The board’s most significant deliberation focused on the two primary school design options, labeled B1 and E2. The B1 layout, which is approximately one million dollars cheaper than E2, was favored for its compactness and efficiency. The B1 option is priced at $135 million, while E2 comes in at $136 million. The former’s smaller footprint is expected to reduce energy consumption for heating and cooling, making it a more cost-effective choice in the long run. The B1 layout was also highly regarded by educators for its alignment with their educational philosophy, fostering a community-oriented environment. Classrooms in B1 are organized around a central gallery area. This design also includes extensive use of glass to flood the area with natural light while maintaining acoustic separation to minimize noise disruptions.

In contrast, the E2 design features a more elaborate and open layout, with a larger exterior surface area that could potentially increase costs related to insulation and waterproofing. E2’s winged design offers more direct access to natural light, particularly with classrooms facing north and south, which educators noted could be beneficial for energy efficiency and psychological comfort. However, concerns were raised that the elongated design might hinder visibility and accessibility, making it less conducive to fostering a tight-knit community atmosphere.

The board also delved into discussions about the placement and accessibility of various school facilities, including a playground area. The proposed location for the playground, beneficial for preschool children due to its proximity to the first-floor classrooms, raised safety and noise concerns. Alternative suggestions included relocating the playground to a more secure area closer to the Wild Center, emphasizing the need to balance accessibility with safety.

The meeting also highlighted the importance of ensuring the mechanical room is adequately sized and strategically located for easy access and maintenance. Past experiences underscored the difficulties of servicing equipment in undersized mechanical rooms, prompting a discussion on the optimal dimensions and placement of this critical facility.

Sustainability was a recurring theme, with debate on the feasibility of integrating geothermal energy systems into the new school building. The board discussed conducting a test well to gauge the site’s geothermal capacity, a step in determining the viability of this energy source. If deemed feasible, the plan involves engaging a geothermal contractor by the end of August to initiate drilling a test well, with a final decision on the geothermal system expected by early November.

In addition to geothermal considerations, the board also explored the integration of solar energy into the project. Discussions included the potential for solar installations on the roof and in parking areas, with estimates provided for the associated costs. It was noted that the project’s current budget, projected at $136 million, does not account for solar panels. The importance of designing the building to accommodate future solar upgrades was emphasized.

The board’s preference for the B1 layout was formalized through a motion to support this design choice, acknowledging that further modifications would be made as the design progresses. The motion included a commitment to comply with Massachusetts School Building Authority (MSBA) rules, with an official vote scheduled for the following week.

Financial considerations also played a role in the meeting. The board reviewed the total project budget, noting that the B1 option was more cost-effective. The cost differential between B1 and E2 was minimal, further supporting the preference for the B1 model. The discussion included an analysis of offsite improvements, such as crosswalks, sidewalks, and parking adjustments, estimated to cost around $2 million. These improvements, while potentially eligible for inclusion in the overall project budget, are often managed separately to avoid complications with the general contractor.

The meeting concluded with a discussion on the project’s timeline and upcoming community engagements. A community meeting is planned for August 14th to vote on the Preferred Schematic Report (PSR), with submissions to the MSBA scheduled for August 21st. The MSBA’s review period is anticipated to last no longer than 30 days, after which additional preparatory meetings will be organized. The Facilities Assessment Subcommittee (FAS) of the MSBA will also be engaged, with potential meeting dates identified in mid-September.