BY JANE MEGGITT
Staff Writer
MILLSTONE — School officials are ready to send revised plans to the state.
The Board of Education unanimously approved more than $50,000 in fees Nov. 15 so the state Department of Education can consider approval of recently revised floor plans for the new middle school project, and renovations for the existing schools.
The board is seeking final educational adequacy approval as required by state statute.
Board Administrator Brian Boyle said the bidding process for the construction contracts could not begin until the DOE approved the design documents.
The DOE fees for approval have increased sharply in the last several years, officials said.
The board approved fees to the DOE in the amount of $44,344 for the new middle school; $3,742 for the existing elementary school, and $3,665 for the middle school.
Rising construction costs forced the Board of Education to make $4 million in cuts from the $34.5 million building plan passed in March, which necessitates a new state approval.
Boyle said that because of changes forced by budget constraints, alterations had to be made to the educational specifications and the plans themselves.
“What the DOE reviewed in January and February has since changed, and the DOE charges fees,” Boyle said.
Architect James Nichols of the Princeton-based Thompson Group said that after the passage of the Facilities Law in 2000, the DOE had to hire a lot more people and costs increased tenfold.
“It’s pay as you go for local school districts,” Nichols said.
Nichols said the size of the library/media center has been reduced significantly from the initial design. However, in retrospect, he said, his firm had originally “provided more space than absolutely necessary.”
Board member Patricia Coffey said she was concerned with siding being used for the new middle school, though it was in the original design.
It is a cement product called Hardiplank that looks like clapboard with a wood grain effect, Boyle said. While siding comes with a 50-year warranty, Hardiplank is only guaranteed against chipping for 15 years. Coffey said a brick building would last at least 100 years.
“My concern is that it has the potential to be a maintenance nightmare,” Coffey said.
Nichols said the DOE was not attuned to materials, but was more concerned about a project’s scope, such as square footage.
Coffey said the board is responsible to the taxpayers and to future boards, and should not give them structures with maintenance problems. She said she had met with the architects and Superintendent of Schools William Setaro, and no other school in the state is using Hardiplank.
“I don’t think we should be paving the way with material no one else has used,” she said. “We have to be really responsible in what we are giving this community in terms of construction.”
There also was discussion about flooring to be used in the school, and the location of various faculty bathrooms in the design.
Nichols said he would try to add an additional bathroom for the custodians.