River Hebert District High - Chignecto-Central Regional School Board

River Hebert District High 

Chignecto-Central Regional School Board 

Impact Assessment Report 

May 5, 2010 

School Review Impact Assessment Report Page 1 

May 5, 2010

INDEX 

Introduction ............................................................................................................................................ 4 

School Information 

Enrolment History and Projections ............................................................................................ 5 

Population Patterns ................................................................................................................... 5 

Capital Construction Planning .................................................................................................... 6 

Physical Condition of Building .................................................................................................... 6 

Floor Plan ................................................................................................................................... 7 

Completed Major Maintenance Projects ................................................................................... 7 

Building Use ............................................................................................................................... 7 

Determining Factors .................................................................................................................. 8 

Impact Analysis 

Capability to deliver public school program 

Facility ........................................................................................................................................ 9 

Public School Programming ....................................................................................................... 9 

Educational Benefits .................................................................................................................. 9 

Transportation ........................................................................................................................... 9 

Extra-curricular / Community Activities ................................................................................... 10 

Operational and Capital Requirements ................................................................................... 10 

Catchment Area ....................................................................................................................... 10 

Operating Costs 

Operating Cost per Square Foot .............................................................................................. 10 

Operating Cost per Student ..................................................................................................... 11 

Staffing Costs ........................................................................................................................... 11 

Property Service Efficiencies .................................................................................................... 11 

Transportation Efficiencies ...................................................................................................... 12 

Operational Efficiencies – Education ....................................................................................... 12 

Impact on the Community 

Educational Services ................................................................................................................ 12 

Community Use of School ........................................................................................................ 12 

Community Infrastructure Plans .............................................................................................. 12 

Proposed Receiving School Information 

Background .............................................................................................................................. 13 

Enrolment History and Projections .......................................................................................... 14 

Projected Class Configurations ................................................................................................ 15 

Capability to deliver public school program ............................................................................ 15 

Catchment Area ....................................................................................................................... 21 


May 5, 2010

Transportation Requirements ............................................................................................................... 21 

Co-curricular and Extra-curricular Activities ............................................................................ 21 

Closing ................................................................................................................................................. 21 

Appendices 

Appendix 1 – School Identification Report 

Appendix 2 – Evaluation Process for Condition of Schools 

Appendix 3 – Educational Spaces Ranking 

Appendix 4 – Correspondence to the Municipality of the County of Cumberland 

Appendix 5 - School Steering Team – Terms of Reference 

Appendix 6 - School Steering Team – November 2009 – Meeting Notes 


May 5, 2010

Chignecto-Central Regional School Board 

School Review Impact Assessment Report 

River Hebert District High School 

In March 2010, the Chignecto-Central Regional School Board accepted the Identification Report for River 

Hebert District High School that indicated the school should be considered for further review. This 

report was the first phase of a School Review Process through the Nova Scotia Education Act as 

indicated by Sections 13-23 of the Ministerial Education Act Regulations. 

The Identification Report was the initial phase of the review process. This report utilized the 

predominate factor that an Addition and Alteration Project for River Hebert had been approved within a 

provincial capital construction plan by a Nova Scotia Department of Education announcement in April 

2009 and confirmed in October 2009. This project would consolidate River Hebert District Elementary 

School and River Hebert District High School within a renovated facility serving Primary to Grade Twelve 

Students. 

With the consolidation of two schools, a school review process must be conducted. This includes the 

development of an Impact Assessment Report for this school and presented to the Chignecto-Central 

Regional School Board no later than May 31, 2010. 


May 5, 2010

Part 1: School Information 

The information in Part 1 is provided as part of the Identification Report within the first phase of the 

School Review Process. Sections of the report, with additional descriptions where applicable, have been 

provided in this section. The complete Identification Reports are attached with this Impact Assessment 

in the appendices for River Hebert District Elementary and River Hebert District High schools. 

School: 


School Configuration: 7-12 

Address: 

2843 Barrensfield Road 

River Hebert, N.S. BOL 1GO 

Principal: 

Don Gamblin 

Enrolment History and Projections 

Enrolments 

Past Enrolments 

Projected Enrolments 

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 

# 118 123 111 108 99 99 108 106 86 97 

Yr to Yr 

% 

Change 0% 4.1% -9.8% -2.7% -8.3% 0% 8.3% -1.9% -18.9% 11.3% 

Population Patterns 

Population 

Cumberland County 

Age 2001 2006 

0-4 1545 1360 

5-14 3925 3495 

15-19 2190 2070 

20-24 1550 1500 

25-54 13415 12545 

55-64 3870 4680 

65-74 3055 3325 

75+ 3115 3080 


May 5, 2010

The census data above indicates that the population has decreased in Cumberland County from 2001 to 

2006 up to the age of 54. The population has increased for persons 55 years of age and above. 

Capital Construction Planning 

In February 2008 the Chignecto-Central Regional School Board submitted to the Nova Scotia 

Department of Education as part of the provincial capital construction planning process a 

prioritized list of schools with potential additions and alterations required within the school Board. 

This included a renovated Primary to Grade Twelve School within the River Hebert area. 

In October 2009 the Nova Scotia Department of Education confirmed the P-12 school configuration 

through an addition and alteration project utilizing River Hebert District Elementary School or River 

Hebert District High School. 

Physical Condition of Building 

Accessibility 0.5/6 

Cladding 6.5/8 

Doors & Windows 3/6 

Grounds 3.5/6 

Electrical 6/12 

Fire Alarm & P/A 1.5/4 

Heating 5/8 

Interior 0/24 

Plumbing 1/6 

Roofing 0/14 

Ventilation 3/6 

Total 30/100 

Ranked 4 out of 77 schools 

River Hebert District High School is the fourth lowest ranked school within CCRSB. The higher the 

cumulative points the better indicator of school conditions. A more detailed description can be found in 

the appendices under “Evaluation Process for Condition of Schools”. 

River Hebert District High School was constructed in a number of phases. The original section was built 

in 1947 and is a wood structure with half height concrete foundation walls for the lower level which is 

partially below grade. A gymnasium and class room addition was added in 1955 and is a brick and block 

structure with open web steel floor and roof joists (OWSJ). The third addition was constructed in 1976. 

Most areas of the school are not wheelchair accessible. 

With respect to building envelop all roofing areas and windows will require replacement. As well, 

refurbishment of cladding is required. 


May 5, 2010

Most components of the electrical, plumbing, heating, fire alarm and public address systems are original 

and will require replacement. The fuel storage tank has recently been upgraded. 

Road access ways will require repaving and replacement of walkways will be necessary. 

Most of the interior finishes have reached or are reaching the end of their service life and should be 

upgraded. If a major renovation is planned the classroom could be refurbished to facilitate the 

installation of information technology equipment. New mill work, suspended ceilings and interior finish 

improvements could also be completed at that time. 

Ventilation for this facility consists of exhaust air from multiple side walls or roof mounted exhaust fans 

and hence is typical for buildings of this age. 

Floor Plan 

Figure 1 is a floor plan for the school, which may not include all revisions or changes presently at the 

school. 

Completed Major Maintenance Projects within the previous five years 

Each year the CCRSB develops a list of Major Maintenance Projects required of its facilities. These are 

projects that generally exceed a value of $5000 and are within the categories of Regulatory 

Requirements, Health and Safety and End of Useful Life. 

2007/08 Replacement of Floor Tiles $ 10,000 

2007/08 CCTV Security System $ 11,000 

Building Use 

Square Footage: 61,123 

Regular Classrooms 21 

a. Age 62 (1947) 

b. Square Footage 61,123 

c. Additions 1955, 1976 

d. Percentage of Bussed Students 57% 

e. Original Number of Classrooms 21 

f. Average Number of Students per Classroom 30 

g. Original Capacity (e x f) 630 

h. Current Enrolment 99 


May 5, 2010

i. Projected Enrolment (5 Years) 97 

j. Current Capacity Utilization (h / g x 100%) 16% 

k. Projected Capacity Utilization (i / g x 100%) 15% 

Determining Factors 

The Education Act requires when two or more schools are being combined into an existing facility or 

replaced by one new school a school review process be undertaken by the school board. The required 

components for the various stages within a school review are also indicated in the Act. 

River Hebert District Elementary School is proposed to be consolidated within River Hebert District High 

School. The review process requires this Impact Assessment report be completed. 


May 5, 2010

Part 2: Impact Analysis 

Capability to deliver public school program 

Facility 

River Hebert District High School in its Identification Report was rated with a 4 regarding its ability to 

deliver the Public School Program. This indicated that the educational spaces meet program 

requirements with 80% to 90% plus of the characteristics being adequate. 

River Hebert District High School is a Grade Seven to Grade Twelve configuration. 

Some of the current facility inadequacies include the following areas; 

Administrative area 

Cafeteria 

No elevator 

No music room 

Public School Programming 

The following are the class configurations at River Hebert District High School as of September 2009. 

The pupil to teacher ratio (PTR) is 16.2:1 

Educational Benefits 

The Public School Program is currently being met at River Hebert District High School. As above, the 

deficiencies referenced do not have an impact on the quality of the program. 

Transportation 

Class Configuration Enrolment 

Grade 7 16 

Grade 8 16 

Grade 9 20 

Grade 10 20 

Grade 11 8 

Grade 12 20 

There are three busses providing transportation services to this school in conjunction with students 

attending the elementary school. A private contractor, First Student, currently provides the bussing 

within the framework of the CCRSB Student Transportation Policy #OS-T-01. 


May 5, 2010

Standard practice within CCRSB is to regularly review bus routing to ensure the service is being 

effectively and efficiently provided with the CCRSB policy. 

Extracurricular/Community Activities 

The River Hebert District High School is providing extra-curricular/community activities to students 

including; 

Fundy Fitness Association 

Martial Arts Instruction 

Community Education Programs 

Ladies Sewing Club 

Dance Group 

Adult Recreation 

Pre-School Program 

Pop Up 

Cadets 

Operational and Capital Requirements 

There are no projects noted for River Hebert District High School on the 2010/2011 Major Maintenance 

List following the provincial approval for a P-12 addition and alteration project in River Hebert. 

In 2009/10 Property Services indicated that the following: 

Roofing Section Replacement $ 60,000 

Window Replacement $100,000 

Paving - Road access and parking area $ 50,000 

Catchment Area 

Please refer to Figure 2 for a graphical reference of the current catchment area for River Hebert District 

High School. 

Operating Costs 

Operating Cost per Square Foot 

The Operating Costs for River Hebert District High School is $2.07 per sq. ft. 

This is derived from a three-year average of annual facility operating costs, including routine 

maintenance and utilities of $126,230. In comparison with other schools River Hebert District High is 

the sixty-fifth costliest to operate. 


May 5, 2010

River Hebert Schools 

. 

. . 

. . 

AMHERST 

. 

BROOKDALE 

. 

UPPER NAPPAN 

Highway-302 

SALEM 

Higgs Road 

Fenwick Road 

FENWICK 

Mines Road 

2009 - nmb F O R C C R S B U S E O N L Y 

LITTLE FORKS 

Little Forks Road 

SPRINGHILL 

JUNCTION 

Athol Road 

H 

. 

West Side Gate Road 

Southampton Road 

Smith Road 


Trider Road 

Riverside Drive 



Lower Maccan Road 

Barronsfield Road 

Boars Back Road 

0 1 2 3 

4 5 km 

. 

MINUDIE 

BARRONSFIELD 

RIVER HEBERT 

EAST (STRATHCONA) 

AMHERST 

POINT 

LOWER 

MACCAN 

Lower Cove Road 

RIVER 

HEBERT 

MACCAN 

WOODS 

MACCAN 

SOUTHAMPTON 

Dump Road 

JOGGINS 

Shulie Road 

CCRSB 

School 

Catchment 

Areas 

River Hebert Schools 

SHULIE 

CHIGNECTO GAME 

SANCTUARY 

LOWER 

COVE 

River Hebert Elementary 


SOUTH 

ATHOL 

ATHOL ROAD 

WEST AMHERST 

NAPPAN 

CHIGNECTO 

HASTINGS 

STANL 

ATHOL 

SPRING 

We 

D R A F T 

= Schools

Operating Cost per Student 

Operating Cost per Student $1,275 

CCRSB Highest Operating Cost per Student $1,434 

CCRSB Lowest Operating Cost per Student $ 208 

CCRSB Median Operating Cost per Student $ 432 

Staffing Costs (average across CCRSB) 

The current budget principal costs based on 1.0 NSTU FTE $ 94,780 

The current budget educational costs based on 1.0 NSTU FTEs $ 69,850 

The current budget administrative assistant cost of 1 NSGEU FTE $ 37,000 

The current budget educational assistant cost of 1 NSGEU FTE $ 24,000 

The current budget custodial staff cost of 1.0 CUPE FTE $ 50,000 

Property Service Efficiencies 

The costs to Property Services to physically operate, clean and maintain a renovated facility are based 

on a number of factors. The foremost is the overall size of the facility. This is followed by the influence 

of the various functions within the internal areas. 

The preliminary plan as outlined in Part 3 of this report indicates that consolidating schools will see a 

reduction in total size from the combined area of the current elementary and high schools. This 

should result in less building area to provide utility, maintenance and cleaning services. 

Experience within CCRSB and other provincial school boards indicate that schools that have undergone 

major renovations or additions can sometimes be more costly to operate on a per square foot basis. 

One factor is the additional infrastructure systems, present in new facilities have increased utility 

consumption and maintenance requirements. 

Also as indicated within Part 3, consolidating the elementary school with the high school reduces the 

potential for increased Major Maintenance Repairs as building ages, particularly with the vintage of a 

high school section. While not a direct efficiency, it can be considered cost avoidance. 

Property Services indicated there could be a combined reduction with the two schools of 0.5 FTE 

custodial services. For illustration purposes this would be 0.25 FTE per school. 

Reduction of 0.25 FTE custodian $ 12,500 


May 5, 2010

Transportation Efficiencies 

The catchment area of the two schools will remain unchanged by consolidation into the high school 

facility. 

Operational Efficiencies – Education 

The high school class configuration and teaching requirement remains the same with a consolidation (P- 

12), resulting in no change to instructional cost. The ability to provide administrative support in one 

facility will be easier. The librarian will not be split between two schools. 

Impact on the Community 

Educational Services 

There will likely be a positive impact on the community because students will be able to attend school 

from Grade Primary to Grade 12 in their home community. The possibility of school closure and student 

relocation is no longer of concern to students and parents. 

One school will be much easier with a single school administration from a communication perspective. 

Community Use of School 

Closing of the high school should not have a detrimental impact on the ability of the community to use 

the school. The renovated facility with its many upgrades will provide greater opportunity for increased 

community use. 

Community use of all schools within the Chignecto-Central Regional School Board is according to the 

CCRSB Use of School Facilities Policy #OS-G-09. This is available on the CCRSB web site at www.ccrsb.ca. 

Community Infrastructure Plans 

In April 2010 the Municipality of the County of Cumberland was contacted regarding infrastructure 

plans, including commercial, industrial or residential planning for the area. This included a request for 

any specific information of any approved residential development plans for the River Hebert area. 

The timeline of the request was relatively short and no reply had been received at the time of compiling 

this report. 


May 5, 2010

Part 3: Proposed Receiving School Information 

Background 

The Nova Scotia Department of Education in October 2009 confirmed approval of an Addition and 

Alteration Project involving the consolidation of the River Hebert District Elementary and River Hebert 

District High schools. The total funding for the project is $6 million. It is intended to proceed over four 

years with a projected cash flow as follows: 

2009-2010 (approved) $ 300,000 

2010-2011 (tentative) $2,300,000 

2011-2012 (tentative) $1,000,000 

2012-2013 (tentative) $2,400,000 

Ideally a school review process occurs prior to a project beginning its design and specification 

development leading to the construction phases. This project is somewhat unique as the review 

process and capital construction planning are beginning simultaneously. 

The cash flow schedule and project design requirements were needed with the initial stage as an 

indication of the site where the consolidation of the two schools would occur. The province and CCRSB 

with other jointly sponsored capital construction projects formed a School Steering Team (SST) of key 

stakeholders from the school community. The role of the SST is as an advisory body with respect to the 

scope of work and project priorities with the funding allocation. The SST Terms of Reference are 

included in the appendices. 

The first meeting of the SST was held in November 2009. One of the first items was consideration of 

which school should be closed and which should be upgraded. The consensus was that River Hebert 

District High School was the preferred school site to be renovated for a consolidated Primary to Grade 

Twelve facility. The SST meeting notes indicating this are included in the appendices. 


May 5, 2010

Receiving School 

School: 

Address: 

Principal: 

River Hebert District Elementary School 


River Hebert, N.S. BOL 1GO 

Don Gamblin 

Enrolment History and Projections 




2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 

# 118 123 111 108 99 99 108 106 86 97 

Yr to Yr 

% 

Change 0% 4.1% -9.8% -2.7% -8.3% 0% 8.3% -1.9% -18.9% 11.3% 

River Hebert District Elementary School 



2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 

# 130 123 118 105 117 109 106 102 116 101 

Yr to 

Yr % 

Change 0% -5.4% -4.1% -11.0% 10.3% -6.8% -2.8% -3.8% 12.1% -12.9% 

Projected Enrolments (Combined) 

2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 

# 208 214 208 202 198 

Yr to Yr 

% 

Change 0% 2.8% -2.8% -2.9% -2.0% 


May 5, 2010

Proposed Class Configuration – (Based on Projected September 2010 Enrolments) 

Class Configuration Enrolment 

Grades Primary/One 14/6 

Grades One/Two 12/8 

Grades Two/Three 5/16 

Grades Four/Five 14/9 

Grades Five/Six 9/16 

Grade Seven 26 

Grade Eight 15 

Grade Nine 13 

Grade Ten 17 

Grade Eleven 19 

Grade Twelve 9 

Capability to deliver Public School Program 

A project consultant, AMEC, was engaged by CCRSB to undertake a study to establish the degree of 

renovations required to consolidate the schools at River Hebert District High School. This included an 

evaluation of the high school. The second phase concluded with an analysis of the space requirements 

to provide the Public School Program at this site. 

In early April 2010 AMEC presented at an SST meeting a summary of their work. The preliminary 

indications are that the planned River Hebert School consolidation (P-12) and renovation could provide 

an upgraded facility that will meet Public School Program Requirements. The work can apparently be 

conducted in phases to meet the provincial funding. 

Figure 3 is the School Space Summary Allocation developed by AMEC, Department of Education, school 

and CCRSB representatives indicating the program spaces within the school. 

Figure 4 is the Executive Summary of AMEC – “River Hebert District High School Renovation -Existing 

Facility Evaluation and Schematic Design Study”. 

Figure 5 is a preliminary Schematic Site Plan – Concept for the school - Figures 6 and 7 are the potential 

Schematic Floor Plans for Levels One and Two of the renovated school. 

The next project phase will require more detailed functional space allocation and detail design and 

specification development. 


May 5, 2010

RIVER HEBERT DISTRICT HIGH SCHOOL RENOVATION PROJECT 

SCHOOL SPACE ALLOCATION SUMMARY DRAFT 

REFER TO FLOOR PLANS X-X -FOR EXISTING SPACE DESIGNATIONS 

NEW SCHOOL 

PROGRAM 

AREA 

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION PROJECT 

PLANNING AREA 

EXISTING SCHOOL AREA-SPACE ALLOCATION 

PROPOSED 

Not Included REMARKS 

00 NEW 

SERIAL 

NUMBERS 

CLASSROOMS Pre 

School Programm 

SPACE 

TOTAL AREA 

0 

AREA 400 QT 1 

TOTAL 

AREA 400 

01 Primary & G1 900 900 1 900 0 0 

02 G2 & G3 900 900 1 900 0 0 

_ 

_ 

0 New 900 

0 New 900 

03 G4 900 715 1 715 0 0 

_ 

SqFootage revised to 

0 New 715 

715 

04 G5 900 715 1 715 0 0 

_ 


0 New 715 

715 

05 G6 900 715 1 715 0 0 

_ 


0 New 715 

715 

06 G7 900 675 1 675 1 715 118 715 210 774 2nd Floor 

07 G8 900 675 1 675 1 715 119 715 210 774 2nd Floor 

08 G9 900 675 1 675 1 715 213 715 216 715 2nd Floor 

09 G10 900 675 1 675 1 715 214 715 215 715 2nd Floor 

10 G11 900 675 1 675 1 715 215 715 214 715 2nd Floor 

11 G12 900 675 1 675 1 715 216 715 213 715 2nd Floor 

Total Classrooms 9900 8395 12 8395 6 4965 4965 8353 

CLASSROOM 

SUPPORT AREAS 

12 Language 900 600 1 600 1 1547 210 1547 0 0 

Allocated in Another 

Classroom 

Within 

Classrooms Small Group Work Room 

120 

120 6 720 0 0 

_ 

0 

210/213/14/15 

/1 6 600 

Designated Area in 

Existing 

Total Support Areas 1020 1000 720 1000 7 1 1320 1000 

1547 880 

1547 

600 950 

ADMINISTRATION 

General Office 

880 

13 to 20 

1 

E01 to E109 

1947 

New 

21 Staff 500 500 1 500 1 325 217 325 104 870 Staff WC added (775/95) 

22 Itinerant Office 100 100 1 100 0 

New 100 

2nd Floor 1955 Section 

Reno 


23 Guidance Office 120 120 1 120 1 New 120 

Main Floor 

Reno 

705 

705 

1947 

1rst Floor 1955 Section 

24 Student Council 100 100 1 100 0 New 100 

Reno 

25 Your Health 0 ? 600 1 600 1 New 440 


Reno 

Total Administration 1820 1820 2420 700 6 1 2420 700 

1910 0 

1910 

2580 715 

ARTS Visual Arts 

1000 

0 


26 

0 

117 

Reno 

27 Storage 100 100 1 100 0 0 


0 118 95 

Done within 

Reno 

28 Music & Storage 1600 1000 1 1000 0 0 

Existing 


0 New 135 

Classroom 

Reno 

29 Pratice Rooms 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Not Included 

30 Stage / Drama ? 500 1 500 1 447 Off the Gym 447 Existing 447 Existing to Remain 

34 

Total Arts CAFETERIA 

Cafeteria 

2700 ? 852 2300 852 4 1 2300 850 1 1 447 675 

31 

Main Floor 

New 

32 Kitchen 400 400 1 400 1 1947 

EB1 400 

Main Floor 

33 Storage 

150 

150 1 150 1 105 

1947 105 EB1 150 

Total Cafeteria FAMILY 1402 700 1402 450 3 1 1400 450 0 1 780 1080 

780 

1400 450 

STUDIES Textiles 

1080 

35 Nutrition 

Total Family Studies 

GYMNASIUM Gym 

1100 

800 1 800 1 1070 

1800 8400 1250 5000 2 1 1250 5000 0 1 2150 3373 

447 

675 

1392 850 

Main Floor 

1947 

New 

Main Floor 

1947 1070 New 800 

2150 

1250 3373 

3373 

1955 Section Renovated 

Combined Total Area 

1450 

36 

Exisiting 

Exisiting 

Existing to Remain 

37 Change Rooms 1600 1100 1 1100 1 650 Exist 1955 650 New 840 Relocated off Gym 

38 Office 100 100 1 100 1 58 Exisiting 58 Exisiting 58 Existing to Remain 

Active Healthy Living 


1000 

39 Classroom 

700 1 700 1 670 EB1 670 119 715 Reno 

40 Storage 900? 900 1 900 1 320 Off the Gym 320 New 300 

Total Gymnasium 11100 7800 5 7800 5 5071 5071 5286 

INFORMATION 

TECHNOLOGY 

41 Info Tech/CRS Buisness 1000 750 1 750 1 715 112 715 204 719 


Reno 


May 5, 2010

42 

Total Information 

Technology 

LABORATORY ROOMS 

Chemistry 

1000 1200 750 1200 1 1 750 1200 1 1 715 900 

43 Prep Space 150 150 1 150 1 135 Existing 135 212 150 

44 Physics, Bio, Jr High Lab 

Total Laboratory 

Rooms LIBRARY / 

RESOURCE Library 

45 

1200 

800 1 800 1 685 

2550 1000 2150 1000 3 1 2150 1000 2 1 1720 1016 

Existing 

715 

900 

212 

719 1255 

Main Floor 

1947 685 211 765 

1720 

2170 1000 

1016 

46 Seminar 600 600 1 600 0 0 New 0 New 500 

47 

48 Resource 

Total Library STUDENT 

SERVICES Learning 

Center 

49 Reading Recovery 

1600 900 1600 600 2 1 1600 600 2 1 1016 690 

400 

120 

400 1 400 1 675 

120 1 120 1 

288 

Existing 

Exist 

Primary 


Main Floor 

1947 

Exist 

Primary 


1016 

690 

New 

116 

1500 715 

675 217 325 

288 

118 120 

50 Sensory Room 100 100 1 100 0 0 0 0 118 100 

51 

Assistive Care 

Washroom 

Total Student Services 

STORAGE General 

120 

120 1 120 1 

1640 100 1340 350 5 1 1340 350 

144 

1797 423 

Exist 

Primary 


144 

118 115 

1375 423 


Reno 


Reno 


Reno 


Reno 


Reno 


Reno 


Reno 


Reno 


Reno 

52 

0 

203 

203 

Within other 

53 Outdoor 

150 

150 1 150 0 0 

Rooms 0 Part of 112 450 

Total Storage 

250 1600 500 1600 2 1 500 1600 0 1 423 423 

423 

423 1750 

TECHNOLOGY 

1750 

423 

EDUCATION Production 

1750 

54 Lab Wood 

114/115 

114/115 

55 Innovation Lab 1000 750 1 750 1 830 111/112 830 111/112 830 Add Exit Corridor 

56 Comm Technology 1200 750 1 750 1 715 113 715 113 715 

Total Technology 

Education 

TOTAL NET SQUARE 

FOOTAGE 

SCHOOL ALLOCATED 

SPACE ADDITIONAL 

NON SCHOOL 

DESIGNATED SPACE 

TOTAL NET SQUARE 

FOOTAGE SCHOOL 

ALLOCATED SPACE 

3800 3100 3 3100 3 3295 3295 3295 

TOTAL NEW 

SCHOOL 

PROGRAM 

AREA 

34325 TOTAL DOE PROJECT PLANNING 

AREA 

TOTAL EXISITNG SCHOOL AREA 

1797 

423 

TOTAL PROPOSED AREA 

40, 582 34,325 25,836 30, 343 

TOTAL AREA 46,960 

REV. NET TOTAL AREA 

Existing 2nd Floor 1969 

Section 

Serves as Gym's storage 

as well 


Reno 


Reno 


May 5, 2010

Figure 5 


May 5, 2010

Figure 6 


May 5, 2010

Figure 7 


May 5, 2010

Catchment Area 

The student catchment area for the consolidated facility should remain as the current catchment areas 

for River Hebert District Elementary and High Schools indicated in Figure 2. 

Transportation Requirements 

The eligibility for bussing will continue to be according to the CCRSB Student Transportation Policy #OS- 

T-01. This states that conveyance will be provided to elementary students residing more than 1.6 km 

and junior high/middle school students residing more than 3.6 km from the school servicing the area in 

which they live. 

Co-curricular/Extra-curricular Activities 

A consolidated school should enhance the ability to provide extra-curricular activities to all students. 

This would include improved access to gymnasium for elementary age students. There may also be 

increased opportunities for Intramural activities. 

Closing 

The Nova Scotia Department of Education provides guidelines for provincial school boards regarding the 

school review process. School boards use these with development of their specific school reviews when 

considering the manner of provision of education services within a community. The process is often an 

arduous one and it is important that pertinent information is available on which to base a decision. 

This Impact Assessment Report is felt to provide such information with which the Chignecto-Central 

Regional School Board may use regarding the future operation of River Hebert District High School. 


May 5, 2010

APPENDICES 


May 5, 2010

River Hebert Elementary School 

Chignecto Family of Schools 

Administration 

Configuration Location Principal Vice-Principal 

P-6 


River Hebert, N.S. 

BOL 1GO 

Don Gamblin 

Gail Walsh 

Building Use 

a. Age 37 (1972) 


c. Additions n/a 









Regular 

Classrooms 

Lab 

Library 

Multi-purpose 

10 1 1 1 


May 5, 2010

Geographic Locations / Community Use 

Eligible for community use through the Chignecto-Central Regional School Board’s Use of School 

Facilities Policy (CS-G-09) 

Capital Construction Plans 

October 2009 Province confirmed the consolidating of space between two existing school 

buildings and associated upgrades to building systems and educational areas. 

Property Services Building Condition Index 

Accessibility 2/6 

Cladding 4/8 


Grounds 2/6 


Fire Alarm & P/A 1/4 

Heating 4/8 

Interior 10/24 

Plumbing 3/6 

Roofing 4/14 


Total 41/100 


Note: Based on the 2009 Identification Report – 1/77 would represent the lowest ranked building and 

77/77 would be the highest ranked building. 


May 5, 2010

Enrolments 



2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 

# 130 123 118 105 117 109 106 102 116 101 

Yr to Yr 

% 

Change 0% -5.4% -4.1% -11% 10.3% -6.8% -2.8% -3.8% 12.1% -12.9% 

Trends 



Board School Board School 

5-Year -8.5% -10.0% 

10-Year -16.2% -22.5% 

5-Year -7.0% -7.3% 

Staff 2009 

NSTU – Teachers 6.9 

Educational Assistants 3 

Custodial Staff 1 

Population 


Age 2001 2006 

0-19 7,660 6,925 

20-44 10,025 8,910 

45-64 8,810 9,815 

65-74 3,055 3,325 

75 & over 3,055 3,080 


May 5, 2010

Program: The ability as a facility to deliver the public school program 

Minor 

Major 

Rating: 1 2 3 4 5 

X 

Note: The assessment rating is on a scale of 1 to 5 with 5 being the highest rating compared to the 

current Department of Education requirements. 

Costs 

Annual total operating costs per square foot – average previous three years 

2007 2008 2009 Average Square Feet $ Per Sq. Ft. 

$38,477 $40,630 $41,588 $40,232 15,582 $2.58 

Annual utility costs per square foot for 2008-2009 

Electricity Fuel Water Sewer Total Square Feet $ Per Sq. Ft. 

$25,958 n/a $1,373 n/a $27,330 15,582 $1.75 

Recommendation 

X 

Determining factors does indicate further review 

Determining factors do not indicate further review 


Confirmed by DOE as part of the 2009 Capital Construction Submission. 


May 5, 2010


Chignecto Family of Schools 

Administration 

Configuration Location Principal Vice-Principal 

7-12 


River Hebert, N.S. 

BOL 1GO 

Don Gamblin 

Gail Walsh 

Building Use 

a. Age 62 (1947) 


c. Additions 1955 









Regular 

Classrooms 

Gymnasium 

Labs 

Library 

21 1 6 1 


May 5, 2010

Geographic Locations / Community Use 

Eligible for community use through the Chignecto-Central Regional School Board’s Use of School 

Facilities Policy (CS-G-09). 

Capital Construction Plans 

October 2009 Province confirmed the consolidating of space between two existing school 

buildings and associated upgrade to building systems and educational areas. 

Property Services Building Condition Index 

Accessibility 0.5/6 

Cladding 6.5/8 


Grounds 3.5/6 


Fire Alarm & P/A 1.5/4 

Heating 5/8 

Interior 0/24 

Plumbing 1/6 

Roofing 0/14 


Total 30/100 


Note: Based on the 2009 Identification Report – 1/77 would represent the lowest ranked 

building and 77/77 would be the highest ranked building. 


May 5, 2010

Enrolments 



2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 

# 118 123 111 108 99 99 108 106 86 97 

Yr to Yr 

% 

Change 0% 4.1% -9.8% -2.7% -8.3% 0% 8.3% -1.9% -18.9% 11.3% 

Trends 



Board School Board School 

5-Year -8.5% -16.1% 

10-Year -16.2% -44.7% 

5-Year -7.0% -2.0% 

Staff 2009 

NSTU – Teachers 9.4 

Educational Assistants 1 

Custodial Staff 2 

Population 


Age 2001 2006 

0-19 7,660 6,925 

20-44 10,025 8,910 

45-64 8,810 9,815 

65-74 3,055 3,325 

75 & over 3,055 3,080 


May 5, 2010

Program: The ability as a facility to deliver the public school program 

Minor 

Major 

Rating: 1 2 3 4 5 

X 

Note: The assessment rating is on a scale of 1 to 5 with 5 being the highest rating compared to the 

current Department of Education requirements. 

Costs 

Annual total operating costs per square foot – average previous three years 

2007 2008 2009 Average Square Feet $ Per Sq. Ft. 

$124,895 $125,036 128,759 $126,230 61,123 $2.07 

Annual utility costs per square foot for 2008-2009 

Electricity Fuel Water Sewer Total Square Feet $ Per Sq. Ft. 

$39,152 $39,337 $891 $20,376 $99,756 61,123 $1.63 

Recommendation 

X 

Determining factors does indicate further review 

Determining factors do not indicate further review 


Confirmed by DOE as part of the 2009 Capital Construction Submission. 


May 5, 2010

Appendix 2 

School Review Process 

Evaluation Process for Condition of Schools 

The relative condition of these schools was determined by calculating a condition index for 

each of the schools identified. 

Background information on the calculation of the condition index is as follows: 

- Eleven building “system” categories were assigned a maximum point value according to 

the approximate cost percentage that would be represented in a building replacement 

or renovation project. For example, if the total roof system required replacement it 

would represent 14% of construction costs. 

The assigned percentages of the building system categories and associated evaluation 

considerations are as follows: 

- Accessibility (6%) – Maximum points for accessibility to all areas of building including 

washrooms on all levels. Accessibility at all entrances also required. 

- Cladding (8%) – Durable materials such as brick and steel assigned a greater value than 

those requiring increased maintenance such as wood. 

- Doors & Windows (6%) – Exterior doors and windows and associated hardware 

evaluated. 

- Grounds (6%) – Access roadways, parking lots, walkways, and play fields assessed. 

- Electrical (12%) – Supply and distribution system and lighting evaluated. 

- Fire Alarm and Communication Systems (4%) 

- Heating (8%) – Heating equipment, distribution system, and associated controls 

assessed. 

- Interior (24%) – Flooring, Ceilings, Interior Doors and Finishes evaluated. 

- Plumbing (6%) – Distribution System and Fixtures assessed. 

- Roofing (14%) - Condition and age of roofing systems considered. 

- Ventilation (6%) - Existing system evaluated. 

Property Services Staff assigned values to all eleven categories on the basis of condition. For 

example, if the total roof system required replacement 0 points would be assigned. If 50% of 

the roof area required replacement, seven points would be assigned. 


May 5, 2010

Appendix 3 

School Review Process 

Educational Spaces Ranking 

Source – CCRSB staff qualitative assessment. The assessment rating is on a scale of 1 to 5 with 

5 being the highest rating compared to the current Department of Education requirements. 

Ranking 1 - The majority of educational spaces do not meet program requirements 

(0% to 30% of the characteristics are adequate). 

Ranking 2 - Some of the educational spaces meet program requirements (40% to 50% 

of the characteristics are adequate). 

Ranking 3 - Most educational spaces meet program requirements (60% to 70% of the 

characteristics are adequate). 

Ranking 4 - Educational spaces meet program requirements (80% to 90% plus of the 


Ranking 5 - All educational spaces are considered superior and modern (100% of the 



May 5, 2010

CHIGNECTO-CENTRAL REGIONAL SCHOOL BOARD 

60 Lorne Street, Truro, Nova Scotia B2N 3K3 

Phone: (902) 897-8960 Fax: (902) 897-8988 

Toll Free: 1-800-770-0008 

Director of Operational Services 

Herb Steeves, P.Eng., MBA 

April 24, 2010 

Mr. Rennie Bugley 

Chief Administrative Officer 

Municipality of the County of Cumberland 

P.O. Box 428 

Amherst, N.S. B4H 3Z5 

Via Fax: 902-667-1352 

Dear Mr. Bugley: 

Re: School Review Process – River Hebert Elementary School 


The Chignecto-Central Regional School Board (CCRSB) in February 2009 submitted a request 

to the province fo r a nu mber of sc hools withi n our Board to undergo p otential a dditions and 

alterations. This included c ombining R iver He bert District Elementary S chool (RHDES) a nd 

River Hebert District High School (RHDHS) within one facility. In October 2009 the province 

confirmed approval of the single facility with the design and construction process to beginning in 

the 2009/2010 fiscal year. 

The CCRSB has embarked on a multi-stage School Review Process legislated by the province of 

Nova Scotia. The review involves the operational status of the each of these two schools which 

could be consolidated into a single school. The process began with preliminary Identification 

Reports of the schools and a pproved b y t he Board in March 2010. T hese reports included 

consideration of such factors as current enrollment, enrollment trends, school design c apacity, 

capacity in use, ability t o pr ovide Public S chool P rogram with the school, building condition, 

operating costs and utility costs. 


May 5, 2010

The current stage involves the development of Impact Assessment Reports where more detailed 

information is compiled for the Board. The preliminary factors are reviewed in greater depth and 

some additional information is attained from various sources. An Impact Assessment Report 

must be tabled at a public Board meeting no later than May 31, 2010 according to the provincial 

mandate. 

Within this phase the CCRSB is requesting prospective information from the applicable 

municipal units. This would include any current municipal plans over the next five years for 

infrastructure development in the River Hebert District which could change the enrollment or 

population patterns within the catchment area of the current RHDHS. Information of residential 

developments that currently have municipal approval or are in the process of attaining such 

would be beneficial, including their size and intended demographics. 

As noted above, the review process follows a relatively tight time line. If there is any 

infrastructure information the County would like to provide so as to be considered as part of the 

Impact Assessment Reports for RHDES and RHDHS, it should be received by May 7, 2010. 

The subsequent phase of the School Review Process includes Study Committee Responses to the 

Impact Assessment Reports with an associated public meeting. This is anticipated to occur 

during the fall of 2010. 

Your assistance is appreciated. If there are any questions, please do not hesitate to contact us. 

Sincerely, 

H.B. Steeves, P.Eng., MBA 

Director of Operational Services 

cc: Dr. Noel Hurley, Superintendent, CCRSB 


May 5, 2010

Terms of Reference - School Steering Team (SST) 

Additions and Alteration Project – River Hebert Elementary and River Hebert District 

High School 

Background: 

Composition: 

River Hebert Elementary and River Hebert District High Schools are to begin an Addition 

and Alteration Capital Construction Project. The purpose of this project is to combine 

the educational services of the two schools into a single facility. This may require 

renovations/upgrades at a facility to meet the education requirements of the Public 

School Program and supporting infrastructure services. To provide the necessary 

funding to complete this project, the province plans for the work to occur over a 

number of fiscal years. 

Includes representatives of the key stakeholders for the school community including; 

- School Advisory Council Chairs 

- Home and school Representative 

- PTA Representative 

- Schools Principals 

- Regional Director, NS Department of Education 

- CCRSB Board Member Representing Schools Area 

- Cumberland County Municipal Councilor, District Nine 

- MLA Cumberland South 

- CCRSB Family of School Supervisor 

- CCRSB Coordinator of Property Services 

- CCRSB Property Services representative 

- CCRSB Director of Operational Services 

- SST Meeting Facilitator 

Role: The SST is an advisory body only with respect to the scope of work and project priorities within 

its fiscal designations. This includes advice on such issues as: 

the determination of the preferred facility to undergo the capital construction 

addition and alteration work 

proposed upgrades needed of the preferred facility 

proposed renovations wanted of the preferred facility 

work with and advise the CCRSB and DOE at the beginning of the project to develop 

the detailed scope of work possible within the provincial funding allocation 

communicate information from the SST meetings to stakeholders they represent 

potential priorities of the renovations and upgrades to maintain designated funding 

provide feedback during design phase for architectural and engineering consultants 

an advisory resource to CCRSB and province should matters arise during the 

implementation of the project which could change its objectives. 

Frequency of Meetings: 

As required to meet the annual commitments of the project. 

It is anticipated the frequency of meetings will be greatest during the beginning phase and be 

substantially less following design completion and subsequently during the construction phases. 

October 2009 


May 5, 2010

MEETING HIGHLIGHTS 

RIVER HEBERT ELEMENTARY AND HIGH SCHOOL 

SCHOOL STEERING TEAM 

NOVEMBER 17, 2009 

In Attendance 

Susan Kinnear Beaton – Home and School Association Representative 

Louanne Berry – PTA Representative 

Tim Coates – CCRSB Coordinator of Property Services 

David Dinaut - Chair/Facilitator 

Don Gamblin – Principal, River Hebert Schools 

Glenda Janes – School Advisory Council Chair 

George Kinnear – CCRSB Property Services Representative 

Ron Lelievre – Regional Director, Nova Scotia Department of Education 

Scott Milner – CCRSB Family of Schools Supervisor 

John Reid – Cumberland County Municipal Councillor, District 9 

Mackie Ross – CCRSB Board Member Representing Schools Area 

Herb Steeves – CCRSB Director of Operational Services 

Regrets 

Murray Scott – MLA Cumberland South 

David Dinaut, Committee Chair, called the meeting to order at 4:00 P.M. and welcomed 

everyone to the meeting. 

A. Introductions 

The meeting began with introductions from all in attendance. Each explained his/her 

role and the stakeholder he/she represents. 

B. Tour of the Facilities 

Principal, Don Gamblin led the School Steering Team on an exterior/interior tour of the 

elementary and high schools. 


May 5, 2010

C. Role of the Department of Education 

Following the resumption of the meeting at 5:05PM, the chair called upon Ron Lelievre, 

Regional Director, Nova Scotia Department of Education, to explain the role of the 

Department to the group. He explained that the School Capital Construction Committee 

cited the River Hebert Schools as approved for an addition and alteration. He described 

the School Steering Team as an advisory body which will produce a list of items needing 

to be considered and will indicate the priorities. He also pointed out the role of the 

local CCRSB. The SST would look at space and program requirements and how these 

could best be addressed. It was the mandate of the Department to extend the life of 

the building for an additional 15 year period. 

C. Description of mandate, timelines and funding 

Herb Steeves, CCRSB Director of Operational Services, explained the terms of reference 

for the SST (handout). Herb explained that money in projects such as this is always an 

issue, that there will be a need for compromise but the end project should be a very 

positive experience. The SST represents the community and is a conduit between the 

community and the project. The SST will consider what is critical, what is essential and 

what is desirable with regard to this addition and alteration project. The front end of our 

project is where most of the SST meetings will take place. As construction begins, the 

team will meet less often but will be the first to do a walk-through the completed 

project. 

Mr. Steeves circulated a handout on funding for the project. Although A&A project will 

be carried out over a four year period, $300,000 must be spent by March 31, 2010. 

Most of this money will be expended through work done by engineers and consultants. 

These professionals will dialogue with the SST as needed. 

SST members were encouraged to bring up items that they wanted to talk about. 

Tim Coates explained that the River Hebert Buildings were evaluated in 2008 as part of a 

School Review Process. The report is found at the CCRSB website under operational 

services. 

http://ccrsb.ednet.ns.ca/sites/default/files/schoolreviewprocess_feb2009_0.pdf 

There is a section in the report on the condition of the buildings. Conditions can change 

a great deal in a few years. Consultants will be asked to look at the categories again. 

There is a logical sequence as to when you can do the work keeping in mind program 

delivery and priorities. 


May 5, 2010

D. Preferred Facility Discussion 

Following dinner in the school cafeteria, the meeting resumed at 6:10p.m., with a round 

table discussion beginning with community preferences regarding the two schools. 

Community stakeholders were in agreement that the preference is to move students 

into the high school and to close the elementary school. The question was raised by 

Glenda Janes about going through the school closure process. Herb Steeves explained 

that the closure process must be followed but that this is separate from the work of the 

SST. 

Principal, Don Gamblin outlined the close relationship between school and community, 

and the ties between the high school and the Nova Scotia Community College. Local 

team members expressed the hope that the renovated facility could continue to be used 

as a community resource. 

Scott Milner, Chignecto Family of Schools Supervisor, encouraged team members to 

look upon the renovated school as a full service institution serving the needs of the local 

community. 

The discussion concluded with comments from Mackie Ross, CCRSB board member. He 

suggested that the students be placed in the school in an age appropriate manner and 

that the renovations should reflect this. 

Following this extended discussion, the Chair called for indications of consensus. The 

School Steering Team members affirmed their choice of the high school as the preferred 

facility. Both John Reid and Louanne Berry indicated that closure of the elementary was 

the preference of the community. T Ron Lelievre cautioned the group that the final 

decision does not lie with the SST. Herb Steeves agreed but reiterated that it is within 

the mandate of the team to identify the “preferred facility”. He went on to state that 

information from consultants may affect the decision of the SST. 

Ron Lelievre stated that the DOE has a program that would indicate what the school 

would have if it were new construction. Herb Steeves added that although we are not 

doing new school construction, this information would be useful in planning for program 

and services in a school of this enrollment. 

Discussion then centered on delivery of program and services at River Hebert in a single 

school building. Don Gamblin and Scott Milner were asked to provide the School 

Steering Team with floor plans for the P-12 school. Using projected enrollments, the 

floor plan will indicate the delivery of programs required for all students in a single 


May 5, 2010

uilding. They will also provide the Team with current floor plans for each building, and 

will have all of this information available for the December meeting. 

Herb Steeves cautioned the group that there is not a lot of time to complete this part of 

the process. Tenders are expected to be called by early April and construction should 

begin by early July. John Reid suggested that this process would be further complicated 

by the commitment of individuals and companies to infrastructure projects already 

underway. As a result, this team will need to meet on a regular basis to allow us to 

involve engineers and consultants as soon as possible. 

E. Next Meeting 

The next meeting of the River Hebert Schools Steering Team will be held on Tuesday, 

December 1 at 3:30 PM. A meeting has also been scheduled for Tuesday, December 15. 

It was agreed that a list of team members, positions and stakeholder groups would be 

made available to all members before the next meeting. Meeting notes will be 

circulated prior to the next meeting. 

F. Adjournment 

Meeting adjourned at 6:55 P.M. 


May 5, 2010

River Hebert District High - Chignecto-Central Regional School Board

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?