Search

Special Board of Aldermen Public Hearing — 12/16/2019 Page 8

The budgets don’t include a number of things in terms of structural engineering, Haz Mat surveys, mold
remediation. We carried things into 2020, if this got postponed a year or two, costs would likely go up as
escalation is trending in that way; so it is something to consider.

We also were tasked with looking at “what would it cost to build a new office building at the landfill’. So we
went through a program, the architect got involved a little bit here and they were able to modify a program that
they did earlier and were able to come up with a program that works, there’s 25,000 square feet. When you go
through the whole process, you will see that it costs about $9.9 million dollars to build a facility that has a lot of
benefits to the Department. With the new building you’d have an optimum program, you’d have a healthy
environment which | think is a real important thing to consider in this process; lower utilities, less maintenance,
even renovating these building, they are not going to be the most energy efficient buildings in the world There
would be a lot of shared areas between departments, there will be energy efficiencies, there’s savings on the
construction side of things. We are not moving general conditions over four different projects over four
different durations of construction. We are talking about expediting one building at one time. From an
operational perspective and I'll let the Director and others talk about that but there a ton of benefits in regards
to that. Certainly | think there are benefits to the City of Nashua as well. It gives the taxpayers the right
investment, | think it is going to help you hire employees that might not come to the City based on the current
conditions. The City employees will be healthier and happier and | think that all results in better service to the
City. So | am done.

Ms. Fauteux

Thank you Rob. This is actually going to be the end. So Commissioner Frank Teas will conclude our
presentation with a summary of our work and explain our recommendation.

Frank Teas, Board of Public Works Commissioner

Good evening, Frank Teas, Board of Public Works Commissioner, | first want to state that we were not brought
together as a sub-committee to build a new building at the landfill. We were asked by the Mayor to evaluate the
current conditions of where our folks work. We care about a safe and healthy work environment for the staff
while also obviously being very fiscally responsible. To outline again what was said earlier, we as a group, the
Board of Commissioners identified that we had a problem. We then took action to memorialize these
problems; healthy work environment was not there, didn’t have the ability really for future growth. We needed
to pay some attention to our infrastructure that was long overdue; we felt there was always kind of a Band-Aid
approach in the past and we wanted a strategic direction.

We, as a Committee to include several Aldermen and other stakeholders, met and developed a plan. So we
could either look to renovate or look for new construction; not look for new construction at the landfill, look for
new construction or renovate. We are not experts, so we thought it prudent to bring in an expert, you just
heard from the expert. The results were pretty eye opening for us as a subcommittee when we met back a few
weeks ago and received this report you saw. $15.9 million dollars to renovate, that is really our optimal
solution, it doesn’t address future growth. Certainly it addressed some of the problems that we have. $9.9
million dollars to build a new building somewhere, doesn’t include land, but somewhere. It gives us a new
work facility, addresses our future growth, energy and workplace efficiencies, putting more people under one
roof, only having one lunch room as opposed to five different lunch rooms and so forth. It allows us to
repurpose existing buildings. 38% savings, if you will, the 38% less to build at $9.9 then to renovate at $15.9
for brand new; | am a numbers person that stuck out at me pretty obviously. But there was one caveat, we
didn’t have a place to build it.

Of course, I’ve said 5 times already the landfill, that was something that people had discussed. Why the landfill
was of interest to us was for several reasons. It would, in theory, not cost us any new money. So we are not
adding an additional dollar to that $9.9 million dollars. There are currently no other opportunities to buy a large
piece of land in which we can place this building, or none that I’m aware of that would be reasonably priced.
Lastly, we thought it important to not remove another tax producing asset from the books. So if we bought
something new we would then lose out on the real estate taxes.

Special Board of Aldermen Public Hearing — 12/16/2019 Page 9

Of concern at the Committee level and was addressed appropriately, | have not seen the final report, but
Wayne Husband, our Senior Traffic Engineer for the City along with Hoyle Tanner, they did conduct a traffic
study for that area of the City. At the time we met, they did not have that final report in-hand, but they did have
enough data to confirm that a consolidated facility at the landfill would not have a significant impact on traffic in
the West Hollis Street corridor.

Our subcommittee voted unanimously to recommend to the next level, to move forward, to build a new facility
at the $9.9 million dollar level. Of course, we are using funds that we anticipate receiving from the sale of
Burke Street as you heard Director Cummings say earlier of $3.9 million, resulting in a $6 million dollar need.
The Board of Public Works met two weeks ago | believe, I’m not sure of the exact date, had a very robust
conversation. We voted 4 to 1 to move forward and recommend. We also held an informational night at the
landfill for neighbors and residents to come in. We answered all the questions that were asked that night. In
conclusion, the subcommittee unanimously and the Board of Public Works in a vote of 4 to 1, recommend
moving forward to build a building at the landfill. Thank you.

Ms. Fauteux

That concludes our presentation, thank you.

Chairman Dowd

Is there anyone from the Board of Aldermen that has an clarifying questions for the presenting people?
Alderman Jette

For clarification purposes | would like you to make it clear that the problems that we have with our current
buildings include facilities that would not be included in this new building. For example, the Street Department,
the inadequate conditions there for the bulk of the workers there, the drivers and stuff, they are not going to be
moving to this new building. So their locker room, their lunch room, as inadequate as it is, is going to remain
such. Also although the garage at the Street Department is not part of this project, it is going to stay there, but
eventually, | mean this is, if money was no object, | think ideally you’d want to move all of your facilities to this
new site including the garage. But because of the cost and the City just can’t afford to that right now but the
long-range plan would include moving the garage to the landfill site. So | just don’t want anyone to think that
that is not part of the long-range plan. Am | correct in saying that?

Commissioner Teas

I’m still Frank Teas, Commissioner of the Board of Public Works. | think that everything that Alderman Jette
said was true. | think it’s important to note that with respect to the renovations that were being proposed in the
Harvey presentation earlier, it did not taking into account making any improvements to the actual mechanical
area improvement, so yes, those folks would stay in place. Long-term? Sure we would like to move that
garage. We are going to mindful of where the building goes to ensure that we could put the garage there in the
future. We are not making that recommendation tonight because we are being fiscally responsible with our
money and over time perhaps we will be able to do it. Thank you.

Alderman Caron

So Alderman you asked the question | was going to ask. So that means Park Rec staff, other than the
administration is going to stay in that 1902 building?

Ms. Fauteux

No | don't believe so.

Special Board of Aldermen Public Hearing — 12/16/2019 Page 10

Alderman Caron

You think is that whole staff and their employees, the rest of the employees moving to the landfill?
Ms. Fauteux

Yes, that’s the plan. Yes.

Alderman Caron

So quick question, what do you anticipate doing with that facility where you utilize Greeley Park and you
usually have staff people there during the daytime, like from 8 to 5 or 8 to 8?

Ms. Fauteux

That’s a good question. We do plan to leave some staff at Greeley Park and I’m not sure how many, we would
have to work that out. In terms of the buildings, | think we would probably, at least the office building, we would
eliminate, which would free up some more space. But we would definitely retain a presence at Greeley.

Alderman Caron
Thank you.
Chairman Dowd

Any other questions? Seeing none, OK, we are going to open the Public Hearing. So there are some new
people that have come in so | just want to reiterate that because of the number of people and the number of
things we have to address this evening, if you come up and want to make a comment in favor or opposition, |
ask that you try and keep it to 3 minutes. If you have a question, you can ask the question. If you have more
than one question, please save it for the second iteration of testimony in favor or opposition. Please do not try
to repeat any questions that were asked by a previous speaker, you can say that you agree with a previous
speaker if that is the case. So | will now open up R-19-187, which includes for the design and construction of
the Division of Public Works Office Facility testimony in favor. Please indicate your name and address for the
record.

TESTIMONY IN FAVOR

Fred Teeboom 24 Cheyenne. First of all | would like to say if you have a 3 minute limit maybe you shouldn't put 3
bond resolutions on the same calendar. Just one would be sufficient, would give you a little bit more time. Now |
don’t see Paula Johnson in the audience, because | remember when the Aldermen approved buying the Riverside
building, | think she was an Alderman at the time she yelled Holy Hell about buying a building that was totally
deficient. | think the City spent $2 million dollars to buy it at the time, | may be slightly off on the figures and over
$2 million dollars to renovate the Riverside Facility. There has been more and more spending done since that
point in time. So the whole Riverside Building has been a disaster from Day 1. If you go to the upper floors they
were substandard in height, a lot of problems. The City insisted on buying it; bit mistake. Just like the Burke Street
property, they were going to buy that for $4 million until you found out it was going to cost you $50 million to
renovate it. Now | hope this goes through a little bit better planning.

| do have a couple of questions, apparently you are replacing four facilities, the Riverside Building, what other 3
facilities are being replaced?

Ms. Fauteux

Which facilities will be moving to the consolidated facility? Is that your question?

Special Board of Aldermen Public Hearing — 12/16/2019

Mr. Teeboom What 3 facilities or 4 are eliminated?

Ms. Fauteux

So that’s Administration & Engineering; Solid Waste; and Park & Rec.

Mr. Teeboom Park & Rec?

Ms. Fauteux

Yes.

Mr. Teeboom Solid Waste is where?

Ms. Fauteux

Solid Waste is in a substandard building at the landfill right now.
Mr. Teeboom And the Riverside Facility which is Administrative?
Ms. Fauteux

Administrative & Engineering.

Mr. Teeboom What’s the next one?

Ms. Fauteux

So Administration & Engineering, Park & Rec; and Solid Waste.
Mr. Teeboom That's 3.

Ms. Fauteux

That is four. Some of Streets, but Administration and Engineering are two different departments.

Mr. Teeboom Ok | am just talking about buildings, they are in the same building aren’t they?

Ms. Fauteux
They are in the same building, correct.
Mr. Teeboom_ So there are 3 buildings that are being replaced?

Ms. Fauteux

Yes, just to clarify, Mr. Teeboom, there will be space though to hopefully someday have all of the administration

staff over, with the exception of Waste Water at the landfill.

Mr. Teeboom So my first question is “what is going to happen to these 3 facilities’. Are you going to sell those
facilities? Well one of them | guess you are going to tear to the ground which is the Park & Rec facility, | guess

that’s worthless.

Page 11

Special Board of Aldermen Public Hearing — 12/16/2019 Page 12

Ms. Fauteux

Of course there are some things to be worked out, but | think the Police Department may have some interest in our
facility, the Engineering & Administration Building for a training facility. It makes sense because it is right next to
the Police Department. Also their evidence cage is right behind our building so that may be something that is
done. Short term, the landfill building will probably be used as storage, long-term it will probably be removed as
well as the Park & Rec Building just is really not something we would use.

Mr. Teeboom Those are 2 of those, but the Riverside Building, | don’t know why you want to keep it. It ought to be
sold so you can spend the money, the proceeds to offset the bond on this facility just like you do at Burke Street.

Ms. Fauteux

That won’t ultimately be my decision.

Mr. Teeboom Well that’s these folks decision. Sell it. You have no need for it. It is a substandard building. The
only concern | have with that is the studios inside that building which | helped built. So if you sell the building you
probably want to move the studio.

Ms. Fauteux

Transit also occupies the other half of the building.

Mr. Teeboom But you are not selling the transit building.

Ms. Fauteux

No.

Mr. Teeboom Alright, so you ought to consider doing something with the Riverside Building. The other thing is the
Burke Street Bond, now you still have a bond, it’s going to take a while to pay that off. That's probably what,
another 15 or 20 years remaining on that?

Ms. Fauteux

I’m not sure of the time on that currently.

Mr. Teeboom Ok so you are going to sell Burke Street Building, or you have sold it already for $3.9 million dollars.
Ms. Fauteux

It hasn’t been sold yet; | think mid-February. Director Cummings can speak to that.

Mr. Teeboom Has that building been sold.

Ms. Fauteux

No.

Attorney Bolton

It's under a Purchase & Sales Agreement.

Mr. Teeboom There’s a Purchase & Sales Agreement.

Special Board of Aldermen Public Hearing — 12/16/2019 Page 13

Ms. Fauteux

Yes.

Attorney Bolton

It will close in February.

Mr. Teeboom So you're not paying off the bond, you are going to take the proceeds, the cash proceeds and put it
into this facility, rather than pay off the bond? You are not paying off the Burke Street bond?

Attorney Bolton
That’s correct.

Mr. Teeboom Is that correct, is that a legitimate use? | mean that building was bonded, so now you are not paying
off the bond but you are selling the building. Is that a legitimate financial transaction Mr. Fredette.

Mr. Fredette
Yes. This all went through Bond Counsel and Financial Advisors, this is how it is treated.

Mr. Teeboom Everything goes through Bond Counsel, the Bond Counsel makes a lot of money handling the City
of Nashua’s bonding. | know, I’ve dealt with the Bond Counsel.

Chairman Dowd
Mr. Teeboom, if you have any other questions, you need to come up at the next period.

Mr. Teeboom No! won't come back, | do endorse it. | think that building, that building is a disaster, should have
never been bought. So some cost, part of many bad decisions made by the City.

Chairman Dowd

Thank you. Anyone else who wants to testify in favor of this bond?

Tom Monahan Good evening, my name is Tom Monahan, | live at 28 Swart Terrace in Nashua. | want to
commend the Public Works Commissioners and the Committee for their foresight in thinking and using some
available land to replace some really depleted, deplorable buildings. Our workers deserve a good environment

and this is a wonderful step in that direction. So thank you.

TESTIMONY IN OPPOSITION - None

TESTIMONY IN FAVOR - None

TESTIMONY IN OPPOSITION - None

Chairman Dowd

Seeing no one, I'll close the Public Hearing on R-19-187.

Special Board of Aldermen Public Hearing — 12/16/2019 Page 14

R-19-191 - AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR AND CITY TREASURER TO ISSUE BONDS NOT TO EXCEED THE
AMOUNT OF ONE HUNDRED AND EIGHTEEN MILLION DOLLARS ($118,000,000) TO FUND
THE DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW MIDDLE SCHOOL AND RENOVATIONS AND
EXPANSION OF THE EXISTING TWO MIDDLE SCHOOLS (PENNICHUCK AND
FAIRGROUNDS), INCLUDING THE PAYMENT OF COSTS INCIDENTAL OR RELATED
THERETO

Harriman & Harvey gave a brief overview of R-19-191 before hearing public testimony.

Chairman Dowd

We have Harriman Architects that are going to present this part of the bond presentation. Please identify
yourself.

Mark Lee, Architect Harriman

Very good, thank you very much Alderman Dowd. My name is Mark Lee and | am an architect with Harriman
and with me this evening is also Jaime Ouellette another architect with Harriman. We are here to give a very
concise overview of the findings of a process to develop a concept design to address the three Middle Schools
in the City of Nashua. Mainly we looked at the existing Elm Street School, we looked at Pennichuck Middle
School and we also looked at Fairgrounds Middle School. The goals and objectives of the study that we
conducted were to address the deficiencies at Elm Street being one of the highest priorities. The building is
the oldest of the three different structures and in need of the most upgrades.

We looked at two different options. One, we looked at what would it look like to renovate the school itself, the
Elm Street Middle School. The second option was looked at how does that compare with the option of
constructing a new Middle School. Through all of the studies that we did, as has been noted, we worked in
concert with Harvey construction. So we would test out different organizational patterns of the school and then
Harvey Construction would cost those out.

The second goal of the study was to review the facility conditions at all 3 schools; so not just the deficiencies at
Elm Street, but really looking comprehensively. This was a Middle Schools Project not just simply the Elm
Street Project itself. We had a team of architects and engineers go through and evaluate the buildings,
identifying areas for improvement, specifically looking at a new model for the schools where we would equalize
the enrollment at the different schools. That was to create a more equitable experience for the Middle School
students. So the idea is what would it take to look at creating an 800 student school at Fairgrounds,
Pennichuck and either existing Elm Street or a new school.

In evaluating the model of 3 800-student schools, we primarily were looking at what we call the educational
program spaces, but those are the special education spaces. So what spaces are needed to support the
special education programs currently in the schools. We looked at the spaces necessary to support a middle
school concept of delivering education that is really thinking about the social and emotional development of
students at that age group and the need to create a more defined community within the larger school itself.
And so we call those the Middle School Team Areas.

The other thing we looked at were the Unified Arts, things such as Art and Music and some of the Career
Technology Programs and looked at how those aligned with the High School Career Technology offerings.
Were the offerings similar or equivalent at all 3 middle schools? We also evaluate them for safety and security
in looking at what needs were there and how could we make improvements to the safety and security at the
three existing schools and certainly constructing a new school today we would be able to create one that is
State of the Art with respect to how we would organize space and also the different technologies that we would
put in, thinking about safety and security, which is very much top of mind for educational school designers now
more so when the other schools had been constructed.

The other thing we looked at were the athletic and Phys Ed Recreation Facilities both inside the buildings as
well as outside of the schools.

Special Board of Aldermen Public Hearing — 12/16/2019 Page 15

While Pennichuck and Fairgrounds have a compliment of recreation and athletic fields, the Elm Street location
does not have outdoor recreation spaces on the school site. We looked at, in addition to those programs, we
looked at what we call “core spaces” those ones that serve all students so that is the library and the cafeteria
and thinking about the sizes of those to support an increase at both Pennichuck and Fairgrounds and also
thinking about an 800 student model at Elm Street or a new school.

Lastly in addition to thinking about the schools themselves, we also took comprehensive review of the site and
in particular some aspects of the sites of the 3 different locations and that had to do with traffic flow through the
site; safety with pedestrian crossing; traffic routes; the ingress and the egress from the sites themselves and in
general the different site amenities; parking, and storm water treatment on the sites themselves. So that ina
nutshell in sort of the scope of our study. The results of that Jaime is going to walk us through the different
concepts at Pennichuck and Fairgrounds and a new school proposal. So Jaime?

Jaime

Thank you, again this Jaime Ouellette with Harriman. So | will kind of walk through each school and start off
with the site of each school and then move into the building itself.

At Fairgrounds Middle School, the site concept design incorporates a multitude of different items. The
perimeter security drive will be upgraded, there is additional parking added to the southside; reconfigured drop
off and entry, expanded bus loop, on-street queuing lane; and reconfigured parking at the entry lot. As you
move into the building, we are looking to add a new admin and secure entrance to the building, upgrades to
the unified arts spaces, science room upgrades, team collaborative instructive spaces, gymnasium upgrades,
upgrades to the special education rooms and some limited system upgrades which includes electrical,
mechanical, and their fire alarm systems.

Over at Pennichuck Middle School, we are looking to remove the portable classrooms. In order to do that there
has to be some additions to the buildings which are noted there in “B” so there is not only those “B” additions
account for the removed portable classrooms, but it also has to account for the additional capacity to equal
these out at 800 students per school, give or take, plus or minus. Reconfigured parking, new bus drop off, new
parent drop off, traffic signal at Manchester and Ferry Road, additional entry location for the busses which is
also emergency access drive, separation at the median at the entry so that the ingoing and outgoing are
separated, the traffic coming in there. The right and left exit lanes into the site and out of the site, entry turning
lane onto Manchester and improved pedestrian crossing at the crosswalk. So that whole intersection that
enters the building enters the site is getting upgrades to help with traffic and congestion that exists there. As
we move into the building, you can see “A” signifies those classroom additions that replaced the portables and
allow for increased capacity. “B” signifies a library addition, “C” upgrades to the unified art spaces, there are
science room upgrades, again those team collaborative instructive spaces, some gymnasium upgrades with a
stage addition, upgrades to special education rooms, and a cafeteria expansion to account for the additional
capacity at the school.

The new site location is located in the southwest quadrant of the City, you can see it very faintly in the bottom
left picture all the way at the bottom is kind of a light green, | think it says “N” for new school. And then if you
move to the upper right photo, you can see how that transposes on to the existing site. It is off from
Cherrywood Drive to the right and BuckMeadow off to the left. The other street indicated up in that kind of
upper left quadrant of that right photo is Main Dunstable. So it is a 20 acre site development. There are on-
site parking spaces, recreational play fields and courts. There is a natural preservation area, connection to
existing trail networks, there’s an access drive from BuckMeadow, an emergency access drive from
Cherrywood. Water and sewer that come from Cherrywood, new upgraded power from BuckMeadow.
There’s a sidewalk to the site from BuckMeadow, there’s dedicated service in emergency drive as well as
dedicated safe sped play areas.

The building consists of four levels. The first floor level is the mass of the school and there is a ground level on
the lower side of the building. If you took that piece that says “ground level” you slid it right under the spot right
next to it, that would be where that was located.

Special Board of Aldermen Public Hearing — 12/16/2019 Page 16

The building accounts for things like secure entrance, innovative middle school classroom communities, ability
to close off public spaces for after school activities and community access, 21°' Century Unified Arts & STEM
spaced, enhanced sped spaces, administration, nurse and guidance, gym, performance spaces, new cafeteria,
library. And then it accounts for possible future additional locations off the end of each wing which is noted on
that southern side of the picture here is the classroom wing and the upper portion that kind of square piece is
the public space, it would be the cafeteria, the gym, things like that.

There is a second and third floor, those are more classroom wings, they account for some of those same items
we just spoke about.

Mr. Lee

So that, again, is very, very concise summary of what the results of the study were. | think the study process
has been a little over a yearlong effort to engage various stakeholders to develop that as we have really
enjoyed going through that process both with community as well as the School District. As we said at the
beginning, it is a concept design, so that means that the design has to account for all of the major spaces, they
are approximate size and location and building, but it is not a final design. Those floor plans do evolve a more
detailed development of the project itself. But with that we are here to answer any questions you may have.

Chairman Dowd

Does any one from the Board of Aldermen have any clarifying questions they want to ask of Harriman. Ok we
are going to open the public hearing for R-19-191. Again, there are frequently answered questions sheets in
the back, we should try not to ask any questions that are covered by this sheet. We have a lot of people here
this evening. Again, please try to limit your input to 3 minutes or less. If you have a question, you can ask 1
question, if you have other questions that aren’t asked during the presentation from other people, then you can
ask it at the second go around in testimony. So having said that, | will take testimony in favor of R-19-191.

TESTIMONY IN FAVOR - None

TESTIMONY IN OPPOSITION

Doris Hohensee 15 Swart Terrace. |’m on the Board of Ed. | just want to tell you that the Board was not kept in the
loop. We tried to find out information especially when the Mayor said that Elm Street was going to go to housing
for low income. We hadn’t decided as a Board so it was rather puzzling why that decision was made in the press.
At the vote, because as you know, the Board has to vote on the plans in order to authorize this. This is what the
Board President said on the day of the vote, before we took the vote on the motion, supposedly that approved this
project. “I just want to be clear tonight that this motion is not binding us to build a new middle school. It is just
voting to simply say that we are going to go forward with the new middle school option at the JSSBC and if we hate
their designs, we can say no or not and then come back to the Board”. So we didn’t get the impression that this
was a final decision and we voted 7 to 2 or something like that, 20 minutes later our motion which was on one
building, was now expanded to 3 buildings and a special ed unit. | want you to understand the context on which
you are voting tonight.

Next, there is no easement from Buck Meadow, we can helicopter them in, parachute the students in, but we only
have the emergency entrance from the back, unless we get an easement, which my understanding is we don’t
have it and unless we build a roadway across that land which | have priced out at about $2 million dollars more,
then we have access to that property. And then there is supposed to be, in advance of building a school, the State
regulations say that we are supposed to have a statistically valid study on enrollment; well we didn’t do that. We
just like 800 here, 800 there and 800 in the last place. But if you look at our enrollments over the last ten years,
Fairgrounds has gone down 28%; Pennichuck has gone down 17%; overall the District has gone down 14% in ten
years.

Special Board of Aldermen Public Hearing — 12/16/2019 Page 17

So with this rate of decline of students, 35% less students we will have over the course of 25 years which is about
the life of the bond. So we won’t need one out of the 3 schools. So! am sure there is a reason to do some of this
work and | am not opposed to it but | think we are not doing our due diligence before we run and bond. It is the
process, it is the process, itis the process. Thank you.

Howard Coffman Also on the Board of Education, thank you Ms. Hohensee, just to validate what she said. My
particular concern is access through Buck Meadow, we do not have access to the building site. | think it is really
poor public policy to approve a bond when you can’t even access the property you want to build on. That is an
affront to all logic and total disrespect to the tax payers in what is supposed to be a democratic process. The
school re-districting plan is in your Q&A. The fact is, that is the kind of planning that should be done at the front
end, because that will help you determine your enrollments, which will help you decide your capacities. Doris
mentioned no historical or projected data which is required by law by the way. It should be in the plan now, not
later. There is no staff impact plan, there’s no transportation on how we are going to move the 1,100 kids that are
at Elm Street. There’s been no public hearings at the School Board level or the JSSB on this matter. You saw the
detailed work presented for well it exists for Pennichuck and Fairgrounds; that level of detail does not exist for the
new building. | guess you can’t plan a road when you don’t have access to it, maybe that is the most honest thing
they’ve done in that plan. There’s no technology plan recommended by the State. The Special Education plan
while | wholly support it, is grossly inadequate because it only does the middle school, it is only going to cover
grades 6 through 8; it does not address the whole District’s need for Special Education which is to the tune of $6
million dollars a year now in out-of-district placement right now plus transportation.

There is no analysis or impact statement regarding what the tax rate is going to be as a result of this. There is no
impact on what the operating budget for the District is going to be if we have to hire staff or whatever, there is no
operating budget. Our Finance Committee is now beginning to borrow within the Finance Committee and the
Operating Budget, you'll see that on Wednesday night. There’s not Citywide Demographic Analysis, the buildings
although they have similar capacity approximately of 800 students, the square footage is very different. The two —
Fairgrounds and Pennichuck are roughly 125,000/135,000 square feet. The new building is 193,000 square feet.
There’s 50,000 feet, maybe Public Works should move in there, there’s plenty of room. | did ask the architects,
they said it is accounted for in stairways and hallways and equipment, but 50,000 square feet. That’s a lot of
space. The District Office currently now is about 9,000. So just in terms of perspective 50,000 extra square feet of
space. Noise abatement people in the community are concerned about that, has not been committed. | believe
we are overbuilding, no reasonable analysis has been made, enrollments are not included in our strategic plan.
They are not included in this plan as required by law. This is a premature decision | suggest you get road access
before you decide and commit $118 million dollars.

Kristin Ford | live at 101 Cherrywood Drive. My property abuts this land for the new proposed middle school.
Some of you may already know my name because I’ve been very vocal in the last 6 months in opposition of this
project. Dropping a giant middle school into this quiet neighborhood is something that myself and my neighbors
have been staunchly opposed to. Once Harriman, thank you, you know, once they came up with a concept design,
some of us, myself included, have felt a little bit better about the project, essentially with having the main access
point off Buck Meadow and not Cherrywood, essentially because Cherrywood is not, it’s just not a street that can
handle that kind of traffic. So | don’t know where things are, | know that Doris and Howard are criticizing with not
having the easement, I’d like to echo that but also hope that can go through because | have talked to some of my
neighbors recently and they are concerned. What if the easement doesn’t go through, what is Plan B? I’m not
asking that right now, | am just saying that is the concern. Does then fall back on having the access point through
Medallion and Cherrywood, | don’t know, | mean maybe that’s to be decided. So you know there’s a huge concern
there. We are also concerned about buffers, | know in the FAQ’s it says X amount of feet, but you know there are
13 properties that essentially between Medallion and the part of Cherrywood that | live, it’s just not a huge buffer. |
mean all due respect; you can basically see 150 feet into the woods right now. Stand in my backyard, any of you,
please come to my house I'll show you. So we want to make sure that we are being heard and being listened to. |
have e-mailed the entire Board of Ed, all of you Aldermen, Mayor Donchess, you know, | have become sort of the
unelected official here and | just want to continue to push and push.