Central to the meeting was the decision to approve a proposal from Colliers for $85,000 to relocate two modular classrooms from the Kilum School to the high school. This approval, which passed with one dissenting vote, sparked discussions about budget allocations and the necessity of the expenditure. The board explored whether this cost could be absorbed by the existing “house doctor” contract with Gnap, intended for on-call architectural services. However, it was determined that the proposal went beyond the current budgetary provisions, highlighting the complexities of managing project finances within the set allocations.

The debate extended to the competitive process for the proposal, as some members questioned whether other companies had been considered for the task. Concerns about budgetary discipline were voiced, with one member expressing skepticism over the necessity of the expense. Despite these concerns, the board ultimately decided to reallocate $40,000 from the other project cost line item to partially cover the proposal, ensuring that the move was within the overall project budget of $2.2 million, which still had approximately $614,000 remaining.

The relocation of the modular classrooms was discussed in the context of providing “swing space” for students while the new building is constructed. There was an acknowledgment that the modular units are critical to maintaining student accommodations during the construction phase. However, some members argued that the relocation costs should be borne by the town rather than the school budget, given the anticipated long-term use of these units beyond the immediate project scope.

In addition to the modular classroom relocation, the meeting delved into the larger context of the school construction project. A point of discussion was the MSBA’s reimbursement process and its impact on the project budget. The board examined the ineligible costs, determined by square footage and other parameters, which impacted the overall financial planning. Notably, the reimbursement rate was set at 33%, a figure justified by the MSBA’s goal of equitable funding across the Commonwealth, although it effectively limits the funding received for certain project components.

The board also discussed the construction budget, which included a $7.7 million contingency for design and pricing. As the project progresses towards the bidding stage, this contingency is expected to be allocated across various trades, though actual costs may vary. The MSBA’s funding cap of $645 per square foot was scrutinized, with recent estimates for similar projects exceeding this amount.

The meeting addressed community concerns about perceived high project costs, emphasizing that environmentally sustainable features like solar panels and geothermal wells, while costly upfront, are prudent long-term investments. The design aims to correct existing deficiencies, such as inadequate space for special education services, and align with MSBA limits to prevent overcrowding in the future.

Conversations also touched upon the total project budget of approximately $130 million, with a reimbursement rate of 52%. The board unanimously approved motions related to the project schedule and budget, including the integration of solar energy into the project plans.

Additionally, the board considered the extension of services for the Owner’s Project Manager (OPM), approving a $40,000 contract amendment for extended services related to the modular units. This extension was deemed necessary to sustain service levels during construction and up to the upcoming vote in May.

The meeting concluded with a designer update, where members requested more time to review the schematic design set, agreeing to extend the review period until February 17th. This extension aimed to ensure examination without delaying the submission to the MSBA. The board also discussed potential adjustments to project documents, including revisions to language to better reflect the school’s design distinctiveness and adherence to MSBA guidelines.