At the forefront of the meeting was the discussion of the Pierce School project’s GMP, proposed at approximately $1.165 billion with Conly Construction. This substantial figure, reviewed by the building commission, was deemed necessary to lock in bids before expiration, due to market uncertainties. The project’s owner’s project manager, Adam Keane, affirmed that phase one, involving demolition, was on schedule and within budget. He emphasized that the current GMP was $2 million less than the initial budget estimate, including various additions such as park improvements and fire safety measures.

Central to the debate was the proposed $656,000 budget for replacing 57 windows in a historic building, a decision that drew both skepticism and support. The windows, replaced only a decade ago, were failing due to gasket issues, prompting a recommendation for full replacement rather than repair. The board scrutinized the timing of this decision, expressing concern about the urgency and high costs for windows initially believed to be compliant with preservation standards. It was revealed that the existing vinyl windows had not received approval from the preservation commission, raising further questions about the appropriateness of the replacements.

The preservation aspect, given the building’s status on the National Historic Register, sparked discussion about compliance with historic guidelines. The need for preservation review of the new windows was underscored, with some members expressing frustration over the lack of prior approval.

Additionally, the board explored the possibility of reimbursement from the Massachusetts School Building Authority (MSBA) for various add-ons, including window replacements and additional safety measures like sprinklers in the town hall garage. Questions about the reimbursability of these elements, particularly as they pertained to different structures, added complexity to the financial deliberations.

The conversation then turned to alternative options and the implications of delaying the window decision. Members sought clarity on whether the board was voting on the entire GMP contract or if add-ons like the window replacement could be separately approved. It was clarified that while the GMP encompassed the overall project scope, the window replacements were singled out for separate consideration. Concerns about the financial implications of unspent funds and their impact on borrowing costs were also discussed, with explanations provided that unspent money would not incur borrowing expenses.

Despite initial hesitations, the rationale for approving the window replacements was acknowledged, particularly regarding energy efficiency and maintaining building integrity. The need for a better product to avoid similar issues in the future was emphasized, and the possibility of recouping funds from the original window manufacturer due to inadequate performance was noted as a separate agenda.

Public comments during the meeting echoed concerns about financial prudence and the necessity of project elements. Jocelyn Murphy, a town meeting member, questioned the estimated value of the subsurface land at Pierce Playground and the involvement of the preservation commission in the window project’s expanded scope. Carolyn Thal, another town meeting member, called for caution, highlighting the town’s financial challenges and urging against non-essential additions.