uniformed security officer
when someone walks into a school and they‟re asked for identification
       Comm. Gelinas asked how long Reliable Security has been in business. Mr.
Robidas said it has been at least 20 years. Their home office is in Salem and they have
offices in MA as well.
       Comm. Labanaris asked “how do we address the concern that Mr. Clougherty has
with regard to the key?” Mr. Robidas said “we could maybe explore different ways; for
example, to have sub-master keys so losing a key wouldn‟t be jeopardizing the entire
system and it would limit our exposure.” Comm. Labanaris asked Mr. Robidas if he
could come back to the Committee with some suggestions. Mr. Robidas said that he
would. He said that it may be that Reliable Security would say they are not interested.
He would want to see what their response would be in regards to the bond that is being
requested by the District.
       Chairman Beaudry asked “who is Reliable Security? Was a background check
done on the company?” Mr. Robidas said he has copies of the company‟s brochures. He
would refer back to the letter that was made available to the Board regarding the
company back in August when this issue first came about. He said that he spoke with
people at the Airport. They‟ve used their services for a number of years and they are
satisfied with their service. He said that good service has been provided by Kevin from
Aramark. Kevin is the person who usually responds to the alarm calls. It is not so much
that anyone is unhappy with the service that is being provided but it‟s a matter of trying
to save money regarding the cost of each response to an alarm call.
       Comm. Gelinas asked if the District now have a contract with Reliable Security.
Mr. Robidas said “no, this service is still being provided by Aramark.” Chairman
Beaudry asked “hadn‟t a bid gone out some time last year?” Mr. Robidas said “this
wasn‟t a bid. I was asked to get a cost analysis of what types of service could we get and
at what cost. I got 3 companies to send information and Reliable Security was the



Building & Sites Committee                    30                         January 28, 2008
cheapest. The District was not looking into entering into anything long-term and it
wasn‟t looking to be bound to a contract.”
       Comm. Cote asked if anyone has had a conversation with Aramark to see if they
would be willing to work with the District on its charge for this service. He asaked what
is Aramark currently charging for an alarm call response. Mr. Clougherty said the charge
is $45 for a 2-hour response time. He said “I know Aramark would be willing to work
with us in looking for some happy medium to make things work.”
       Comm. Gelinas made a motion to continue to use Aramark for the alarm
response service and to find out what Aramark would be willing to offer going
forward. Mr. Robidas would find out if Reliable Security would be willing to
provide a bond that would cover the loss of any key locks and for Mr. Robidas to
report back to the Committee at the February meeting. Comm. Cote seconded the
motion. The motion passed by unanimous vote.
       Chairman Beaudry said that he wished to bring a matter up that he forgot to bring
up when Mr. DePrima was at the meeting. He said the issue is the use by the public of
school facility parking lots and snow plowing. He has learned there are problems at some
schools, particularly at Parkside and West, where plowing can‟t be done because the
public has parked their vehicles in the school parking lot and the plows can‟t do the job
they should be doing with the cars in the way. The Committee heard this evening about
the problem at West in this regard. He knows that the principal at West has had to call to
have some cars towed from their parking lot. There is a loss of parking spaces in the lots
just because of the amount of snow we‟ve had this winter so when people are parking
their cars in the lots there are even less spaces for the school personnel. Mr. Clougherty
said that he would speak with Kevin Shepard of the Highway Department and also with
someone from the Traffic Department along with Mr. DePrima.

NON-PUBLIC SESSION
      Comm. Gelinas made a motion to go into non-public session for the discussion of
negotiations‟ strategy per RSA 91-A:2. Comm. Cote seconded the motion. A roll call
vote was taken and the Committee went into non-public session following a brief recess.

RETURN TO PUBLIC SESSION
       Comm. Craig made a motion to return to public session. Comm. Cote seconded
the motion. The motion passed by unanimous vote. Comm. Gelinas made a motion to
seal the minutes of the non-public session. Comm. Craig seconded the motion. The
motion passed by unanimous vote.

MCTV Update
       After the discussion that had taken place in the non-public session regarding
MCTC the Committee returned to public session.
       Comm. Craig made a motion to accept the lease agreement regarding
MCTV as presented to the Committee and to move this item for consideration by
the Finance Committee. Comm. Cote seconded the motion. The motion passed by
majority vote; Comm. Gelinas voted in opposition of the motion.




Building & Sites Committee                 31                        January 28, 2008
FY09 and FY10 CIP Priority List
       Ms. DeFrancis distributed a handout that was a revision of page 40 of the agenda
material. She informed the Committee that items #2 and #11 on page 40 were not for
consideration by the Building & Sites Committee. The revised page handed out had
those 2 items removed. Ms. DeFrancis said that the sheet was the Administration‟s
prioritization of items that the 3 City departments had presented as priorities to the
Committee. Additionally, there are 3 items to take into consideration. They are priority
#1, the MST addition/renovation project. The BMA have approved that project but it still
needs to be funded so it needs to get on the District‟s CIP list. The State is funding 75%
of the project so right now the estimate for the project for the District is $2.5million and
the State will be funding $7.5million. The #2 priority, the Easter Seals lease, had been
discussed briefly at the last Board meeting. The lease will be renewed for one year
through June 30 of 2009. During FY09 the District needs to look for space. At this the
Administration is looking into what options there will be to the Easter Seals building.
There will definitely be a cost involved, whether it is purchasing a building or leasing a
building and renovating it. They are still working to get a dollar amount but the item
needed to be put on the CIP list because the District will be out of the Easter Seals
Building as of next June. And priority #3, are the life-safety issues and State-mandated
issues that the Facilities Department presented earlier tonight.
       Ms. DeFrancis said that item #8 is the open-classroom elimination at Highland
Goffe‟s Falls School which the Committee last year had approved as their #1 open-
concept classroom conversion project. Item #9 would be a potential new elementary
school. The District is working with Mr. Matuszewski and CMK Architects. Mr.
Matuszewski will come to the Committee in February to give a recommendation as to
what to do in the inner-City. The understanding is around $800,000 will be needed next
year for the design development of that project and the remaining $14,200,000 would be
needed in the next fiscal year, FY10. Items #10 and #11 would be the other 2 open-
concept classroom eliminations at Beech and Webster Schools. And items #12 through
#32, the Facilities Dept. items, are in the same order as the Facilities Dept. had
recommended. Items #33 through #37 are the Parks & Rec Dept. items. Those are lower
on the list because the Administration would like to get the items to be done by the
Facilities Dept. done first. And the final item, #38, would be the security upgrades that
Mr. Robidas talked about earlier. This is the Administration‟s recommendations for the
CIP Priorities that need to be submitted during the upcoming budget process.
       Comm. Labanaris asked “based on #9, the potential for a new elementary school,
then #10, the closing in of open-classrooms at Beech Street School, would be moot
wouldn‟t it?” Chairman Beaudry said “no, we‟d still be closing in those classrooms.
Even if we were to build another school they would still need walls in those classrooms.”
Comm. Labanaris said “as I recall Gossler Park was #1 for the items from Parks & Rec
but here on this list the #1 item for Parks & Rec is the Clem Lemire Complex.” Ms.
DeFrancis said “that was based on what the Committee had approved last year during the
budget process. Projects that were on Parks & Rec‟s requests last year, the BOSC voted
that the Clem Lemire Project would be the #1 priority for Parks & Rec items. We
followed the same process as last year.” Chairman Beaudry said that was correct. He
remembers the Committee wanted to try to finish off the Memorial High School field
project if we could but we never got that much money. Comm. Labanaris asked “so



Building & Sites Committee                  32                        January 28, 2008
we‟re maintaining that this year as our top priority, that we‟re going to finish the Clem
Lemire Complex and that will be done before the Gossler/Parkside project?” Chairman
Beaudry said “I don‟t mean to be snide but if you add in the $15million for a new school,
we‟ll be lucky if we get the amount for the new school.” Comm. Labanaris said “I‟m not
talking about the cost of any of these projects. I‟m not looking at that side right now but I
was just wondering why Gossler/Parkside came after the Clem Lemire Complex. Not
that I‟m opposed to it, but I wondered what the reasoning was. You explained quite
clearly that you wanted to finish one project before beginning another one.” Ms.
DeFrancis said “we went in the same order that the Committee approved last year.
Knowing it had to come forward to the Board as well we wanted to keep the same
priority. Again, certain things did come above that as far as the MST renovations which
we did not have on the list last year and also the new item pertaining to Easter Seals. So
there were some things that we did put before it but we tried to keep the priority as close
to last year‟s request.”
       Comm. Labanaris asked “and Highland‟s open classroom elimination comes before
that of Beech and Webster so is that the way it was last year as well?” Ms. DeFrancis
said “no, last year we did not have the potential new elementary school. That is where
we determined to insert that.” Comm. Labanaris said “but in regards to the open-
classroom eliminations it was Highland Goffe‟s then Beech.” Chairman Beaudry agreed.
He said that last year we had a study done on Parker/Varney and Highland because they
have the same footprint. So we already have the architectural design. We were going to
do both schools if we had enough funds but we didn‟t have enough so we only did
Parker/Varney. So Highland is the next one to be done.”
       Comm. Gelinas said he would make some suggestions. He said that based on the
conversation earlier this evening he would take items #3, #4, #5, and #6 and keep those
on the CIP list but drop them down to #35, #36, #37, and #38. The reason for that is he
thinks this should also be approached to the Joint Building Committee. But to keep it in
the CIP Priority List those are kept there. And he would move up items #8, #9, #10, and
#11 to be items #3, #4, #5, and #6. He said that over the years we have consistently and
constantly said to the BMA that the elimination of the open-concept classrooms was our
top priority. He said “I think if we continue to drop that because of actions by other
departments we‟re never going to get those open-concept schools taken care of. I want to
continue to establish in the eyes of the BMA that that is really our top priority.
Obviously we have to take care of MST and we have the situation with Easter Seals so
those definitely have to be priorities #1 and #2. But I think we should continue to re-
establish with the Mayor and the Aldermen the open-concept schools have to be taken
care of.”
       Chairman Beaudry said “I agree with everything you said, Comm. Gelinas. My
only fear is when we send this list to the CIP Committee they look at our priorities and
life-safety items should be the top priority. If we don‟t receive the money through the
Joint Building Committee they‟re going to be looking at the life-safety items at the
bottom of our priority list.”
       Comm. Gelinas said “I understand but if you remember the Chief said he would
wish we keep them in our CIP requests but I don‟t think he said where they should be
prioritized. When we send this request to the BMA we‟re not going to get the $17million
that we‟re talking about here so when they do give us our final numbers we can review



Building & Sites Committee                   33                        January 28, 2008
this entire list again based on the money that they‟re going to give us. So even what
we‟re listing here is not going to be the final list. The final list will be based on what the
BMA give us come June.”
       Chairman Beaudry said “my opinion is I don‟t want the public to think that we‟re
taking life-safety issues lightly. I agree and I‟ve been the strongest proponent to closing
in our schools and I think that should be a top priority but God forbid if something
happens in one of our schools and a child gets injured because of a life-safety issue that
was brought to our attention, I would be concerned about that. That would be my only
comment on the life-safety items.”
       Comm. Gelinas asked “how would you feel about flipping items #3, #4, #5, and #6
and making those items #8, #9, #10, and #11?” Chairman Beaudry said “that‟s fine.”
       He said the other item he wants the Committee to be aware of is the Bakersville
elevator. That has been on the agenda for a long time. That is a major concern with that
school and the operation of that school. There are kids being displaced because of ADA
issues and we‟ve had teachers that had to be displaced because of ADA issues. That
building has been more than 60% renovated and under the laws it should have had an
elevator put in there. I don‟t how it escaped that but it did.” Comm. Gelinas asked “has
the Administration ever sought funds for that either through a grant or through federal
funds? Has that ever been pursued?” Chairman Beaudry said Ms. DeFrancis did do
some research on that and it was stated that the City gets so much money a year to get
one elevator done. We were supposed to be next on the list after the Central Fire Station.
What I heard tonight is that the Central Fire Station still doesn‟t have an elevator so if
they‟re ahead of us we‟ll still be waiting.” Comm. Gelinas asked “so who got their
elevator?”
       Comm. Gelinas said he would make a motion regarding the items he suggested be
changed in the order of priority. Ms. DeFrancis asked “what about item #7?” Comm.
Gelinas said “I‟ll include #7.”
       Comm. Gelinas made a motion to take items #3, #4, #5, #6, and #7, the life-
safety issues, and change them to be items #8, #9, #10, #11, and #12 and move items
#8, #9, #10, #11, and #12, the open-concept classroom eliminations and the new
elementary school and cash maintenance projects, to the #3, #4, #5, #6, and #7
positions on the CIP list of priorities. And to pursue the life-safety issues, through
the Joint Building Committee. Comm. Craig seconded the motion.
       Chairman Beaudry asked “is anyone willing to look at the Bakersville elevator to
try to escalate that issue? It is something that has been coming before this Committee
since I‟ve been on the Board. That is a major concern to the principal at that school. I
think we should be accommodating every child in that district and it should be no
different than any other school in the City, but it is.”
       Comm. Labanaris said “I agree but we don‟t have the money at the moment to do
that. I understand that people have to be displaced and that is a terrible thing but until
and unless we can come up with some money and until we do some investigating to find
out if there are any grants out there, I mean make a concerted effort to find at least some
of the money, I mean that is almost a three quarters of a million dollars‟ project. That is a
lot of money.”
       Chairman Beaudry said “we‟ve been looking now for almost a decade so I don‟t
know how much longer we‟re going to keep looking.” Comm. Labanaris said “I agree



Building & Sites Committee                   34                         January 28, 2008
and I think they deserve an elevator but how are we going to get it?” Ms. DeFrancis said
“I should point out that that item is under the federal funds‟ column so I believe that will
be funded through a federal grant. I‟m not quite sure how that works but I think the City
gets so much money towards the CIP that is collected through taxes and then so much
comes through the federal funds. Right now there are 2 items on the CIP list under the
federal funds‟ column. The first item is item #19, the ADA door hardware/accy. I don‟t
know if the Committee wants to consider switching those. I know that the Facilities
Dept. feels that the ADA hardware be first on the list for the federal funds.”
       Comm. Labanaris said “but my question is this, when are we going to be able to
obtain those funds so that we can get this elevator project going. What do we have to do
and where do we have to go and where do we present so that we can put this in the
forefront and people will have it in mind regarding this elevator because if it is true, and I
know that it is, that for one decade we have been talking about this elevator at Bakersville
and it is still not there then we have to go to present to the proper committee, wherever it
may be, so that we can explain our situation to them. And then we can work from there
as far as getting the funds that we need. We can‟t talk about it around this table and
never get anywhere with it. We have a chairman who is concerned about it and I‟m sure
that all of the rest of us are. We have to put a plan in place so that we can move this
forward.”
       Chairman Beaudry said “I don‟t who is the one in the City that is in charge of the
federal money but maybe we should have them come before us at the February meeting
to explain to us how the money comes in and can we get bumped up maybe to the top of
the list seeing that it is a priority of the School District.” Ms. DeFrancis said she could
speak with the Planning Department to see if that would be possible. She said “the only
problem is we need to get this priority list to the Planning Dept. and it still has to go
through the Finance Committee. And we also need to talk about busses and the student
information system to have those added to the list. And then it will have to go to the Full
Board and then it would be sent to the Planning Department. So we‟re usually late in the
process as it is. They usually like to have these forms earlier than that but by the time we
get the presentations from the City departments and we prioritize the list we‟re a bit late
in the process. So that would be the only problem with waiting until February. I could
find out information and I could call the Planning Dept. to see what type of information
they could give me as far as that elevator possibly being funded next year and how the
federal grant works.” Chairman Beaudry asked “can you find that out and disseminate
that at the Finance Committee meeting?” Ms. DeFrancis said “yes, I could do that.”
       Comm. Labanaris said “whatever the process is, the track we‟ve been on is not
working. So we as a Committee and as a Board have to decide that we are going to get
the funds somehow and we‟re going to make this happen. We‟ll have to take whatever
steps are necessary for that to come about.” Chairman Beaudry said “I agree.”
       Comm. Craig said “items #19 and #27 are both projects to become ADA compliant
and they‟re both in the federal funding column. If we‟re going to make any move I
suggest we put those together. I don‟t know how the process works but I‟m having a
hard time prioritizing when I don‟t know the bottom line of what I‟m trying to get to and
whether these dollars will come out of our bottom-line budget or not.”
       Chairman Beaudry said “we pay debt service on this. With every million dollars
we bond it is $100,000 in debt service. So if they were to give us the whole $17million



Building & Sites Committee                   35                         January 28, 2008
you‟re looking at $1.7million in debt service.” Ms. DeFrancis said “the last time we
received CIP funds was 2 years ago and it was about $2million. We closed in
Parker/Varney which was $1.5million and there was a Parks & Rec project.” Chairman
Beaudry said “so it was about $2million and that was for the biennium.” He said “that‟s
why I‟m saying with the priorities that we‟ll be lucky if we get through the first 2 or 3
items with the way things are going.”
       Comm. Gelinas said “a good part of this is a statement to reaffirm to the Board of
Mayor & Aldermen our concerns in reference to the open-concept schools and all of
that.” Comm. Labanaris said “it is an annual per forma exercise.” Comm. Gelinas said
“and we perform it very well.”
       Chairman Beaudry called for the vote on the motion. The motion passed by
majority vote; Comm. Cote voted in opposition to the motion.
       Chairman Beaudry asked the Committee if they wished to do any other changes to
the list. He said “worst-case scenario I would like to see the Bakersville elevator, item
#27, above the ADA door hardware, item #19, because it directly impacts the school. I
don‟t know if the ADA door hardware has a direct impact on any student services but I
know the elevator at Bakersville definitely has an impact on student services.”
       Asst. Supt. Burkush said “from my understanding with what Mr. Clougherty was
saying it is to get the doors so they are compliant with what the American with
Disabilities Act requires in terms of the pressure. So that would impact perhaps students
in wheelchairs or staff that are in wheelchairs or staff that have some muscular
disability.” Chairman Beaudry said “I‟m assuming those individuals would still have
access to all of the floors of their building and they‟d be able to get around the building
and it would be for the ease of opening the doors.” Asst. Supt. Burkush said “I would
assume that.”
       Comm. Labanaris asked “Comm. Craig suggested that those 2 items come together
in the list. She recommended that the Bakersville elevator be brought up along with the
ADA hardware issues and probably move down item #20, the installation of the boiler at
Webster.” Chairman Beaudry said “I agree. As Comm. Craig said, we don‟t know what
the bottom line is so everything we‟re doing here once it gets over to the Aldermen say
they give us hypothetically $3million so we‟re going to have to reassess what we did to
accommodate what money we‟re going to get.” He said he would entertain a motion to
move item #27, the Bakersville elevator, and item #19, the ADA door hardware, to fall
next in line after the open-concept schools and move the life-safety issues down to
accommodate those 2 particular items. Right now the open-concept classrooms are items
#3, #4, #5, and #6 so the ADA issues would be items #7 and #8 and then everything
would move down on the list accordingly. He asked if anyone wished to make that as a
motion. No one made such a motion. Comm. Gelinas said “you haven‟t sold us on that.”
Chairman Beaudry said “well, I tried.”

ADJOURNMENT
     Comm. Gelinas made a motion to adjourn the meeting. Comm. Craig seconded the
motion. The motion passed by unanimous vote. The meeting was adjourned at
11:00p.m.

A TRUE RECORD ATTEST:                                     Suzanne O. Sears, Board Clerk



Building & Sites Committee                  36                        January 28, 2008
Building & Sites Committee   37   January 28, 2008

								
To top