Date Set for School Facilities Public Forum

An Oct. 30 date has been set to allow public input on the capacity options that the school board is currently weighing.

The meeting will take place in the Windham High School auditorium at 7 p.m., allowing residents to once again offer opinions and ideas on the overcrowding situation in the school district.

During an Oct. 16 school board meeting, members appeared to sway toward two possible solutions – phased additions at Windham Middle School or a new seventh and eighth grade facility on London Bridge Road.

First-year board members Michael Joanis and Jerome Rekart have worked with SAU staff and Lavallee Brensinger Architects for months hashing out the pros and cons of several ideas, including one which involved doing nothing about the facilities.

Joanis spoke about a two-phase project at the current WMS site.

"The only reason to build anything, and endure the issues, would be a phased project," he said.

At least for now, the board has taken the option off the table of building out a full addition to the current middle school without phases.

Doing nothing of course would relieve the burden of further spending, but will negatively impact the education experience going forward for Windham students.

In a phased design, the plan estimates that the first phase would cost about $10 million.

Joanis said that it would make more sense to do the first phase rather than jump into all of the addition.

Voters knocked down a warrant article on the ballot in March that called for the architectural and engineering fees toward a new London Bridge Road facility.

Board member Michelle Farrell spoke about the high cost of a new school.

"It's a $30 million price tag, and in this economy right now I'm not sure if we can afford a $30 million price tag," she said.

"For $10 million we get a permanent structure in a small amount of time, so that's a pro," Farrell added regarding phase one of a middle school addition.

Board member Stephanie Wimmer stressed that phase one is not a solution to the capacity issue, but said that she liked the option because it prioritizes what the community has prioritized.

She also expressed concern that it still will not address core space needs, such as a multi-purpose room.

Joanis said that part of the discussion was between adding a multi-purpose room and another floor of educational space.

He added that there is no rule saying that a multi-purpose room can't be added as another step before a phase two.

Athletic fields will not be lost, but rather relocated with the phased concept.

Details, figures and designs that came before the board during the meeting will be the extent of what goes before the public on Oct. 30.

Last year's school board looked at a similar phased strategy in October 2011, but with a different design.

No target date has been set for the school board to endorse a specific project concept.