One focus of the meeting was the approval of the PDP, a milestone that outlines the preliminary design options for the school project. The committee considered several options, including additions and new constructions on different sites. The options presented were Option 2.1, which involves an addition to the east, Option 3.1 for new construction on the upper fields, and Option 3.2 for new construction on the lower field. Following a roll call vote, the committee unanimously approved the authorization for the project manager to submit the PDP along with these options to the MSBA. This decision was met with appreciation for the team’s efforts in reaching this milestone within a short timeframe.

The conversation then shifted to the necessity of preparing for the next phase, the Preferred Schematic Report (PSR). Emphasizing the importance of beginning design work immediately, the committee acknowledged that September would be a critical month for design development. Additionally, community outreach was identified as a priority, with plans for a presentation at the upcoming special town meeting on October 29. To ensure all stakeholders were informed about the project’s progress, a suggestion was made to reconvene a joint leadership group meeting before this date.

Logistical considerations for scheduling the joint leadership meeting were discussed, noting potential conflicts with other committee meetings. There was a suggestion to separate the finance committee’s meeting from the school committee’s meeting to allow for more focused discussions. Concerns about the timing of updated cost estimates were raised, emphasizing the need to provide community members with information well in advance of the town meeting to avoid surprises regarding costs.

The committee also discussed the MSBA’s feedback process, particularly regarding the additional 30,000 square feet required for the project. It was noted that the MSBA’s feedback could range from no objections to requests for more information. The importance of determining the project scope and potential cost reductions was highlighted, with a focus on efficiency during the design process. By the end of the Schematic Design phase, the committee needs to be nearly certain of their plans, with a definitive budget set, which will involve discussions with the MSBA regarding reimbursements.

The term “value engineering” was introduced. The timeline for cost estimates was noted, with two estimates expected during the Schematic Design phase. Decisions regarding the delivery method of the project—whether to utilize a General Contractor (GC) or Construction Manager at Risk (CMR)—needed to be made during this phase. The ongoing soil investigations and site conditions were brought up as factors that could influence the choice of delivery method.

Attention was also given to the importance of community engagement strategies, emphasizing the need for outreach to ensure public awareness and support for the project. Legal limitations on Studio G and TTH regarding campaigning for the project were mentioned, but their willingness to assist in outreach efforts was noted. Proposals included hosting informational sessions or creating graphics to improve communication. A suggestion was made to form a subcommittee focused on community outreach, involving enthusiastic community members to amplify these efforts.

Further discussions addressed budget updates, with a note that the provided budget information was incorrect and would need to be followed up with accurate figures. The need for a master schedule was highlighted, acknowledging that relevant information had been compiled into a calendar for reference. The meeting concluded with a motion to adjourn, confirmed by a roll call vote.