The meeting began with a presentation from Studio G, which provided insights into site selection and cost estimates for multiple construction options. These included six different alternatives: a code upgrade, two addition and renovation options, and three new construction options, including one at Wickom Field. The estimates, based on Massachusetts School Building Authority (MSBA) guidelines, were intended for comparative purposes rather than reflecting final costs.

The committee discussed the design-bid-build (DBB) approach versus the construction manager at risk (CMR) model, weighing the pros and cons of each. The DBB approach completes the design before collecting bids, while the CMR model involves an earlier partnership with a construction manager who provides cost estimates throughout the project. No decision was required at the time.

A significant portion of the meeting focused on the MSBA’s reimbursement calculations. The current reimbursement rate is approximately $605 per square foot, expected to increase to $645 in January. This raised concerns about increased financial obligations for taxpayers, with one member expressing disappointment that the expected reimbursement rate might be closer to 40% rather than the previously discussed 48%. This discrepancy could complicate efforts to gain town meeting approval under the revised estimates.

Discussion also compared specific costs associated with different options, particularly relocating the academic footprint to Wickom Field. The higher cost for Option 3.1 was not immediately clear, potentially involving factors such as site development complexities and variations in soil conditions. While these estimates were preliminary, the differences were not deemed statistically significant at this stage.

Further clarification on the reimbursement process and taxpayer implications became a focal point. Committee members sought to understand MSBA limitations, including various caps and exclusions on eligible costs. Concerns were raised about these limitations impacting the overall project budget and the community’s financial responsibilities.

The committee sought to address community concerns about the Wickom site, acknowledging traffic issues during construction. One participant noted the existing high traffic levels during school events and community activities, stating, “the parking lot at Shaker Lane is crazy as it is without throwing more traffic through there.” The committee emphasized the importance of transparency in decision-making and educating constituents about site selection decisions, particularly regarding educational programming needs and site congestion.

The committee also discussed the complexities of scheduling within the school district, highlighting that a uniform schedule for all schools is impractical due to differing needs across various age groups and grades. An upcoming meeting with the Finance Committee and Select Board on the 21st was noted, where the school building committee would present findings and rationale behind selected options. The importance of clearly communicating due diligence in exploring alternatives was stressed.

Space requirements for the new school facilities were debated, with a focus on MSBA guidelines. Requests for additional square footage beyond MSBA standards, including increased accessibility for teachers and additional space for Pre-K classrooms, were discussed. The total request amounted to just under 20,000 square feet beyond MSBA guidelines, with circulation and mechanical spaces exceeding 29,000 square feet.

Questions arose regarding how estimates factored in potential student population growth. The numbers were based on an enrollment projection of 435 students in grades K-2 and approximately 40 preschool students. The MSBA provides reimbursement based on current needs with some consideration for growth, but any additional space beyond that incurs extra costs not covered by the MSBA. The committee discussed the need for a clear and organized educational program underpinning space requests to secure MSBA reimbursement effectively.

The committee also reviewed the layout of the proposed building, focusing on the positioning of classrooms, the media center, cafeteria, and gym. The design aims to control access to learning areas while allowing community use of core spaces. Support spaces throughout the building would help integrate students receiving special education support with their peers, mitigating any stigma.

A detailed timeline for submitting the Preliminary Design Program (PDP) was discussed, with a deadline approaching on August 30. Members emphasized the urgency of finalizing details for an informed review process. A joint meeting was scheduled for August 21 to ensure alignment among all stakeholders, highlighting the necessity for thorough preparation in advance of upcoming meetings.