During the public comment segment, Ray Porter, a member of the sustainability committee and a commissioner of the Reading Municipal Light Department (RMLD), strongly advocated for two geothermal options presented to the sustainability committee: full geothermal and partial geothermal with air source heat pump support. Porter emphasized that these options align with community values, especially in terms of energy efficiency and life cycle costs. He stated, “these two options represent the Community Values that the building committee is considering.” Highlighting the operational expenses associated with these options, Porter pointed out an energy efficiency rating of four, which he explained means “we’re using far less energy to deliver the heat and cooling needed.” He urged the board to engage with RMLD regarding the integration of solar panels into the design, stressing the importance of considering structural support for solar panels during the initial design phase, to avoid missed opportunities as seen in past projects.

Following Porter’s comments, acknowledgment of personnel changes within RMLD was made.

Next, Town Council member Donna Brewer provided an in-depth overview of the legal guidelines surrounding public employee political activity, citing chapters 268A and 55 of Massachusetts law. Brewer clarified the nuances of what appointed and elected officials can and cannot do regarding advocacy for the project. She explained that while campaign and political finance law primarily concerns electoral contexts, chapter 268A governs advocacy for town matters. Brewer stated, “you can advocate for the project, you can vote as a committee to support the project,” but emphasized the prohibition of using public resources for advocacy, including public emails or official titles in supportive communications.

Questions arose regarding the application of these rules to various committee members and school staff, particularly concerning the definition of working hours and the use of public resources. Brewer clarified that for members of the school building committee, including those who may also hold elected positions, advocacy rules apply irrespective of their work schedules. She also explained that teachers must refrain from using public resources and can only advocate as individuals outside of their work hours.

The meeting then shifted to a discussion on the school construction project, specifically the B1 site plan. A representative presented adjustments made to the site plan based on prior feedback. The updated plan involved shifting the building layout to create a play area further from Haol Street. This change was described as “a fairly successful move,” allowing for the inclusion of a sidewalk and additional landscaping.

Further details about the project included potential adjustments to the gym’s location and other design elements that would be finalized later. One participant noted areas of the project report needing refinement, such as the absence of an evaluation matrix. The discussion also highlighted that while some finishes were specified in the report, these elements would be further developed in the design process. A motion was made to authorize the project management and design teams to finalize the project scope report by August 21, 2024, which passed unanimously.

The minutes from a previous meeting were reviewed, with an important piece of advice regarding geothermal testing being included in the record. The need for accurate documentation was emphasized, leading to a motion to accept the amended minutes, which passed unanimously.

Looking ahead, future meetings and community engagement opportunities were discussed. A community meeting was scheduled for the following Wednesday at the Public Library, with additional meeting dates pending confirmation. A specific date for the next meeting was proposed for September 30th, reflecting the collaborative nature of scheduling and planning.