The approved amendment included two parts: construction administration support for the Passive House process and an air quality analysis by Perkins Eastman as required by the Massachusetts Environmental Policy Act (MEPA). The total cost for these services was presented as $104,300, with funds already budgeted for this work. The committee had previously endorsed this approach, which leverages Perkins Eastman’s consultant, eliminating the need for a separate third-party consultant. This approach was endorsed by the Massachusetts School Building Authority (MSBA), which had no objections to the arrangement.

Committee members discussed the financial benefits of pursuing Passive House certification, which could potentially increase the town’s reimbursement rate from the MSBA from 44% to 48% by complying with specialized energy codes. This potential increase in reimbursement could lead to significant savings for the town. The discussion included specifics on how the reimbursement rates worked, emphasizing the importance of achieving compliance with the Passive House standards to maximize financial benefits.

The meeting also covered a detailed financial discussion about a $300,000 budget allocation for the school project. It was noted that $138,000 had already been allocated for additional controls support from IDs, part of a Vertex amendment aimed at refining the control system to meet the energy use intensity (EUI) goals set by the town. This left a balance of approximately $200,000 in the budget. The committee unanimously approved amendment number seven to the contract for designer services after a roll call vote.

Permitting updates were another focal point of the meeting. The committee discussed a recent meeting with the planning board and upcoming meetings with the Conservation Commission and the planning board, confirming that these meetings would likely be remote. Initial feedback from the planning board was generally positive, though some questions were raised about project aspects. A nearby resident expressed concerns regarding the proximity of the drainage outfall to their property.

The planning board awaited peer review comments, expected early that week, along with traffic comments anticipated for the following week. A letter from the zoning enforcement officer pertaining to the Dover Amendment was referenced, confirming that a three-story building could be permitted under this amendment. This amendment allows exceptions to zoning laws that would otherwise restrict school construction. The committee discussed specific zoning requirements that had been waived, such as buffer zones, parking counts, and landscaped islands in parking lots.

Dan, presumably a member of the design team, presented a proposal for revised road and parking configurations. The committee discussed the merits of shifting the athletic field to increase parking spaces while addressing concerns about wetland buffer zones. They acknowledged that while some spaces might be lost in the overflow area, the overall outcome would likely yield a net increase in available parking. The committee expressed hope that ongoing analysis by Dan’s team would yield further refinements for discussion at their next meeting.

The committee also discussed modifications related to impervious areas and the potential increase beyond 10%, which could trigger a project change notification under MEPA. The focus was on finding a balance that meets various requirements while avoiding complications. The anticipated cost impacts of these modifications were discussed, with indications that the changes would likely lead to increased expenses due to the need for proper drainage and curbing. However, it was suggested that these additional costs could be managed within the existing budget framework, as the project was previously estimated to be $1.5 million under budget.