Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the School Site Safety Improvements topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

SAU 16 advisory committee outlines phased fixes for school traffic and accessibility, schedules follow-up

AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

An SAU 16 advisory committee met June 5 to refine concepts for school-site safety work — including crosswalk relocation, a new driveway loop, ADA access and targeted low-cost measures — and agreed to compile scopes and cost estimates ahead of a June 12 follow-up and an expected school-board discussion June 18.

Members of an SAU 16 advisory committee met June 5 to map out phased safety and site improvements at the school, agreeing to break the project into smaller scopes, collect order-of-magnitude cost estimates and meet again June 12 at 6:30 p.m.

The meeting focused on three near-term priorities: improving the intersection and crosswalk near the front entrance, creating a buffer/green area between the driveway and school windows, and addressing ADA access where students and visitors currently use stairs. Committee members discussed two funding routes — inclusion in the annual school budget or a bond — and the timing implications for each.

The committee’s discussion centered on practical, staged approaches rather than a single large design. “We don’t need a meeting in order to complete tasks,” said Ellen, a committee member who runs the project folder; the group agreed to use a shared Google Drive and a spreadsheet to list discrete scopes (for example: flashing crosswalk, front stairs/ADA ramp, walkway relocation, parking reconfiguration) and assign people to obtain preliminary pricing. Susie, another member, described one favored change: “If you move the crosswalk to the ball side, the kids don't have to go across the front door,” a move the group said would simplify pedestrian flow and reduce conflicts with vehicle drop-off.

Members reviewed prior concept work produced for the site and recommended reusing existing engineering information where possible to limit new design costs. TF Moran (the engineering firm that prepared earlier drawings) and a contact named Chris Rice were discussed as sources for clarification; the committee said it would invite the TF Moran contact to a meeting to answer technical questions. The group also noted that a previously reported sinkhole had been paved over and that the standing stone wall would likely remain in place, with any new retaining wall placed behind it.

On funding and timing, members emphasized the difference between putting work in the annual budget and pursuing a bond. A bond requires public posting and hearings on a schedule: the committee discussed prior-year dates (posting windows roughly between early January and mid-February and a March voting day) and concluded that smaller items might be advanced through the school budget or existing trust funds while larger construction could be phased for a future bond. The committee agreed to identify “small-ticket” actions (for example, on-demand flashing beacons or painted buffer lanes) that could be implemented sooner and that would build public momentum.

The committee set immediate next steps: compile a Google spreadsheet listing about 8–12 discrete scopes (stairs/front ramp, crosswalk and beacon options, driveway loop/traffic flow, buffer/landscape, parking layout, ADA access routes, drainage/retention questions, and site topo/utility follow-ups), assign volunteers to contact contractors and TF Moran for order-of-magnitude estimates, and reconvene June 12 at 6:30 p.m. to review gathered numbers and determine what could be proposed to the school board at its June 18 meeting. The group also discussed the SAU 16 practice of avoiding regular meetings during the summer and agreed to balance that convention with the need to gather information over the summer months.

Documents and earlier presentations are stored in a shared folder the committee will use to inform contractors and to avoid repeating paid design work. Committee members stressed the importance of getting budgetary ranges — not final bids — so the board can decide whether to seek a bond, include items in the operating budget, or phase work over multiple years.

The committee’s work is advisory: no votes or binding approvals were taken at the June 5 meeting. The group’s next meeting is set for June 12 at 6:30 p.m.; members will bring scoped items and any cost estimates they gather so the committee can refine recommendations for the school board’s upcoming discussions.