building committee to order. Um today is January 15th and uh first um agenda item this evening is approval of meeting minutes from December 18th, 2025.
Any comments or um changes or discussion involving the approval of those minutes? Seeing none, I'd entertain a motion to approve the meeting minutes of December 18th, 2025. >> Make a motion to approve the minutes from our meeting of December 18th, 2025
as presented. >> I have a motion and a second. Uh we need to do roll call votes this evening. So, um I believe we have uh Jim Clansancy on um Zoom. Jim, can you hear us? >> I Yep.
>> Okay, you're an I. Okay. Um Christine, >> hi. Matt. >> Hi. >> Tim. >> Abstain. >> I abstain. >> I >> Dennis. >> I I >> I >> Ryan I >> I >> I
>> I >> I >> Okay, that's uh not quite unanimous, but that's approved. So, thank you all. Okay. The next item tonight is approval of uh monthly project invoices.
Turn that over to left field. Thank you Pat. Um so we have a budget that's condensed and again the only change here is uh expended versus unspent. Uh other than that um the budget is you know still the same
budget. And um if you can go to the next slide please. Uh so we have uh periodic invoices for left field for a value of $20,859 and then uh invoices from AI3 a periodic invoice of $71,875
and then two reimburseable um services that were done. Uh, one for hazmat testing for $9,130 and then for um soil characterization that was done on the property for $17,138
for a total invoice packet of $119,02. So, we have a prepared motion if someone would like to um make that motion. >> Okay. Any um comments, discussion uh related to the uh monthly invoice?
Seeing none, I want to entertain a motion to approve that invoice. >> Make a motion to approve the December 2025 invoice package number eight in the amount of $119,02 as issued and presented. >> Okay, I have a motion. >> I have a second from Christine.
Okay. Uh Jim Clansancy, >> hi. >> Christine, >> hi. >> Matt, >> hi. >> Tim, >> hi. I >> I >> Brian. >> Hi. >> Hi. >> Okay, that's unanimous. Thank you.
>> Schedule overview and school committee meeting update. Uh I'll turn it over to David first, but I assume if there's a school committee meeting update, they will come from up here. So, what do we have? >> I'm going to pass it over to AI3. >> Oh, okay. >> I'll take it.
So we have our we have just a singular slide here on the schedule anticipated action items. You've seen this many times but what we've updated now is a fourmonth look ahead. So this includes the completion of this current PDP phase
as well as looking all the way through April to our next submission of the PSR preferred schematic report. So, we're all here tonight, of course, to select some options to move into that PSR phase as well as approve the PDP submission to
the MSBA February by the time we come back and see you next month. We should have those handful of options that we're expecting to be carried through tonight in much more detail. Um, so we'll be able to share a preview of that. Similarly, in
March, those will continue to be developed. We'll be able to solicit some updated cost estimates at the beginning of March. Also an opportunity to maybe bring in another community forum to share the results of
the PDP as well as progress on the PSR. And then April of course towards the end of the month will be our next MSBA submission. So at that point in time the committee will actually have selected that singular option to move into
schematic design. >> Okay. >> Next >> next item on the agenda is uh review of the ranking of design options scored by committee members. >> I'll just add to >> Oh yeah. >> Okay. So I'm sorry. Go ahead.
It doesn't matter. Yeah, >> it doesn't matter. Um, so yeah, just briefly at the last school committee meeting, um, AI3 and left field were present to, um, give a quick synopsis to the school committee primarily pertaining to the, um, the program report, the, uh, educational program
because that's a component of the big submission that goes in at the end of January. So, the committee was uh, briefed on that and reviewed it and ultimately did vote to uh, uh, support the educational program being submitted as part of the package. So we'll get into that formality later. Um the school
committee did have um an an extensive discussion and has been I think for uh some time talking about the different options. Um and in the end uh from their perspective u took a vote to kind of recommend or endorse to this group just so you could get a sense of kind of what direction they were going in. Um
unanimously kind of supporting a grade four five six option. Um so that was uh discussed at the uh school committee meeting and ultimately moved and um you know as we get into our rankings and um short listing of the schools that actually kind of lines up well with the
uh with the direction that a lot of the rankings have gone in but we'll let that just kind of come up organically later on during the meeting. Uh but that was the action at the last school committee meeting. >> Okay. Excellent. >> Okay. Okay, the next item on the agenda is um review of the ranking of design
options scored by committee members and I'll turn that over to Humpty I guess or David. >> Julie will continue. >> Okay. I don't know who put the I thought you were putting the spreadsheet together. That's why I I pointed at you. >> I did, but there are a couple slide tags
before that spreadsheet. >> Oh, okay. >> And and it all goes hand in hand. So we just have of course you've seen this slide many times as well as a summary of all of the options that this committee did consider. So still the three different sites as um up for
consideration 14 total options and so the evaluation matrix we're finally seeing as completed by this committee. So Hamdi did receive the everyone's individual results and then tallied those up for the total
scores at the bottom of the screen. Um and then on the next slide we have the rankings as a result. So the the the concept with the highest score was A2.2.
The second score was B1.2 on the Graniteville site. And then the third highest score was a 2.1, the five to six on the Parker site. Then the three options in blue would be options that
the MSBA would likely require us to continue into the next phase um because they require at least one code upgrade and one add Renault option to consider. Um, so that is just looking at the
snapshot of all of those 14 options being dwindled down to potentially six options. And we were curious maybe if anyone who was filling out the evaluation matrix um just wanted to share maybe where their their you know
guiding principles, how they ended up, where they did. Um we certainly look for any kind of feedback >> discussion I from well I mean I'll start and um you know looking at from a broad view at the
different options um the um the largest option of a 5 to8 configuration just um it would be bigger than our high school and um and at that grade level um you know not that I'm an
expert like these folks but um I know enough to know that that probably is not a good scenario. So those did not weigh heavily uh on mine as well as um the um costs affiliated with uh doing such a large project. So, um, the 5-8
configuration for me was, um, not immediately off the table, but it was it was problematic right from the get-go. Um, and then, you know, the, um, the code upgrades, um, knowing too much about this
particular school, uh, and McCarthy, um, because I've been involved in all the work there for the last 25 years. Um, you know, there's quite a bit of work that would need to be done to bring these schools up to an appropriate level of um
um teaching and and code and comfort and all of that um type of thing. So, I wasn't real big on any of those. I I felt like um knowing that it's going to be very
difficult to get this project approved and get any other schools approved, I felt like if we could give as many kids the possibility to be in a new environment for a period of time was important. So, I started to gravitate towards the 4 through six,
um, just because it was one of the more reasonable options. Um, so costwise, um, grade configuration and everything else that goes with it, you know, I kind I I landed right where number one landed,
um, was where I my um, high score was. So that's for my piece >> for for my part. You know, same thing on the 5 to8. You know, it's a big project. It's expensive project. You know, the four to six project, not only does it get us a new school, but it also allows
us to relieve some of the overcarding at the elementary school. That's a big from a school committee perspective, that's a big, you know, a big part of the the whole project is being able to move fourth graders up to another building, allow us more room because that's really where we're filling a pinch right now,
and it looks like we'll f build a pinch in the future. So, if we could get a project that not only gets us a new school that benefits all the students and helps at the elementary level, I think we get a big bang for our buck that kind of project. I think from my scoring, I mean, I think
the one was evident is because you have that growth need and so the four to six is makes the most sense. So, in the scoring that came out, I guess I did score um the the A23 a little higher just because I mean granted I know it's probably something that we can't afford.
Um but I just the Granite Field site also had a lot of like there's a lot of traffic impacts, the location, the impacts of fields. So for me, I guess that's where I was torn between um you know, the Graniteville site and then keeping things in the Parker site. But I also see that a the A22 is just such a
clear like this is such a really perfect opportunity. Um and and when I was scoring that just was the highest scoring for me. It was very clear. Um so I do think it's important for growth. I understand the concerns for the five to eight, but I also and then that's why I guess I a Graniteville for the
Graniteville sites sometimes was scoring a little lower just because it has more impacts um and and lower MSPA eligibility too. So it's a higher I guess there's a higher even though it's um the four to six you're looking at a different eligibility. Well, I guess the demo would only be several million
dollars but still it's an added cost. I think for me one of the things that um is really attractive about the four to six um beyond giving room to the elementarymentaries um I think it cuts down on it's a pretty short transition
right now five six school they enter all the fourth grades they just start to gel and then they have one year you know um then they're already starting to think now in January about transitioning again so having that threeyear span I think is
educationally really appropriate And I think those three particular grades mesh are developmentally very appropriate to be grouped together. So from my from my lens, it's it was clearly the the best choice. I wholeheartedly agree with everyone's statements and I think the only thing I
would add somewhat similar to Christine I grabbed this one is the um the one thing that kind of made me cautious with the Granitefell site is um the lack of uh field space or the lack of green space that it also just takes away because there's no way to really
replicate that and not only would that be impactful for um you know the park or whatever grade level configuration ends up going in there but it also would impact back the high school as well because the high school sports teams and athletic teams and even youth youth leagues in the in the town utilize
Graniteville as a site and there's just not a lot of places to replicate that. So, I agree with everyone else's statements and that was just another little deciding factor for me to really be looking more favorably at the options on the Parker site. Um I think we just have a cool opportunity to do something
uh there. >> Great. I yeah my perspective on it is I agree with the first two selections you know new construction at the Parker site for grades four through six and grade four through six number two at Graniteville
site what I'm uncomfortable with and didn't is number three being the 56 at the Parker site and it's because of what was discussed earlier you're not going to be able to address that option is not going to help with the space issue at the elementary schools so if the town if
that becomes in remains in play, then that that concerns me for the community in in the short, medium, and long term because you're not going to come back with another project, you know, after this and say, "Oh, by the way, we've got a space problem. We got to deal with the with the elementary schools." That's why
my third one and my suggestion is the third one I think is the new construction of a 5 through8 school because that that would enable the community to address the elementary school issues
in a manner but it also goes to Josh's issue is you're not transitioning the kids out in two years. Um so whether we keep McCarthy as an elementary school or something it addresses the long-term space needs of the community. And I guess my concern is is that it had to
come out of this and if if the ended path is, oh, we went with the 5 through six school, then I think that's the given the two choices, I would rather go to the 5 through8 versus the 5 through six school. Um, and that's the only part that leaves me uneasy with this rank with this ranking that's on the board
right now is as a third choice. I mean, of the three that are there, that one leaves me uneasy as opposed to that because I think that imperils the community going forward. Politically, is is it a, you know, a viable attainment? Probably not. But if you look at some of
that criteria in terms of maximizing state reimbursement, the cost issues and so forth, you don't want to be looking back in 20 years and saying, geez, I wish back in the year, you know, 2026, 27, the town had done the bigger school as opposed to a five through six school. So again, I'm not trying to dissuade
people from the four through six, which I think appears to be the consensus. It's just that third option of the 56 being the only other alternative other than 46 as opposed to the 5 through8 leaves me uneasy. >> Points.
>> It's not that far apart. Yeah. >> Yeah. I if if I may, I also had a 823 as my third option for many of the reasons that Paul echoed. Uh I'm concerned about uh doing a smaller project and not having other space available and having
other issues going down the road. And I kind of think back to the construction of the Charles High School, which is the most recent project that was done in Charlesford where the that school committee kept making adjustments down and taking things away from what that school was. And I' I went through the
school system. I was in that school. I wish they had gone and done the bigger things that that would have provided for more uh investment in the community later on down the road. I think I I'm concerned that the five six is just a little bit too shortsighted. >> I if um if I can jump in for a sec. I
don't disagree with any of the statements and I mean I think the sweet spot you know from the school administration I think the school committee was clear as well like the 46 is truly the option that we feel is the um probably the right option. I think
it's from a financing standpoint in the end it's it's the sweet spot. I think I I get worried about the 5 to8 financially like I also don't want to put a project forward that's just not going to pass, right? Because then that just sets us back dramatically. But the just the cost associated with that is
huge. if it is, you know, A23 on, you know, new construction on say um Parker um the Parker site, let's just say, even though McCarthy could become an extra elementary school, that would help with the um with the enrollment needs, but you still had a significant dollar
amount in there to upgrade McCarthy to make it code compliant and usable as an elementary school because you got to think everything in that building is made for bigger people. So, there's still extra cost in the end. So, we would kind of be still going back to the town for more. Um, what was interesting
to me, like truly when you looked at the the scoring rubric, there was nothing like offensive in the scoring rubric to the 56. It just didn't in the end truly provide that much value in one project to the community. There was no reason to really like downgrade the scoring on it
to have it not be um, you know, scored in comparison to the rubric. But um you know in the end I mean I just for all practical purposes with the MSBA the concern would be if this uh preferred program goes in next week
let's say and let's say we knocked off the 5 to8 and the 5 to6 and we just say we want to go forward with a 46 option. I just don't know if that time they're going to say well you didn't do enough due diligence. You know you you're rushing too quick to get to this and then they kick it back to us and that kind of throws us out of cycle. Um,
>> but what would you think would should be the fall back option if it's not four through six? Should it be 56 or 5'8? What do you think should be the fallback option? >> I think that's >> I don't think it should be either to be honest with you. >> Well, we have to submit one. >> Well, I I
personally in the end I think it's the 46. I think >> No, no, no. But I'm saying if if we're we're submitting the four six options, but we're also submitting another grade configuration option. And which grade configure option do you think is better to submit? 56 or 5'8 as sort of, you
know, the >> secondary >> secondary option. >> The number three or the number three. The number three option. Yeah. >> Where do where do you guys come down on this? I mean, what's MSBA um uh looking for? Uh are they looking for a one, two, three?
>> Um on the submission next week, like first choice, second choice, third choice. >> No, they're looking for a short list. So, okay. You know, there's there was 13 arings here. 14 >> 14 14 >> 14 14 So there's 14 auctions and
the the intent is to turn over all the stones. So you looked at 14 stones and now you have to you have to you know we can't continue to study 14. So there's a short list and as uh the slide indicates there's an MSBA requirement. You have to
do a code upgrade. You have to do at least one ad rena. Now, with the multiple enrollment options here on the table, it can get a little bit complicated because the MSBA deems it as you need to do um certain minimum for
each enrollment option. However, if there's a uh desire or pleasure or will of the committee to just take an enrollment option off the table, then that is what could be presented to
the MSBA as part of the PDP. Now, the MSBA can come back and they can, you know, mandate that we still study something, but that's up to the MSBA's perview um to do that. But um the
idea is no. So that there's no hierarchy when we submit this for the PDP. It's just simply we looked at 14 and now we'd like to hypothetically continue with six of them with the further study. >> Could you continue with five if you just
accept the one and two and the three MSBA required? >> So >> I mean you still would have the four five to six option but under required. So you do the >> So Christina, are you saying get rid of >> three?
>> Three, which would be A2.1. >> Um, >> option would be renovation. >> Yeah. Yep. Because we're still we're still we we still have what? >> Well, the MSBA
just let me test this through. The MSBA would say, "Are you studying a new 5-6?" >> No. >> So, that's where I think the MSBA would come back
because they'll say, "Well, you're looking at a Renault 5 to6. Why aren't you looking at a new 5-6?" >> Even with this options, like with these three options, I'm sorry. With these six options,
I think it makes sense if the committee remove five to eight options. Otherwise, they will come back and they will ask the same question. Why didn't you include anything about grade five to eight options?
>> Yes. I mean I looking at this data and just listening to the committee um it seems like there there's no appetite for the four grade uh 5 to8 auction for various reasons.
>> I have a lesser appetite for a 56. That's the problem. >> Got it. Can we take that off the table? >> The MSBA. >> Can we go in with five >> options? Could we got a seventh option? I mean, could we can we or is that just not doing doing it enough?
>> Or do you remove do you move the third option to the five to eight or I guess are we required to study a new construction 5 to six or could like what if the numbers had played out that the top three were the 46 and the 58? Would we have been able to present those six options?
>> Well, and we'll just add that the six is is what we put out there in terms of just ranking one, two, three, and then the MSBA required. So we certainly could do more, we could do less. Um, so don't feel like you have to reach the quota of six options.
>> When you have the MSBA required, >> is it mandatory that it's those three or could we do uh option A13? Like is that actually scored higher than A11, >> right? >> Like so then you have a 58 Renault. Not
that these are the ideal options, but is that more advantageous or a better option if it were to be selected by them? Would we rather a 58 Renault or a 56 Renault? I would anticipate that as long as the add rena enrollment options match
the new construction enrollment options for parody, you could do all 46 58 and eliminate five, sorry, 4 through 6 and 5 through 8 and eliminate the ad rena 5 to 6 and the new 5 to 6. But you would
likely want to match if you're doing two in the ad rena per enrollments do the same for the new constru. So you could do you move A11 to A13 and you move the three to the A23,
>> right? >> Yeah. And then apples to app there's three enrollment options and there's minimum requirements. >> What's driving this whole thing is the enrollment issues in the elementary grade levels. Correct. And 56 doesn't do that. Doesn't address that. And I don't
I to me that's a fatal four. >> Yeah. And I don't know how we would include that as opposed to one that addresses that that even though it's huge >> again with the will of the committee if the committee wants to remove the 56
option. Um you know the PDP could be submitted that way but we can't guarantee what the MSBA will come back with. Um, and I would also because it's dealing with enrollment, um, I would also ask that
the school committee, you know, render an opinion as well and and have it put on the record and the next school committee meeting would be the 20th. So, you know, with the enrollment, there's a little bit of a dynamic where um, is the
governance from the building committee or is the governance governance from the school committee when it comes to enrollment? And in my opinion, I think it it it's both because it's enrollment and once the enrollment is solidified, um no disrespect to the school
committee, but the decisions are now the building committee. >> The school committee has expressed their preference for four through six, which is the same preference. >> They they did they did, >> but I don't think the school committee has a has expressed a secondary preference. He's saying they need to make the decision between what would if
you had to go to plan B, would you choose 56 versus 58? Would we need that vote? I would just recommend that hypothetically as this meeting continues if the outcome is that the four grade option is off the table and the two
grade option is off the table that >> you know the school committee >> would we take both of them off the table going 46 it's a question of what is the other one that we put on there is it 56 or is
it 58 so I think that's what it's got to be it's clear that the reference is 46 new Renault. >> Yep. >> But the question is is if there's another grade configuration, which one is it? >> So, >> and again, sorry, >> I mean, so we're trying to accomplish more than
just building a new school here because we're overcrowded at the elementaryaries and I assume that we have the opportunity to to write something up as to where our thinking is. And our thinking is really much
broader than just a you know a 56 or 4-6 school or a 5 through8 school. It's it's much more preserving options to eliminate overcrowding at the elementary schools. So I think I think what I'm hearing and maybe where we we're heading
is preserving that as an option. And so 56 does not do that for us in any capacity that I'm aware of that it would preserve our you know our ability to go and um eliminate some overcrowding at the
elementary school. So you know maybe it comes down to uh you know 4 through six and then one option for the five through eight so that we can preserve that if they're going to come back and and want that expanded grade configuration. So, >> yes.
>> Um, couple different things are at play here. So, the 56 was kind of still in the mix because we still have to do like 56 is what we currently have. So, when we're going through this whole application, we're trying to document what we're currently doing. Um,
I think we all agree school committee and this committee, the 46 is the option to go with. It's still this committee's decision. It's just a matter of when. So, let's for argument sake, let's say the 5 to8 did come off the table. I I totally understand what you're saying about that's not a good solution if the
other one didn't pale. But what this is an exercise in doing is kind of whittling down and and making our justification to MSBA about why we would want to go forward with a particular project. Um if again if we submitted and said all right 58 we want off the table and then it's either the 56 or the four
to six. We're still making that decision between now and May. It's not like the MSBA is going to come back and say well you have to do the five to six. We're only going to approve you for the 5 to6. It's us showing that we've actually gone through a process to kind of whittle down what our options are. Um, if we take the five six out of the mix and say
we want to just go forward with the other two options, that's fine. But between now and then, in the end, I see us getting to the four to six. I don't see us getting stuck with the 5 to8 if we don't want to do that. And I don't see us getting stuck with the 56 because it doesn't accomplish anything either. Um, I just think if we actually just
went forward to the MSBA next week with just the 46, I could see them pushing back and saying we haven't spent enough time going through all of this. And um, you know, that's that's just but it's our decision in the end which to go forward with. We're not going to get stuck with doing the 56 or doing the 5
to8. Um, it's it's a process of kind of elimination as we go through this. I'm just concerned looking at the the um probable estimated total project costs for the uh 4 grade 5 through8 um for the
ad reno and new at McCarthy site C. Um, you know, it it ranges from 383 million to um 432 million, which um I I just it it seems like that wouldn't
even pass. >> I agree. >> Do we do we want to do a you know 212 million or 200 million 56 school that doesn't doesn't address the space needs in the community? Then we're we're we're we're hamstrung. I
>> because I I don't disagree >> because they'll come out with the different options in the in the final options, right? We'll come back in six weeks or whatever with these options and the and the lowest cost option will not be the preferred option as well, right? And we know what Chel does historically,
right? >> Been on all those campaigns. I know. >> Yeah. Exactly. So, so yeah, I'd much rather be basically saying, "Hey, look, we've got a space problem in great in the elementary schools that's bringing this project forward and we we've looked at all the grade configurations and the
and the the ones that are viable to address the space problems are four through six or five through eight and the 5 through8 one cost $400 million. We're not advocating for that. We're advocating for the 4 through six that cost $272 million." As opposed to saying, "Well, here's what we're looking
at. We got a 4 through six. It's 272 million. But we can just replace Parker and kind for 200 million. What do you want to do? >> We know what, right? You've lived it. I I you know, I came in the wake of it and John, you've lived it. >> It does frame it as a more advant
advantageous comparison. If the four to six is costwise appearing to be less expensive >> based upon the issue, what's driving this is the enrollment issue. If it if we didn't have the enrollment issue, we couldn't do it. But my concern is you don't want to be spending asking for $200 million and it doesn't address the
issue. And then what's what what what's the community coming back to saying, "Okay, great. You got a new park and middle school. What are you doing with the overcrowding elementary schools in an era where the state's pushing housing, whether it's, you know, MBTA zoning or ADUs, everything else. Everything is housing. And we're going
to be overcrowded." >> And we have started building quite a few ADUs. We were updated Monday night in that meeting and we have several ADUs coming in and it's just going to >> it's going to grow. >> Well, does it make sense to add a study
like I guess to kind of get through the process and does it make sense because it seems like if we try to >> change or eliminate grades that might be a little more back and forth with MSBA. So if you add A23,
>> do you add A23 and drop A21 or do you add take A23 and keep A21? I think that's the question. >> But then if you add A23, do you have do you have to add A13? So, I don't anticipate the MSBA and I he
definitely heed left his warnings and maybe you guys could um reflect on this, but I don't anticipate MSBA coming back if we submit to two enrollments options that are within only
two enrollments. I don't anticipate MSBA coming back and saying you have to now still continue to investigate one. I don't I think what the goal here would be that we are eliminating at least one
of the enrollments and moving forward with two, but I think it's open to the committee to decide which two those are. >> Yeah. If if we're if we're eliminating the enrollment, I think we're eliminating 56 because it'll get the job done for everything else. >> Yeah,
>> that's that's my concern. It becomes less palatable for everyone in the community aside from the cost of the project. Um the cost is going to be the what the cost is going to be and that'll be as as I think Paul said a a an advantageous uh scenario where we say
five through eight is going to cost way more than the than the than the than the four through six. Um, so let's steer towards that. That's why we made the selection. But all the selections we were looking at were going to solve a bigger problem. >> So we would essentially take the uh
three columns that are shaded in light blue, baby blue, and move them all the way to the right. So we'd be removing um the two grade option 56 and just moving forward with um
>> A2.1 A2.2 B 1.2 and then X2 C1 no okay then I'm hearing wrong. So, so just just an idea, maybe we can just
eliminate site B and site C. >> Yeah, >> keep site A. So, you still have all your options and you eliminated at least half of the options, would that be also? >> Yeah. If you did basically add A13 and
add A23 >> and remove B12, >> B12. >> Yes. Right. and remove >> then you're only looking at one site which makes it a lot easier too. >> Easier for the design team. >> Design team, right? >> And you still have your all options >> because you can fit the full grade on the Parker.
>> Yeah, >> it's an extra story. >> Yeah, that's what I said. Yeah. So then that that eliminates you having to deal with the looking at the code everything at McCarthy and at Graniteville, which I think makes it easier >> and eliminate the discussion with the MSBA because they may come back and tell
us no, you can't drop 58 or 56. Yeah, we don't know that at 56 but just at the two sites as opposed to you're dropping the sites. >> Yeah, basically just keep site A and drop everything else. >> Just one question for left field and
AI3. If we do that at the Parker site, right? If we drop um site B and site C >> or we have a 5 to8 in the mix. >> Mhm. >> Are they going to come back to us at all
and say we need to do the code or the add Renault at the Macy site C? They they may >> I know none of us want to do that but I'm just >> but again we we can spell it out as to why we've eliminated
>> that in the report that goes into them and give them all the reasons why we think that you know it's a congested site. It's it's just this I mean there's >> lots of reasons. I mean we can't predict what the MSBA is going to come back with
and if they if if we do what Hamdi suggested we take site B and C off the table but MSBA comes back and we have to you know continue with some studies at the McCarthy site organically through the process of the next fave phase the
PSR they would they would come off. So >> just just out of curiosity, is site C going to the McCarthy site where the application was to do the Parker site? Like is that even an
option? >> So >> I mean that's the case. Wouldn't we just say like we're going to be at the high school? Well, the >> let you do that. >> So, what what happened is the um your entry into the eligibility period with
the MSBA um the catalyst was Parker. >> Yeah. >> But >> but we would do nothing to Parker in that in those options. >> Um >> correct. >> That's okay. We we've done projects where uh a certain school was a feeder, but because of different enrollment
options, the school ended up being built at a different school school's location. That that happens. Um it's just for for this project the Parker was the vehicle to get in and then through conversations with the MSBA
the enrollment options expanded and you know that's how McCarthy got tagged in. >> What is um next Thursday's meeting look like as far as how how is it structured? Does does the town get to speak at all
or is this just you folks presenting our our packet of of our studies and so on? >> Oh, the submission. >> Submission. It's just a submission. That's not >> the submission. Correct. >> Okay. So that so everything has to be in writing as to what our thinking is. >> Yeah.
>> Correct. And between Vivian and myself, we will u memorialize this discussion in meeting minutes. And the meeting minutes will be included as part of the PDP packet. >> Now, the meeting minutes will be included as a draft. >> Okay. All right.
>> Paper. They're going to ask us questions back in paper. We're going to have to respond in writing. It's not a presentation or anything like that. >> Okay. So, there's no verbal communication. We will we will >> yeah I was going to say we will just put a cover letter and prepare all the uh
PDP package and submitted to the MSBA on 22nd >> and then within 21 days they respond >> they come in >> and then we have 14 days to respond to their response. If memory serves me correct, the difference at Parker site between the
grade configurations is just different stories of the school predominantly. >> Right. >> One change might be that we would include an auditorium at the 5 through eight level, but otherwise it's primarily >> all I think all the more reason like you said just let's just submit site A and then
>> you know and then if they push back saying look >> see where the cards fall. This is driven by enrollment and and we think that that's where you know every everything else drove us to the Parker site >> by adding 58 back into the mix for Parker. I guess if they come back for McCarthy I think maybe on that cover
letter submission. I mean if you look at the scoring but there's just so many reasons why we wouldn't select McCarthy congestion. There's there's a lot. >> They can only come back for X2 >> the code. Oh because it's Yeah, correct. Yeah, >> it's not going to help anything. >> Yeah. >> Yeah.
>> So, >> thank you, Hami, >> getting us there. >> So, >> just so I'm clear. >> Yeah. >> What we're talking about now is just keeping >> site eight, >> but the 56, the 456, and the 58 all in
play, playing those out just at the Parker site. Yeah. >> And obviously the code upgrade and things like that. >> So, the number two would move to the right of number one. >> Yeah, correct. So it becomes seven options. >> So you're all basically you're still
investigating everything at site A. >> Correct. >> And you eliminate site B and site >> CS on >> three would five six. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. Because all it is is a different story of the school. So it doesn't you know >> and they're probably going to require it too because they if they're doing a ad
rena you say you might have to do a new construction. We will say we will say it's it is a little more complicated with the 5'8 because then the seventh and eighth grade classes class sizes for example vary from the four through six.
So there's size differences organization differences. Um nothing that we can't resolve in the next phase but um it will be a little more complicated. Do >> you see an advantage to removing the
other two sites? >> Yes. >> Yeah. >> If we're not going to wholesale remove a grade level, does it make sense to remove those two sites? >> I mean, >> it does. >> Yeah. >> And it can be substantiated as to why we don't think either of those sites work. You know, we just because we'd never
replace the Graniteville fields >> and I think some >> we don't have any place to go >> from folks supports that. >> Yeah. >> That approach for sure. Yeah. >> And with the Graniteville and McCarthy, which we haven't gotten to the slide yet, but there's um there's certain
costs that are part of the there's certain cost drivers that are beyond the values that I mentioned of 400 million even below the line. Um and as you say, um Pat, it's you know, they're they're to replicate
those fields. And even if the town had the money, does the town have the real estate? >> No, we don't. >> And what I'm hearing is you don't have the real estate. >> Well, none of that's reimburseable either. >> That's correct. None of it's reimburseable. So, I mean, what I'm hearing is we get rid of site B and site
C. >> Also, the the traffic because I think the way that the entrance to that entrance to the high school, I mean, if you go I mean, I know there's different timing, but you I mean, it would just be a lot more. I mean, I'm sure it could be figured out, but it just the congestion that was part of I think it was like site access. And so to me, Parker was
the favorable site access >> and so so and we'd still be submitting a package to the MSBA that has all enrollments. >> Mhm. >> Uh and as Hamdi said, the uh wild card from the MSBA would be they may come
back and require us require us to do X2, which we kind of we expected, but we're not sure. >> In your experience, if the committee chose to move forward with two enrollment options that were different
from their current enrollment option, do you see the MSBA requesting that they still study something at their existing enrollment? >> Probably. Um and during the course of the PSR phase um we will have to submit
um the enrollment certification changing the enrollment which um you know is kind of a packet within itself. >> Sure. So I would strongly recommend that while it it doesn't do anything for the
future of Chelmsford to move forward or to continue studying a five to six because that was the current grade configuration. I feel that yeah MSBA would expect you to still keep it in the mix. So,
>> but I think we're keeping everything >> copicent here and and you know and keeping our options open at the same time while giving them the opportunity to weigh back in. And you know, if they came back and said, you know, we'd like you to look closer at a 5 through8. And
again, I think a lot of it will have to do in how we write things up because 5 through8 would give us a a school bigger than our high school at that grade level. And that that just doesn't make sense. So, um, but I think we're not eliminating it. We're keeping our
options open and leaving them a few more options. >> Agreed. So, I can't see them coming back. >> At this point in time, it's in the community. Can we say we're looking at all options at the Parker School site? Bingo. All great options and all options
at the Parker School site. So, we're not confusing people with McCarthy and Granidville and everything else. And then as you said within a couple of months by the end of April or May, you know, we'll have a pathway. So I you know I just I don't see the downside of of doing that of just saying let's let's
let's advance site A and then see see what the response is and if they make us do X2 do X2. That's not going to be an option we know at the end anyway on any scenario. >> Your collective wisdom
agree. I mean I'm good with that. Yeah, we're we're definitely I'm I'm definitely good with that. And I think it's um it's this is what this is a great outcome of the conversation and the collective thoughts of everybody
and I think this is a really good um a really good path forward into the next phase. Personally, I think it does um >> provide a a lot of opportunity with the um um with the development of
each option and having that one singular site to focus on with all the enrollment um opportunities. >> Yeah, for sure. >> And it's the Goldilock method. the one
site, this site's too big. This site, this option's too small, the middle one's just right. >> Just right. >> Paul, I'm looking at the numbers, which you'll see shortly, but um you know, this for for new construction on um site A Parker.
>> Um you know, the enrollment option of five to eight is $und00 million more >> than the three grade. >> Yeah. you know, and and to go back to what you're saying is that it's it's it's just right. It's right in the
middle and it solves >> it solves your immediate problems, your kind of middle road problems, and your long-term problems and no one can say you picked the most expensive. >> Exactly. >> Okay.
>> And as Dr. Lang as Dr. Lang said, uh, this is ultimately your decision. Like the MSBA is not making this decision for you. They just want to make sure that you're evaluating all the options. And the community does too. Every everybody does. We we we want to
make sure that it's the right approach um as a professional team. So that's that's why I think the conversation has led to a really good place in selecting this site with all the with all the options. Yeah, it's correct. Um the MSBA,
they'll control how many you study, but they won't select it. >> Right. >> Right. Um so let me just clarify before I make any. So we're doing X1, A11, A12. Are we including A13? >> Yes. >> So site everything's under site A.
>> A21, A22, A23. >> Everything under site A. >> Everything in Parker. >> Everything under site A. >> Is that correct? >> Yeah. Correct. right here. >> And we do have the cost related slides um that come after this too just to inform and I don't know if we want to
move to the next slide. >> Um >> they sent this out when we're doing our scoring. >> Yes. Yep. Yeah. So we sent this out. Um, so I we don't need to spend a lot of time on it, but um, and then if anyone had any questions on the estimated costs, it sounded like it was
understood, but we did want to point out, and I guess it's moot now that we're eliminating the sites B and C. Um, but just reiterate that that would then involve a series of enabling projects that are added costs to that total
project cost in yellow. So, for example, you know, building new on Graniteville would not include costs to then demo the Parker School or do any kind of development at that site, but I think that um sounded like in the discussion
that was pretty clear. And then the cost per square foot is another line item we just wanted to bring attention to. So the average cost of the sort of all of the new options landed somewhere between
$900 $950 a square foot. The MSBA does keep this cost analysis of their projects and this is projected out to 2028 which would be the potential year of when your new project would would
start construction. Um, and so you can see that the projected new construction cost based on the MSBA's data of cost per square foot is a little under $900 per square foot, 889 based on their current projects. Um, so the just
as like a gut check, that cost estimating slide for all of the options that this committee is considering falls right within that range. And you can go just by the way, I don't know if I'm speaking loud enough, but >> anybody can go to the Massachusetts
School Building Authorities website. This is an interactive um slide on the website and anybody can go to their website and select cost um I think it's cost data construction cost data and
look at all the projects within the last um 12 14 years and where it falls within the uh the ranges and you can see uh the collective average within each year and how that relates to um to the overall
projects. And as Julie said, the um you know, this it's it's fantastic because we are within that we're within the median uh or the average cost per square foot for all these projects um with a slight range and uh with a target of uh
2028 uh construction start. >> If anyone has trouble finding it, you can shoot Hamby and I an email. We can send you the link. And then I think if we just go to the next slide.
>> I want to go to the next slide. Oh, >> you want to go next slide? Sorry. >> No problem. I just wanted to point out here too. So, as we're talking about costs and the requirement to continue that base repair option, you'll see that, you know, something upwards of $110 million just to bring the existing
Parker up to code without addressing any of the educational deficiencies and considering a new construction option of, you know, for example, the 4 to6 at 272 million. So, you know, half of that cost going towards a base repair
wouldn't even accomplish anything new, whereas you could have an entirely new building for, you know, 200 something million. Um, so it really starts to close the gap and that will be a important point to make in future sort of community
presentations about how, you know, that amount of money that would need to be spent just to bring a building up to code versus a project that does address all of the educational inequities in the district. Um, and so then on that slide as well,
we did have the we've grayed out the options that weren't within those six on the ranks of the evaluation matrix, but of course that this should reflect what the committee's feelings are based on discussion tonight.
>> Yeah, I think when Yeah, I agree. Um the slide deck will be uh updated to reflect it because we don't want anyone in the future looking at meeting minutes and then looking at the deck and they don't align. >> Okay. >> Um motion or
>> is there any further discussion on this? Is everybody comfortable with where we're heading? >> I think it's the only way to preserve our options and give them really what they want. Um I think many of us came in tonight thinking that we were going to
just eliminate 5 through8 alto together but having had this discussion I think this is in my in my opinion this is the best path forward. So if there's no further discussion uh I would entertain a motion. Uh, I make a motion that the
building committee, having reviewed the alternative options presented by the project team, together with the evaluation criteria and comparative scoring applied to these options, hereby recommends that the following alternatives be advanced for continued evaluation during the preferred schematic report PSR phase of the
project. said alternative options have been designated as X1, A11, A12, A13, A21, A22, A23. >> Can I get a copy of that cuz
it's a little messy, but I got >> I'll just take a snapshot of it. >> Okay, we have a motion in a second. Um, comments or discussion? Seeing none, we'll do a roll call vote. Uh Jim, >> hi.
>> Christine, >> I >> Tim. >> Hi. >> Hi, >> Brandon. >> Hi. >> I >> and I'm an I. Uh, that's unanimous. >> Okay. Thanks everybody. >> It's a good thing, Dave. You got a whole committee in unonymity. You got a building committee in unonymity, which
you don't get in every community. You're >> not. You do not. which we do have one more vote and approval tonight as well. So hopefully that would also be in unanimity. But soon >> we Tori will just give a brief update of
where the PDP report stands and then we can move into the motion. >> Yes, exactly. So at this point I think it's actually approaching 1900 pages. So very significant and we'll provide for you to be able to Thank you David for you to be able to review. Um, we did want to highlight
>> if you just have nothing going on for a few days. >> Um, but we just have the table of contents here for you to take a look at and we did highlight a few sections that are particularly important. So, under 3.1.2 u, we do have a summary of the educational process of collaboration
which were those visioning sessions that took place with your educational leadership as well as some community members. So, if you want to see sort of what was shown to them as well as what everyone's thoughts were, we have all of that presented there in the document as well as the full educational program,
which I think is around 85 pages as well. Um, and that has been finalized with approval as well. Um, another section to draw your attention to is section 3.1.6, which is the preliminary evaluation of alternatives. And this is where we delve
more deeply into each individual option that we've discussed here tonight. all 14 of them um are in there as well as the conceptual cost estimates that have been in front of you as well. So if you want to kind of go back into those options as well um those are all of the options that were included in the PDP
are in that section as well as um many appendices many of which are hundreds of pages but if you want more information for example about the traffic impact analysis or anything that will also be available there as well. A lot of that information is already on the um web page, right, that was sent
out because I did see I think it was a traffic impact. So, I've already seen some of it. >> Yes. Yeah. A lot of it has been in front of you already. Um and there will be a few items like David mentioned the meeting minutes from tonight, for example, will go in in a draft form before they've been voted on and a few
other items like that uh will be included as well. >> Yeah. So, we don't present that in terms of this is new information. And you guys have seen it sort of peace meal, but it at this point it's just been formatted into a report. >> Mhm. Exactly. >> There's a um local action um a lo local
action certification that um Hamdi will be collecting and um I believe Dr. Lang, Paul Cohen, and would it be Dennis? >> Dennis >> Dennis. So we'll we'll send that document around um um by docyign. So
there's a few things we have to do next week that is like clean up and signatures. >> Where in that report other than meeting minutes do we get to express our philosophical approach to this
or you know our top down approach? How do we how do we convey what this committee just discussed other than just meeting minutes or do we not do that at all? I'd have to say it's it's uh the meeting minutes uh as well as the educational
program. Um, and my opinion is that the the MSBA's goal is to review the PDP to make sure that the existing conditions and analysis was done and the committee looked at a broad
breath of options and that they shortlisted the options within the policies of the MSBA. And um the MSBA really is going to look at the PSR package which we'll be
submitting in the next few months once you select the option. >> Okay. >> So I I think it's the next phase that the MSBA is really going to refine and look at you know the uh rationale on the option that you landed on. And as part
of the PSR, there's more um uh areas to put the committee's uh views on, you know, the rationale. There will be a presentation done for the MSBA in likely miday
where members of the administration or this committee could be part of that presentation and it is another opportunity to just advocate for the results of the PSR. So um you could advocate for the the option that the
group selected >> cuz the the PDP uh submission is reviewed by MSBA staff and then the PSR when you essentially say we are going with this option. Um as as Julie
indicated we have to meet with a facilities assessment subcommittee. It's made up of uh some MSBA um staff members as well as um some board members um from the MSBA's board and uh as Julie said um
you know you're invited to participate. I highly recommend that you can uh attend that meeting because they like to you know we can't advocate it's you guys have to advocate that's the option we want and this is why um
because then it goes to the board and the MSBA board accepts that option to then move into schematic. I would just add add two comments u supporting and and also expanding on the
uh the thoughts uh David and Julie's thoughts there are two other two locations in the next um uh document the next phase the PSR submission to the MSBA where your voice will be included
um that is poignant and um u identified clearly that's the executive summary right at the beginning of the document uh will the outline and the process and the outcomes and the reasons for the outcome uh as well as within the option
itself. So we have to describe um why that option u it will be described throughout the the process in the various documents but collecting that into a cohesive u thoughtful um narrative as to why that option is the
uh selected option uh for the group for the community for the boards. Uh so those two uh locations you'll see uh that occur. Okay. motion for the submission or >> um I think we're ready to move to item
seven which is the vote to authorize left field and AI3 to submit the PDP to MSBA contingent upon a successful vote >> um contingent upon a se successful vote from the school committee um Tuesday night but uh yeah I uh I think we can
move to that vote unless there's any other discussion Okay. I make a motion that the building committee authorize AI3 in left field on behalf of the building committee submit the Parker Middle School preliminary design program design PDP submission to the MSBA review and consideration by the
MSBA. >> I have a motion. >> Second. >> I have a second. Uh any further discussion? Seeing none, Mr. Clancy right here. Brandon did
Jim, you are an I. >> I'm an I. Yeah. >> Okay. >> I >> I >> I >> I >> I >> I >> Okay, unanimous. Thank you. All right. The next uh item on the
agenda is an update on evaluation of existing conditions. >> Sure. So we just have four slides that are updates to reports that we hadn't received by the time we presented here last. So we did receive the geotechnical
investigation for Parker Middle School. This was a result of all those borings that were taken. Um and really that report just informs some proposed foundations and footings designs um for a new project. So in the next phase
there will be narratives written by our structural engineers that really expand upon you know the structural design as a result of this geotechnical information that we found. So that was really the result of all of the borings that that um ended up informing this geotechnical
report. The we also received the results of the soils investigation. So when the borings were taken, they were to inform that geotechnical investigation, but then samples of the soils were also taken and tested from each of those borings. It
did result that two of the borings were reporting levels of acetone that were higher than acceptable. So that was considered contaminated at those two borings. Um, what is sort of interesting
is that in digging through the environmental site assessment from the Parker site, we did find that there is this aerial imagery from 1963 that shows a maybe temporary road that cut across the site. Um, and it it
actually coincides with the exact locations of the two borings that were found to be contaminated. Um so really just a theory that you know that could have had some some um association with that the results of that soil
investigation. Um but as a result we need to understand the scope of that contaminated soil more. So, we've actually already coordinated with the um the digging rigs to complete
additional borings around the two borings um that were found to be contaminated. So, that work is being done starting tomorrow. It'll move into the middle of next week. We'll likely have some the results of that additional
investigation in a couple weeks. Um, so at this point we'll be able to determine next steps following the results of that initial additional investigations. >> Julie, if I could just comment that the the discovery of acetone was about how
many feet down? >> Seven was it? >> Yeah. So I think in at B9, which is the red boring that's more middle of the site, um, was as deep as 7 to 9. >> So So there's no health concern to the public on the property. >> Yes. Thank you. So,
>> and acetone being found on something like this on soil investigations is almost unheard of to a certain degree. Is that correct? >> Right. >> Yes. >> That road might have had something to do with it. It might have been, as you
suggested earlier, might have just been something when they were constructing the original building or something. Yes, cuz that that was a construction layown area as well when they were constructing the current Parker building. So, kind of unknown exactly the origins of it. >> We had previewed this with Christine and
DPW just in an effort to maybe find out if there was other historical information. Um I know you had mentioned that you know there's maybe the using that area to wash trucks or which seems really >> that maybe that was a equipment lay down
area and if people in the 60s use acetone to clean equipment just as a thought I have no proof but that's just a theory we were trying to come up with theories um especially it being 5 to seven feet maybe that soil got buried and then the other interesting piece that when we saw this was if you look at
this aerial um the highway is just being constructed And so like the question we had is was this a lay down area for the town or for mass dot like I I have no no idea but because if you look the I mean I don't know why that is exactly cutting across that property but look at all the access to the highway and there's no
lman seed and I don't even know if it was open at that point and it was in the 60s so just a thought is it was a lay down area of some sort it could have been the Parker school could have been more involved um but we have no we actually looked to see for we we did a little digging and um this is what we
found. >> We I don't know who mentioned it, but probably the implementation of the hall road was because trucks could not make the turn >> a tougher turn. Yeah, >> they made their own way >> moving between whatever like that just
as far as like that building of the highway. Just as a thought we have no that's we we came up with theories. So, it does require some additional investigations, but it's actually really good timing at this early phase of the project to have discovered something like that and we'll be able to have an
accurate price for remediating that. The hazmat report for McCarthy Middle School also came in. Um really this is no different than what the report from Parker reflected where you know being that of a building of very similar
vintage there was asbestos containing materials found there but they were contained nonfryable and therefore do not pose a hazard to the daily occupants. Similarly with lead paint of course being a pre970s building. Um,
something to pay attention to here would just be that total estimated cost for remediation of all of the hazardous materials at $3.5 million. That cost was included in the total cost estimates
spreadsheet. So any of the options that included McCarthy Middle School as well as the code upgrade option consider took that $3.5 million into consideration and was part of that project costs. And then lastly, we also received the
environmental site assessment report for McCarthy. Um this again is, you know, looking into historical use, site conditions. There weren't any soil samples or site samples taken as part of the McCarthy investigation and really
the only recommendations were that you know if a project were to take place there then we would do um investigations at that time. And then looking to our upcoming events, of course, we've talked about next week will be our submission to the MSBA,
which really at this point is just a digital copy of that report that goes to the MSBA. And then we were looking to get confirmation on the next building committee meeting in February. And based on February vacation, it seemed like
probably that last Thursday of the month made the most sense. The only thing is I know town meeting prep, but you said that would probably start later or not. >> Is that the school for the night?
>> The week after the school vac obviously if we were going to stick with our traditional third Thursday would be the 19th which is the Thursday of school vacation week. >> And the thought is that presents too many conflicts so we'll go the week after. >> Right. Yeah. And we didn't want to assume that the committee would be
available that week. I uh I'm going to be out of town on the 26th. >> How about the 19th? >> I'm here. I'm here at I'm here until the 25th. >> Does the 19th create a problem? Most of us are >> Well, we're still >> I'm around.
>> We're not on vacation. >> I am on vacation, but >> does the 19th create a problem for the committee or for for the consultants? >> Not for us. No, >> just Jim. >> The 19th would actually be better because I think the FinCom will be meeting the week after. We typically
take that week off uh for meetings with the uh departments. >> Let's go with the 19th. >> Okay, >> great. Okay, >> perfect. >> Great. That was everything we had tonight. Thank you for the good discussion.
>> Hey, thank you. All right, the next item is public comment and I don't see anybody in the audience and we don't have anybody on Zoom for public comment. So, um, any further discussion this evening before I call for a motion to adjurnn? >> I just had one I I got a call from
somebody. This is for the architects because I'm not architect. I did get a call from somebody that's been watching our meetings. So, people do watch our meetings and she was just ask about the designs of the building and why the buildings all have these wings and her questions were, you know, why isn't it more like a rectangle? is that is it
going to cost more to build a building with wings? Is it going to cost more to heat a building? And I said, I am not an architect. I can't tell you those answers, but I did just you know talk about the wings and you know our our idea about the educational pods and that type of thing, but she was asking more from a financial standpoint is is
building. So I said I would ask at the meeting. So I'm asking at the meeting. So um a couple of couple of things. One is um we are um in a very very early stage of the
process like these are very diagrammatic uh plans. They have some bubble diagram aspects to them. uh they reflect some of the visioning process that occurred uh with the neighborhoods and the pods and
the organization of those. Uh some of the um uh things that influence the exterior design is the orientation of the uh the building uh relative to solar and natural daylight. Uh the need to
provide natural daylight in every single space is is uh important ed educational space. So there are many many factors that play into uh the organization or the u the building perimeter and how it
looks from above. Uh and so that that will continue to morph um and um you know over the next uh next year essentially and in particular uh more so over the next 3 to four months as we um
further design um um you know the McCarthy or I'm sorry the Parker uh site options u and the various uh grade configurations there. So a lot of factors that go into that process. >> Thank you. Yeah, for sure. Hopefully that answers the questions, but thank you.
>> Yeah, we have found that there can be a slight cost advantage to creating more of a compact building and building up instead of building out um just because in that case you're doing less of a floor slab. Um so that's why we tend to
you'll see as we develop the options that we're looking to create compact footprints to save on cost and also save the site create as much green space as possible. Great. >> Thank you. Okay. Anything else this evening? Seeing none, I'll entertain a motion to
adjurnn. >> Make a motion to adjurnn. >> I get a second. I have a second from Matt. >> All in fa Oh, I'm sorry, Jim. >> Sorry, >> Christine. >> Hi, >> Matt. I
>> I and Matt. Okay. Thank you. Unanimous. We're ajourned. Thank you, everybody.