01:24A primary focus of the meeting was the ongoing progress of the middle school building project. The committee was updated on the schematic design package, which had been submitted to the Massachusetts School Building Authority (MSBA) on May 1. This submission marked a step, as the committee prepared for a project scope and budget meeting tentatively scheduled for May 22 or 23. This forthcoming meeting is expected to be extensive, lasting approximately an hour and a half, and will address the total project budget. It will also introduce additional MSBA team members who will be involved through the design development and construction phases. The committee underscored the importance of ensuring all members clearly understand the project budget’s eligibility from the MSBA’s perspective.

06:07In anticipation of the project’s next phases, the committee discussed selecting a Construction Manager at Risk (CMR). They reviewed eight submissions from firms including Walsh Brothers, Shalom, Whiting, Turner, Bomb Brothers, Fontaine, Conigley, DOC (Daniel O’Connor Sons), and Bar and Bar. A subcommittee was tasked with evaluating these submissions and planned to meet to discuss findings and references before shortlisting candidates for interviews. The committee aims to vote on a selected CMR by the July meeting, aligning with the timeline for the September town meeting.

07:27Efforts to inform and engage the community about the project were also a significant topic. The committee reported the creation of 250 trifold flyers, developed with the assistance of Kier and design contributions from JWA, to promote the project. These flyers had been well-received at a recent town meeting, generating positive conversations among residents. Plans to distribute additional flyers within schools and explore further outreach methods were discussed. The committee considered duplicating display boards that visually represented the building’s design for use in schools until the end of the academic year.

10:31The committee also addressed the legal and ethical considerations surrounding advocacy for the project. A discussion arose about the appropriate limits of advocacy using the committee’s website and other resources. It was clarified that while the committee could provide information to the public, akin to what any citizen could request, they must avoid committing public resources to advocate for a particular outcome. The importance of distinguishing between providing information and advocating was emphasized, as was the need for caution in maintaining this distinction.

In preparation for the upcoming vote, the committee discussed enhancing communication efforts. One suggestion was to include visual elements such as screenshots or flyers in weekly wrap-ups to ensure information does not get lost. There was a consensus on adding the flyer to the FAQ page on their website, which would also include updates such as the traffic study once completed.

The committee deliberated on preparations for the fall vote, focusing on public engagement strategies and ensuring clear communication of project implications. They discussed developing tools on the website to help residents understand the project’s impact on their property taxes. The significance of presenting information about the costs of doing nothing versus the costs associated with the proposed upgrades was highlighted. The possibility of creating a clear and concise presentation of this data in a database-like format was proposed.