The meeting began with a discussion on upsizing the air handling unit within the school infrastructure. The committee highlighted the long-term financial savings and preparation for future enrollment projections as key reasons for this decision. A member noted that making these adjustments now could prevent more costly modifications in the future, as structural modifications would require extensive engineering processes if postponed. The projected cost savings from this initiative were approximately $90,000.

Enrollment projections were also scrutinized, with past underestimations being acknowledged. The school is currently designed to accommodate around 1,200 students, and although current enrollment has not yet reached this capacity, trends suggest potential growth. The committee debated the practicality of constructing additional space based on these projections, emphasizing the importance of accurate planning given past experiences of underestimated enrollment needs.

Financial aspects of the proposed air handling unit changes were thoroughly discussed. Clarifications were made that the unit in question was an outside air unit, a technology that has not seen changes over the years. The committee weighed the benefits of upsizing the unit now against the potential future expenses and technological advancements. Ultimately, the motion to approve the upsizing was met with unanimous support.

In another development, the committee deliberated on the construction of a six-sided mockup related to the Massachusetts School Building Authority (MSBA) project. The mockup, designed to test air entrainment and identify potential leaks, is a small shed-like structure measuring approximately 10 by 10 feet. This initiative aligns with the committee’s pursuit of passive house standards, which could secure additional funding from the MSBA.

The mockup’s cost, around $100,000, was a point of contention, with discussions on making it a more permanent structure that could serve additional purposes, such as a well head for the temporary water well planned for irrigation on the new athletic fields. This approach aims to address the town’s past concerns with water bans and ensure that the grass on the athletic fields can take hold.

Aesthetic concerns about the mockup’s design were raised, with suggestions to hire an architect to create a structure that better matches existing buildings. While the necessity of the mockup for performance validation was recognized, the committee was tasked with balancing these needs against aesthetic considerations.

The committee also focused on the importance of onsite oversight to mitigate potential risks associated with the construction project. There was a consensus on enhancing supervision by involving additional engineers or agents to conduct spot checks, reducing reliance solely on the contractor’s superintendent. The cost for these additional services was projected to be less than $100,000. Ensuring proper oversight was deemed a prudent investment to prevent future complications and guarantee the successful passage of critical tests like the pressure test.

In budgetary matters, the committee reported being approximately $1.2 million under the approved construction budget, attributed to favorable competition in bidding. This positive development set the stage for a motion to approve the submission of the 60% design documents to the MSBA, which included a previous alternate already voted on.

Further updates included the environmental review process, with plans to file a single environmental impact report draft soon. The committee also discussed ongoing communications with the planning board and conservation commission, updates on permanent well installation for irrigation, and additional hazardous material testing.