Months after voters soundly rejected a proposal to renovate three schools in Regional School Unit 21, officials from the district are working on another plan for construction and rehabilitation of those facilities ”“ one they hope will prove more palatable for residents.
At the polls in January, voters in Kennebunk, Kennebunkport and Arundel sent a message to the RSU: The $71 million price tag for repairing Kennebunk High School, Kennebunkport Consolidated School and the Mildred L. Day School in Arundel was simply too high.
With infrastructure improvements still a priority, representatives of the RSU have concocted a scaled-down project that shaves millions off of that cost. While the exact numbers are still fluid ”“ and likely will be until September ”“ current estimates indicate that the new project, if approved, would cost taxpayers approximately $57 million for the three schools combined.
Mildred L. Day School Principal Kevin Crowley, RSU 21 Business Manager Bruce Rudolph and Dan Cecil, principal architect for the Portland-based firm Harriman Associates, say the new plan addresses both the high cost and the improvements that are necessary to ensure the long-term well-being of the buildings, and the students and staff within them.
Gone is the auditorium expansion that was envisioned to double as a community center at the high school in the old plan. The new plan for KHS, currently representing just shy of $44 million of the total cost, calls for a more modest demolition and construction strategy for addressing the aging campus’ ailing infrastructure.
“We heard the voters. They spoke loud and clear,” said Crowley on Monday. “You’re going to get building projects that are clear in motive. They are for the kids. They are not community centers. They are schools.”
Under the proposal ”“ which RSU officials hope to get on the ballot this November ”“ KHS would retain the same number of classrooms, but they would be enlarged, bringing them in line with standards set forth by the Department of Education for adequate classroom size. Currently, said Cecil, 95 percent of its classrooms are undersized, while under the preferred plan, only 12.5 percent would fall short of the size requirements.
With about 690 students currently enrolled at KHS, the new plans call for a capacity of about 700, with room for an extra three or four students per class if needed.
Consideration has also been given to making the building more energy efficient. Cecil’s estimates indicate that, if no changes are made to the existing infrastructure, the district would spend between $350,000 and $700,000 in 2018-19 for heating and ventilation at the school, adjusted for inflation. By contrast, under the preferred plan, heating and ventilation would run about $250,000 during that same timeframe.
“If you project that out over the … life of the building, we’re going to save,” said Rudolph.
Additionally, the main entrance to the school would be moved to the rear, closer to parking, and athletic fields would be rehabilitated, with focus given to re-surfacing the track and re-sizing the field it encircles to reflect a regulation soccer field. That would be large enough to host other sports as well, said Cecil.
In all, the high school would be rehabilitated at a cost $9 million cheaper than in the original plan.
Of the three schools, only Consolidated School in Kennebunkport would be slightly more expensive than previously envisioned, coming in at just shy of $6 million. Much of the cost is due to a serious lack of energy efficiency, said Cecil, as the school currently is without a continuous thermal barrier; as it is, hot air is pumped to the outside of the building without first being circulated. Under the new plan, air would be circulated through the building six times per hour, thereby bringing it up to code.
Other improvements proposed include the installation of ramps for handicap accessibility; bathroom access from the gymnasium; and knocking down a wall separating two classrooms near the front of the building, which would allow the new, larger room to be utilized as a multi-purpose space. This is important, said Crowley, because half of the gym is now used for recreation while the other half is used as cafeteria space for lunch; the creation of the multi-purpose room would remove the need for a half-gym lunch room and open up the possibility of other uses, such as space for art projects.
During discussions, there was a cheaper, $4 million option mentioned for rehabbing Consolidated School, but the old, modular classrooms would remain, and there would be no new lighting, no new roof and no new drainage system.
“You’d have a greatly compromised project,” said Cecil.
Of the three buildings, the plans for MIldred L. Day School are perhaps the most similar to those presented to voters in January. Representing almost $9 million, the plan would call for the demolition of two wings that were built on clay-rich soil and have been settling steadily over a period of more than 30 years, adding stress to the roof and the building itself. New wings would be built on the land running parallel to Limerick Road ”“ which has considerably less clay in its soil ”“ and the land on which the problem wings currently reside would be used for parking.
Cecil cited studies showing that the settling on the land would continue for at least another 50 to 60 years.
Across all three schools, security improvements would be made, including the use of key cards to give educators and administrators access to the buildings.
The school board will consider the new proposal at its meeting on Aug. 4, and numbers are expected to be more finalized the following month.
Crowley said he hopes voters find the new plan to be more satisfying from a cost standpoint.
“It has to get done,” he said. “And it’s only going to get more expensive the longer we wait.”
— Staff Writer Jeff Lagasse can be contacted at 282-1535, ext. 319 or jlagasse@journaltribune.com.
Comments are not available on this story. Read more about why we allow commenting on some stories and not on others.
We believe it's important to offer commenting on certain stories as a benefit to our readers. At its best, our comments sections can be a productive platform for readers to engage with our journalism, offer thoughts on coverage and issues, and drive conversation in a respectful, solutions-based way. It's a form of open discourse that can be useful to our community, public officials, journalists and others.
We do not enable comments on everything — exceptions include most crime stories, and coverage involving personal tragedy or sensitive issues that invite personal attacks instead of thoughtful discussion.
You can read more here about our commenting policy and terms of use. More information is also found on our FAQs.
Show less