Architects present on‑campus elementary design; turf field and $49.96M price tag draw questions

Architects presenting the on‑campus concept for MSAD 51’s proposed new elementary school told the board March 4 that the campus master plan includes a two‑story, 73,000 square‑foot facility, expanded parking and circulation changes and a turf field as part of the referendum package.

"We are at $49,960,000 — just a hair under 50," said the lead architect as he laid out a budget he and the district cost estimator consider realistic for the package that combines the new school, campus circulation work, a maintenance facility and field upgrades.

The design team described three classroom wings arranged to maximize natural light, multiple dedicated parent drop‑off points, separate bus circulation, roughly 105 parking spaces dedicated to the new school and about 60 staff spaces. Architects said the plan repurposes existing campus entrances where possible and would relocate the maintenance facility to a less visible corner, with outdoor storage screened behind the new building.

Board members focused their questions on how the scheme would affect existing circulation and parking. One board member asked whether the parallel parking scheme through a staff lot would back up onto Tuttle Road; the architects acknowledged that several options are still under review and said a parking‑demand analysis was part of the master plan work.

The proposed turf field on the east end of campus — carried in the budget and shown as a project element — generated the most public interest at the workshop. Community members and coaches told the board they currently rent indoor turf in Portland and Auburn for late‑night practices and argued that an on‑campus turf field would reduce long, late‑night drives and improve practice reliability. "Safety is always the deciding factor when it comes to our kids, and that is what drives me to come here tonight," said Meg Blake, a parent and boosters president.

District representatives and consultants discussed turf composition and maintenance options. The presentation noted the budget assumes an infill option above basic crumb rubber but not the highest‑end product used in a few donor‑funded projects; architects said they would return with specific product recommendations and health‑and‑safety research. Mr. Shapiro, who answered turf technical questions during the meeting, said maintenance for many modern turf systems can be modest — periodic grooming rather than intensive daily care — and that multiple sports can be accommodated with painted lines or seasonal markings rather than fixed sewn lines.

Architects also addressed energy systems. An initial analysis showed full all‑electric heating would increase operating costs substantially given current electric supply and limit the district’s ability to offset costs with on‑site solar; the team said geothermal and other low‑carbon options would be studied further but are cost‑sensitive.

The board set a process timeline: the trustees must choose between the on‑campus option and an off‑campus 80 Grama Road alternative at a March 18 meeting; April 22 is the public hearing to set the final referendum amount; the district budget meeting is May 9 and the validation referendum is on June 11.

What’s next: Board members asked for a final project budget and more detail on turf options, parking alternatives and construction sequencing before the March 18 plan vote.

Provenance: Topic introduced SEG 1618; last discussed at SEG 2430.