The heart of the meeting revolved around the MSBA reimbursement rates, with discussions emphasizing a potential 3% increase on allowable items. This adjustment could see reimbursement rates rise from 50% to 53%, contingent upon meeting specific criteria. A comparison between two project options, referred to as option two and option three, was a focal point, as both seemed to promise comparable final costs. However, option three was noted for potentially offering superior environmental benefits, while option two appeared more likely to secure the additional $3 million reimbursement due to meeting MSBA requirements.

Members of the committee expressed concerns about the unpredictability of federal funding, specifically the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA), and how this might impact the project’s budget. An in-depth analysis of operating costs suggested that option three could save approximately $20,000 annually in electric costs compared to option two. This prompted a deeper discussion about whether the capital costs required to achieve these savings were justifiable to the community.

The committee also delineated between pursuing option three as a primary proposal or considering it as an alternate. Concerns emerged that labeling option three as an alternate might signal to the MSBA that the town would bear additional costs. As a result, the committee agreed to gather more comprehensive information to facilitate a clearer comparison between the options, tentatively scheduling an additional meeting to review these details.

The necessity for timely decisions was reiterated, with the schematic design deadline set for June. The committee planned to reconvene in May to finalize decisions that would enable progress on design and cost estimates. It was acknowledged that further meetings might be necessary to ensure all committee members were comfortable with the available information before proceeding.

In addition to financial and design considerations, the meeting addressed the upcoming community presentation on the proposed new school. The importance of clearly communicating the stakes involved, including potential redesigns that could jeopardize MSBA funding, was underscored. The committee explored ways to visually represent costs and potential layouts, particularly for modular solutions, which could be seen as a temporary but inadequate fix.

Concerns about public perception of the financial figures were also discussed, with suggestions to present a range to mitigate misunderstandings. The town would need to approve a bond for the full project cost of $104 million, with MSBA reimbursements occurring as the project progressed. This led to a broader conversation about cost-control measures and the importance of maintaining community confidence in the oversight of project expenses.

The committee highlighted the significance of clear and effective communication with the public, particularly regarding the potential impacts if the project did not pass. Plans for three informational sessions were outlined, aimed at educating the community about the project, with one session scheduled before the end of the current school year.

As the meeting drew to a close, a personnel change at Studio G was announced, with a formal letter to be sent to the MSBA regarding the staffing shift. The committee also discussed strategies for managing the upcoming town meeting presentation, emphasizing the need for a dry run to ensure effective communication and adherence to time limits during the session.