17:09The committee’s decision to prioritize Parker Middle School stems from a strategic consultation with the MSBA, following unsuccessful bids to secure funding for a new high school. This shift in focus aims to tackle anticipated enrollment increases, projected to rise by 600 to 800 students by 2035, and to address pressing capacity needs across the district. The committee’s discussion highlighted the competitive nature of the MSBA funding process, which led them to explore more viable projects with broader community impact.

Three potential options for Parker Middle School were presented, each with distinct implications for the district’s educational landscape. The first option entails a one-for-one replacement of the existing middle school, serving grades five and six. However, this would not address the district’s broader enrollment challenges, particularly at the elementary level. The second option proposes establishing a new school for grades four through six, allowing for the relocation of fourth-grade students from elementary schools and creating additional capacity for roughly 100 more elementary students. This option, while expansive, raises concerns due to its scale, potentially accommodating around 1,800 students, surpassing the current high school’s capacity.

0:00The committee underscored the importance of community engagement throughout the feasibility study process, emphasizing the need for public input to ensure the chosen option aligns with community priorities and long-term educational goals. A key step in advancing the project involves securing an owner’s project manager (OPM) and a designer, with the committee planning to establish a subcommittee for this purpose. The MSBA’s timeline for OPM procurement was adjusted, initially set for April 7 but shifted to May 12, prompting the committee to express concerns about maintaining momentum.

32:25In addition to the feasibility study, the committee reviewed a draft request for services from the OPM, which included a proposed construction cost range between $115 million and $185 million. These estimates, based on comparable projects and historical data from the MSBA, reflect current market values but do not account for future inflation or market changes. The committee highlighted the potential for state reimbursement, which could cover up to 52% of the costs, stressing the importance of timely execution to avoid state-imposed funding moratoriums.

The evaluation criteria for selecting the OPM were discussed, with the committee required to assign point values across 11 categories as per MSBA guidelines. Emphasis was placed on personnel assignments, past performance, management approach, and cost estimation experience as critical factors in the scoring process. The committee also addressed the necessity of using a numerical scoring system, mandated by the MSBA, despite previous practices utilizing qualitative terms.

Further revisions to the request for services document were proposed, including clarifying the language regarding the possibility of re-advertising the OPM selection. The committee agreed on the need for flexibility, opting for the term “may” rather than “will,” to allow discretion in cases of insufficient responses or failed negotiations.