The committee’s primary concern was site selection for new school facilities. Detailed evaluations were conducted for three key locations: Parker, Graniteville Road, and McCarthy. The Parker site, already home to existing fields, raised questions about the feasibility of replicating these fields elsewhere if the building were demolished. Considerations included planning for necessary infrastructure like roadways, parking, and outdoor spaces. The Graniteville Road site faced challenges with wetlands and floodplains, while the McCarthy site, despite being the largest, had significant non-buildable areas due to topography and tree coverage.

An evaluation matrix was introduced to aid in site selection, focusing on five pillars: educational program, community access, construction phasing, energy efficiency, and cost. This tool aimed to provide transparency and guide decision-making by comparing site options based on established criteria. The committee underscored the importance of considering environmental factors and site constraints as they move forward with the project.

The committee also discussed the budget and compliance with MSBA standards, particularly concerning Parker School’s current building conditions. An approved budget revision request aimed to align the budget with MSBA expectations, reallocating funds to ensure proper management of the owner’s project manager (OPM) and designer contracts. The Parker School was noted for several compliance issues, including accessibility and building code violations, such as inadequate railing design and insufficient egress widths. Energy code violations, like a lack of insulation, were also highlighted, contributing to an uncomfortable learning environment. The committee planned a cost estimating exercise for December, with a decision point set for January 15, when they would select an enrollment option and approve the project design program (PDP) submission.

Community engagement was another key topic, with updates on visioning sessions conducted to gather input from students and staff. These sessions focused on educational goals and preferences for learning environments, emphasizing collaboration and accommodating various learning styles. Feedback from these sessions was positive, with students participating and sharing their perspectives. The committee reflected on the success of these sessions, acknowledging the excitement and energy generated among attendees.

Additionally, logistical challenges related to construction boring near school facilities were discussed. The process was to involve boring to a depth of 20 feet, with each boring taking about one to two hours. Concerns were raised about the timing of the boring, particularly its impact on school activities. Suggestions included scheduling work outside school hours or relocating activities to minimize disruptions. Coordination with the school’s stormwater management was proposed to obtain further information.

Upcoming community forums were also highlighted, with the first scheduled for October 22 at 7 p.m. This forum aims to provide an overview of existing conditions and the visioning process. A second forum is planned for November 20, alongside another building committee meeting. The committee discussed the potential for a third public visioning session in December.