16:09The committee deliberated on the sustainability aspects of the Shaker Lane project. A significant portion of the meeting was dedicated to evaluating different building system options to maximize environmental benefits while adhering to the established budget. The committee ultimately recommended option two, which aligns with the budget and supports a 20% improvement in the building’s effective systems. This option, already included in the project’s cost projections, commits to an all-electric infrastructure, eliminating the need for natural gas and promising a lifespan of 20 years.

Discussions highlighted the necessity of backup systems for the proposed heat pumps, particularly during extreme cold conditions. Members considered the merits of a generator capable of supporting the entire building, noting the potential use of a natural gas line despite the project’s all-electric focus. The financial implications of these decisions were scrutinized, with attention to the anticipated three percent reimbursement from the Massachusetts School Building Authority (MSBA) potentially offsetting some costs.

Another aspect of the meeting was the comprehensive budget update. The current budget stands at approximately $1.085 million, with roughly 67% already allocated. Members expressed no immediate concerns about exceeding the budget, although they acknowledged the importance of preparing for potential market fluctuations. The committee plans to submit schematic design information to the MSBA by June 26, with a review process extending into August, culminating in a town meeting vote on October 27. This vote is important for solidifying the project’s funding and enabling contract execution by early December.

32:03In preparation for the town vote, the committee discussed strategies for engaging the community and emphasizing the project’s necessity. A public information session is scheduled for May 6, where the community can interact with the project team. The session will feature a presentation on square footage and preliminary design schematics, followed by a question-and-answer segment. The committee aims to communicate the long-standing need for the project, addressing the potential $12 million cost of temporary classrooms if the project does not proceed.

The importance of visual aids in communicating the project’s scope was underscored, with plans to use diagrams and renderings to illustrate the design and associated costs clearly. This approach aims to prevent misconceptions about the project’s expenses, particularly concerning necessary systems like HVAC and electrical wiring. The committee also plans to address the financial implications of rejecting the project, highlighting the potential costs of maintaining current facilities.

In addressing the design development phase, the committee focused on aligning design adjustments with budget constraints. This phase involves refining drawings and selecting materials to enhance structural efficiency and security, particularly concerning classroom layouts. The committee has opted for a construction manager at risk delivery method, necessitating an interview process for selecting the construction manager.

Concerns were raised about the timing of budget and project funding agreements relative to the upcoming town vote. Acknowledging the potential challenges posed by fluctuating costs and market conditions, the committee emphasized the need for a contingency plan. Members discussed the inclusion of prevailing wage considerations and the impact of using union labor on overall costs.

46:10Lastly, the committee approved an additional $22,000 for expedited soil testing, necessary due to the timing aligning with the February school vacation. The next scheduled meeting is set for April 16, where further discussions on these topics are expected.