The Massachusetts School Building Authority (MSBA) has capped reimbursement at $8 million for the project, which means any additional costs, including those related to athletic fields, would fall on the district’s shoulders. The committee contemplated presenting both turf and grass options to the community for a vote at a town meeting, ensuring that if one option was rejected, the alternative could still be pursued.

The financial deliberations included insights from an expert in athletic field construction, Ryan Morson, who outlined the maintenance requirements for both types of fields. Synthetic turf, while less demanding in terms of regular upkeep, would still require occasional infill replacement and grooming, whereas natural grass fields would necessitate ongoing tasks such as mowing and fertilization. Estimated annual maintenance costs for natural grass fields, particularly under heavy usage, could run between $40,000 and $50,000. This cost raised concerns about the feasibility of maintaining grass fields in optimal condition, given overlapping sports schedules and the limited recovery time for the natural surface.

The committee acknowledged the compelling argument for synthetic turf, noting its durability and reduced maintenance requirements. However, the decision was complicated by the MSBA’s reimbursement structure and the need for a community vote. Discussions included the potential lifespan of synthetic turf, estimated at 12 to 15 years, and the associated costs for eventual replacement. The committee emphasized the importance of comprehensive communication and planning with the MSBA to avoid complications during the voting process.

In addition to the athletic fields, the meeting addressed various aspects of the proposed school design and site plans. The design updates focused on creating distinct educational spaces that foster collaboration and learning. The layout includes specialized areas such as literacy and math labs, strategically placed special education spaces, and a central media center serving as an activity hub. The design also integrates outdoor spaces intended for educational use, with features like amphitheater-style classrooms and nature-based learning areas.

Attention was given to the architectural design and color palette choices for the school, with participants expressing a preference for warmer tones that would blend with the existing neighborhood context. The debate considered the aesthetic and practical implications of these choices, with some advocating for a modern interpretation of traditional elements present in nearby buildings. The committee acknowledged community preferences for buildings that align with established architectural norms, while also exploring the potential benefits of a unique, modernist approach.

The discussion extended to sustainability considerations, including energy efficiency targets and potential incentives from Eversource. The committee is aiming for a tier one net zero level, with a target Energy Use Intensity (EUI) score of 25 or less. Incentives for utilizing energy-efficient systems, such as ground source heat pumps, were outlined, with financial incentives potentially reaching several million dollars.