Um this uh meeting is being livereamed on YouTube and uh being recorded for future viewing um by the public. Um so our first uh order of business tonight is approval of meeting minutes and we have meeting minutes from November 20th,
2025. Um, any comments or corrections or anything uh having to do with the meeting minutes changes? Seeing none, I'd entertain a motion to approve the meeting minutes of uh
November 20th, 2025. >> I wasn't so moved. >> Okay. I have a motion by Paul Cohen. Second. Second. >> Okay. Good. Um so all in favor I >> I opposed. >> One abstain.
>> One abstain. Two abstains. >> Three abstain. >> Three abstains. >> Okay. Uh the next uh item is approval of monthly project invoices. David, I'll turn that over to you.
>> Thank you, Pat. Go to the next slide. Um so we have a condensed budget here. Um there is no uh it's a rolled up budget and uh there is no difference from last month with the exception of expenditures and remaining. Um we just
like to show it as part of the presentation and uh the packet for um committee and public transparency. Um if we can go to the next slide. So invoice approval. Um again invoice summary number seven for a period ending November 30th. Uh, we have an invoice
from left field and I have to pivot because I can't read that far. $20,859 and then an invoice from AI3 um for um a progress invoice for $71,875 and then a reimburseable services for
soil characterization for $4,319.15. We have a prepared motion on the screen if someone would like to read and move the motion. >> Make a motion approve the December 2025 invoice package number 7 in the amount of $97,53.15
as issued and presented. >> Second. >> I have a motion and a second. Any discussion? Seeing none, all in favor? I >> opposed. That's unanimous. Thank you. >> We'll do the second. I'm sorry.
>> Jim Clansy. Awesome. Thank you. Sorry. >> Then now we have a uh a very uh detailed presentation from AI3. So >> we do. Yes. And thank you to everyone who attended the community forum last
night. We do have a lot of repeat slides from the forum, but we will um happily share those again. A lot of production over the last month. Um, looking at the schedule, of course, that red arrow indicating where we are. We're very
close to completing this first step, the PDP phase. No changes on the overall schedule or dates at this time. Um, and of course, we'll return in January to sort of start to wrap up that PDP submission.
looking at that more closely. We've been showing this slide, but this time you'll see that almost all of the activities are completed with the exception of some outlying existing conditions assessments particularly for the McCarthy since that
school um was added to the scope later in this in the phase. And then the preliminary conceptual cost projections, those are with our estimator right now. So when we all get together in January,
we'll also have that new information to share. Looking in looking more closely at January. So we were at the school committee meeting earlier this week to introduce the committee to the
educational program. They will be receiving that draft and when we return in early January to the next school committee meeting, we'll be looking for the school committee to be able to endorse that educational program document for inclusion in the
preliminary design program report. As I mentioned, cost estimates are with the estimator. So, we'll be looking to get those the week of January 6th. At that point, we'll be able to share the cost estimates with the full committee and
we'll also share the evaluation matrix that we had collaborated on in previous meetings. We'll share that in an Excel form and at that point in time, Left Field will give two days or so, two to three days, um, for each member of the
committee to be able to fill that out ahead of the building committee meeting on the 15th, at which point Leftfield will be able to report on, you know, the results of that evaluation matrix that everyone submitted, and we'll have a clearer picture of
really what the cluster of preferred options are to be able to move into the PSR phase. We'll also be looking at that point for the committee to be able to approve that full PDP submission on prior to the 22nd
at which point we will then submit that directly to the MSBA. Julie, if I can just add um so when um Hamdi shares the um Excel U ranking or scoring matrix, if anyone has any
questions, feel free to reach out to Hamdi or I, you know, be happy to set up a Zoom meeting. Um I you know, I I think it be fairly self-explanatory, but again, if any questions, reach out and it'd be obviously you can see the uh the
importance of the January 15th meeting. So we'll share the excess spreadsheet after this meeting but we don't expect anyone to fill out and send it to us uh before getting the cost data. That's why
you guys can wait until 8 and either on 8th or 9th we'll share the cost data with you and after that point in the next two three days if you can just fill out the spreadsheet individually and send them to me. Then for the January
15th meeting I will consolidate all of them and show as one single uh results spreadsheet. >> Yes. date you need this by is it >> like before is it before January like
before January 9th or >> January 13th or 14th I need them back >> so I can put them all together and bring it to the uh January 15th meeting >> and the goal would be that by that
second week or so in January the committee feels comfortable with all of the information that's been gathered to date and the cost estimates would be the last piece to inform that decision making. Um so tonight we'll share all of
the conceptual options that we have to date. So you can also just um sort of ruminate on those for the next 3 weeks prior to getting the estimates in. >> And we'll have prepared motions on the 15th. That will be a prepared motion
with a more of a fill in the blank. So, >> we do have an update on the evaluation of the existing conditions tonight. So, we'll sort of put together the pieces that compose the PDP and just share an update on each of those.
We have the results of the hazardous materials inspection. Um we know that the district has a hero reports regularly. So um probably not a surprise that there is asbestos containing materials within the existing middle schools. Um but they have been
considered contained and non-fryable. Um so not necessarily a hazard to anyone occupying the school regularly. Um similarly assumed that there's lead paint. Um, of course, both of these things not being unusual to a building
of this vintage 1960s. Um, we also had mold, radon, and PCBs were part of this investigation. Um, none of those really turned up as um as
of a concern. And then the chart on the far left or sorry far right um includes the total estimated cost to abate all of these hazardous materials. Um so that $3.1 million will be an allowance that
then just gets carried through all of our estimates um and will ultimately inform the total project budget. the environmental site assessment. The first phase was completed for Parker Middle School. We did have environmental
scientists out at McCarthy this week doing a sitewalk so that they can be prepared to put together a similar report for McCarthy. Um the ESA did not necessarily turn up anything of concern. Um just for background, it does include
a lot of historical information on the site. So it has aerial photography since 1930s. Um just a snapshot of above from above of the Parker site as well as some historical topography maps. The biggest
concern was that there were formerly fuel oil tanks on the site. Not necessarily enough documentation to show how those were removed previously and whether or not there was any um contamination that continued there. Um
and and also just the fact that asbestos is present in the building can be of concern during any kind of development on that site. Um but the recommendations were just that a soil management plan be prepared and additionally we'll be able
to know in future phases whether or not a second round of this level of site assessment is required. >> Phase two right now. >> No phase two right now. Um, we are waiting for the geotech report and that will also be an indicator on whether or
not we need a phase two >> wetlands delineation. We did receive a report specific on the wetlands. Um, again, probably no surprise that there are wetlands on the Parker site given that there is that stream running through the building. Um it was noted
last night that maybe you know these wetlands that were identified A and B were possibly a singular wetland at one point. Highly likely. Um but the findings of course would indicate that any development within the site could not occur um
within that 100 ft buffer of either of the wetlands. So it's a little challenging to see here, but there is a light yellow line that outlines the wetland perimeter. Um, so we theoretically wouldn't be able to build anything in those areas. That being
said, not necessarily the first place we would choose to propose a building. Um, anyways, but you can imagine if the existing building were to be removed, the u possibility of sort of restoring
those wetlands that could take place in that area. And then lastly, we have an update on the traffic impact analysis. So, we did receive the report that that um had observations of I think it was up to 14
intersections within the Parker site, Graniteville, and McCarthy sites. Um including the the traffic signals right at the um what is it? Exit 84, 87. Um,
and the findings really indicated that, you know, of course there would be traffic given the amount of parents and buses that are dropping off and picking up at particular times of day. There's just not necessarily enough on-site q
length drives to be able to accommodate that. So, it's really just a good indicator for us as we move into site designs of concepts um the amount of space that we should delineate for vehicular queuing and for bus drop off
and pickup. Tori is going to walk us through an update on the ED program. Yes. So, I think we may have touched on this in the past, but one of the documents that's required for the report from the MSBA is the educational program. The goal of which is to
document both the past and current educational program in Chsburg public schools at the middle school level and to sort of look at what the future could be for Chsford Public Schools as well. Um, and this document is extensive. It's a narrative document that goes into all
different types of spaces and how um you're proposing that they would be used together. Right now, it's over 86 pages and still in progress. And I believe the school committee will be reviewing this or receiving a draft to review at the end of this week. Um and they will be the ones to approve it finally before we
include it in the PDP. Some of the highlights from the educational program um looking at what could be included in the future are the integration of STEM and STEAM spaces to create more interconnected activities between different types of spaces and
delivering more accessible special education services. Um making sure that those spaces are integrated within the building and not sort of siloed in separate parts of the building. Making sure that students can develop strong relationships between staff and their peers as well. And one thing we do want
to note is that most of these things are inhibited by the space that currently exists at Parker, just the way that it's currently set up. Between the educational program, we also have another document which is a space summary. This is also a very extensive spreadsheet where we sort of input
enrollment numbers and then it does calculations and pops out the quantity of spaces that the MSBA deems appropriate for a student population of this size. We take that information and meetings with educational leadership as well as the educational program. We
determine what of those numbers maybe need to change, what additional spaces need to be included. Um, and with all of that information, that's allowing us now to sort of develop more design concepts. So, you can see some of these diagrams here looking all the way to the left at
maybe what an academic neighborhood could look like. So utilizing your team teaching structure and adding in some of those additional breakout spaces and there would be multiple of these pods per grade level. So beginning to create small school feelings within the larger
school of Parker to still kind of create that community sense. We've also been looking at some of the shared spaces and specials and how those might work together. So making sure that your robust music program has enough space, but that that space does not conflict
with any of your academic spaces in terms of sound. So maybe pairing it with more of the public spaces like student dining if it were a cafeterium with a stage as well as your media and traditional media center as well. and also looking at how a gym could sort of
create a wellness space to include the gym itself, some locker rooms, health classrooms, and OTP as well. So part of the visioning sessions that we had previously um one of the conversations that we had was about grade configuration because obviously
with the three separate enrollment options we wanted to get as much information as possible about what those different enrollment options might look like going forward. So we've broken out each separate enrollment option and then also included all of the information that we gathered at those sessions split
up into three categories. So we have developmental fit, advantages, and challenges. And this one probably the majority of you will be pretty familiar with since this is the current grade configuration at Parker. This is the fifth and sixth grade looking at into the future about 930 students. So some
of the positives are how the two grades are pretty developmentally similar. Um and they have pretty similar schedules as of right now. Uh, one issue with this is that does this does not resolve the space and enrollment issues that are taking place in the district
specifically at the elementary level. Looking at the 4 through six enrollment option. So, we still have some develop developmentally similar kids of this age working together, although there could be some scheduling conflicts and working out how those different things might
happen. Um, probably one of the biggest reasons that this is a positive would be that it would alleviate a lot of the space issues that exist at the elementary level. For the 5 through 8, one big positive for this would this would is that this would reduce the number of transitions
from school to school that students here experience for their educational career, add a little bit more continuity. However, one major downside would be that this would be a very very large school and would be larger than your current high school. And because the four to six option is
unique to the district, we wanted to do a deeper analysis on what the results of actually removing fourth grade from the elementary schools would do to the enrollment. So, we've taken a three-step approach to this capacity analysis for
each elementary school. Method one looks at the MSBA space summary template. So, that's taking the in current enrollment. This would be at the biome for example. Plugging that number into the MSBA spreadsheet and based on their formulas
it would it provided a proposed square footage for the size of school to accommodate the 508 students that are currently at the biome. So under that first method we see that the biome is
18,000 square ft unders sized compared to the MSBA's guidelines. We also have a second method that considers 180 square feet, the appropriate amount of square feet per student. So if you multiply that by the number of students, that
also generates the proposed total square footage of a building. In that case, the biome's considered almost 31,000 square ft under sized. And in the third method, we look at just the physical number of classrooms. So the appropriate number of
students within each classroom and that gets us to 420 students would be the ideal which means that at biome there's 88 extra students that don't fit into those numbers. Um so based on all three
methods biome is considered oversiz or unders sized. Um, we did do that analysis for all four elementary schools, all of which were also undersized based on their current enrollment this year. The second chart
looks at if we did take out the fourth grade from biome entirely, that reduces the enrollment by 104 students. So based on method one and method two, it does show that the biome would still
be undersized even with only a K through three enrollment. However, the gap is much smaller in the amount of square footage difference. So really 7,000 square ft difference based on the MSBA space summary as opposed to the 18,000
and 12,000 based on gross square footage per student as opposed to nearly 31,000 without the grade four in terms of the number of classrooms. That's where you start to see it flip into the positive. So having 21 students per classroom
results in actually an opening of at least 16 students at the biome. Doing the same analysis for the center school, we found the same results. So even more openings per classroom, almost
40 students, um spaces for 40 more students at the Harrington. Same result. this time as many as 74 extra spaces and then at the south row very similar
up to 75 open spaces based on the number of students per classroom. So it seems to be that there would be some resolution across all four elementary schools as a result of moving grade 4 out of each of those.
And we've shared this slide a few times. It is from the original 2016 master plan study. We've modified it to show that each elementary school with the removal of fourth grade shows that resolution um
in the generation of a 4 to6 elementary school would still maintain McCarthy as a middle school for grades 4 to 8 resolves that overcrowding. And the benefit of the four to six as opposed to the five to eight would be that it does resolve that overcrowding without the
need for an additional project taken on by the town. So in a 5 to8 scenario, we recognize that that would still then require a fifth elementary school, whether that be renovation of the existing McCarthy or another new
project. So we have the conceptual design options developed. We will say that at this phase of course they're very conceptual. They're initial. Um the more that we move move options into future phases the
more that each of those options will be further refined. At this point, we've generated 14 options um that of course range across the required code upgrade,
addition, renovation, and new construction for all three enrollment options at all three sites. And then each of those have their own, you know, positives and negatives. Um,
the code upgrades of course only address code upgrades, system repairs, exterior and interior repairs. So really just those nuts and bolts of the building. Does not address any of the educational deficiencies that have been identified
in the educational program. It doesn't really offer any opportunity for sustainability improvements or site improvements. The addition renovation would would ideally become a project that you know can be as as good as a new
building as possible. But with any ad rena there will still be inefficiencies. It ends up being a larger building as a result of just having to refurbish you know existing the space. Sometimes you can't move structural
elements. So that can be inhibitive. New construction of course um does allow for the building to be appropriately sized um as efficient as possible and having more opportunities for
sustainability. Looking specifically at the code upgrades, we've shown this before as well. Um just wanted to emphasize again how it does not address any of the deficiencies that have been identified in the educational program. And there
are two thresholds that would require a more excessive repair um as a result of hitting those thresh thresholds. So at Parker, that's as little as $2.8 million within a three three-year period. Um so
that would trigger accessibility upgrades as a result of a singular project costing only $2.8 million. existing spatial assessment. We've shown these before as well. Um again, just to reiterate that the existing learning
spaces in most cases are undersized based on the MSBA's guidelines there. In the event that an addition renovation would take place, we would need to look at how to move partition walls within all of those red classrooms
to be able to get those closer to the recommended size of the MSBA. So, that's where some of those inefficiencies and leftover space um get accumulated in an ad rena scenario. the other floors.
Love the unique nature of that lower level being completely isolated. And then at the McCarthy, um, also a lot of undersized classrooms, but certainly in a sort of more upto-date finishes, at
least based on a lot of the recent work to the science labs. I'm going to turn it over to Tori to talk through each of the conceptual design options, but we also brought something fun. Um, we have we have a
little 3D printed site model of the Parker. Um, and this is something that is a tool that we'll use in our office um to generate at least it gives you like a really good sense of scale. Um, so we have that and then we also have a
few of the new building options printed that we could pass around as well. Um, and these, not to, you know, put the cart before the horse, but it really just gives you a sense of how big of a building can fit on the site. Um, all of the little models that we
have are representing the 5 through 8 option just again so that we're kind of maximizing the building. So you get a sense of any any of the other enrollments would likely be a little bit smaller. Over the course of the next um 3 to four
months, we'll be creating a large site model which will be probably 5T by uh 4T in uh in size. So the contours, the um detail will uh will increase significantly as a as a large model that
we'll be able to use over the course of the next 12 months. >> Yes, >> absolutely. Yeah. So feel free to just, you know, play with those pieces as we talk talk through all of these. >> Let us know if you have any really good ideas. We'd love to hear them. >> Yeah, we're taking orders for Christmas
right now. So getting started with some of the design options. Taking a look first at site A, which is the current Parker Middle School site, and the addition renovation option as beginning. And this site plan would represent both the fifth and sixth grade enrollment as well as
the fourth through sixth grade enrollment. You can see we've kept the portion of the building that's highlighted in the darker red here and the lighter red would be the new portion of the building. So the majority of the rear part of the building would be demolished and we would keep the front part of the building that would include
existing utilities, teleia, um the admin spaces that would be repurposed. The nice thing about this is that it would clear the area over the stream to allow us to create a learning bridge and add in a few multi-purpose fields as well. um exposing the wetlands for beautiful
views from the building and also creating two separate loops for student drop offs. So there would be one the orange one for bus circulation and the blue one which would be for parent drop offs which would limit any conflicts between those two.
Taking a look again at a very conceptual diagram for how this building could look three-dimensionally. So, we would add onto the front of the existing building with a new wellness area with a gym and health classrooms as well as some arts and music, create a
new admin and guidance suite adjacent to the main entry for good visibility onto who's entering and exiting the building at that location. Also expanding student dining and the stage at that area to be able to accommodate the expected larger student population moving into the
future. Um, and all the way on the side of the building are three two-story academic wings. You can see in this diagram sort of how we're imagining those academic wings might be laid out. Again, bringing in those team teaching structures with the additional breakout spaces to be used by students and
teachers for a better collaboration. And just to give you a sense, this building would be a little shy of 181,000 square feet. And we anticipate the total construction time to be about four years. Looking at the five, the four, five, and
six option for this would be very similar. A lot of the same things would be taking place for the public parts of the building like health and PE as well as student dining. And then adding an additional third story to the building so that each grade level would have their own floor. Um, keeping the
youngest kids at the lower levels and allowing kids to kind of move up through the building as they get older. And this would be obviously larger with the addition of another grade level. So looking at about 272,000 square ft and a duration of about 52
months, so a little over four years. So here is another site plan of a similar option. This time for the 5 through 8 level enrollment. Obviously like Julie mentioned earlier, this would be the largest option for all of the buildings. Um, in large part due to the
addition of an auditorium since that is something that the students currently have access to at McCarthy with a student population this size, we would want to replicate that. Has a lot of the same site features that we saw in the previous site plan, including those two separated uh loops for drop offs for
different students as well as the two separate multi-purpose fields as well as open learning courtyards and potentially some bridges connecting those academic wings. Again, a very similar layout, but a larger building with the four stories for all four grade levels and the
addition of that auditorium space kind of in between the new gym and the existing building. >> Would you feel like there are a couple advantages to the ad rena? One being that in this scenario, we're maintaining the Chelmsford Teledia studio and so
that wouldn't be space that needs to be replicated as it would in a new project. And then additionally, because we're built proposing building on the front side of the existing school, that would allow for a completely new front face of the Parker. So it wouldn't look at all
like what it does now, despite only being an addition renovation. >> Exactly. So this project would be about 346,000 ft total and take a little shy of 5 years for construction.
Moving on to sort of a version of some of the uh diagrams we have floating around here. This is the first new construction option. Again, this site plan represents the 5 through six or 4 through six enrollment. Again, it has several multi-purpose fields kind of adjacent on either side of the stream,
which would now be entirely exposed. Also, two separate uh drop off loops for buses and cars as well. Um, and a nice main entry plaza kind of banked around by some of the academic wings as well as some open learning courtyards as well.
So, because this is a new building, we obviously have more flexibility, but keeping the majority of the public spaces on one side for safety and security reasons, including the gymnasium as well as student dining cafetia
sort of at the front of the building. So it would still be accessible by anyone that would need to use it that's not part of the school but still integrated within the school itself so that it could be used as a learning environment for the students. And >> is parking a challenge on any of these?
I mean I saw you had the fields laid out but it looks like you just have a relatively small area for parking. >> Right. So we will still continue to study the quantity of parking needed overall. Obviously, as the building gets larger, we will need more additional parking spaces for additional staff and
everything. Um, but we do have listed on each site plan. So, this one uh notes that there are currently 125 car spaces on the site and the proposed would include 12 185 car spaces and 27 bus spaces. So, definitely something we'll
continue to work through through the project, but this is kind of an initial stage. Thank you. So this the 5 through six option here would be a little less than 170,000 square feet, take a little less than 3 years to construct. The phasing would
also be simpler here seeing as we would just build the new building and then once that's complete demolish the old building rather than having to do any kind of phasing. We are proposing that all of the new options are are located on the site outside of the footprint of
the existing building. But as we move into the next phase, we could also explore moving the new building perhaps closer to the wetland area for example on site um just to sort of have these
stronger connections of the academic wing to the natural environment. And we would just need to explore, you know, are there areas of the existing building that could be removed in some sort of phased demo new construction scenario.
That's where the little model comes in handy. >> Yeah, exactly. So again, a very similar layout here for the four through six option, but adding the third story. Again, fourth grade on the lowest level, fifth grade, and then sixth grade moving up the building.
Similarly to the ad rena option, this option for the 5 through8 has a larger footprint obviously for the addition of the auditorium, but the rest of the site is laid out pretty similarly with the two separated loops, multi-purpose fields and learning courtyards as well as open space and playgrounds.
So here you can see the building is significantly taller at a total of four stories in the academic wing. still with that separation between public and academic spaces and the addition of the auditorium banked near to the main entry for ease of access for anybody coming to the school for any events, concerts,
anything like that. This school would be about 340,000 square ft. Uh double the five and six option for this layout. Um and a total duration for construction of about 42 months. So moving on to the Graniteville site.
Obviously, all of our options here are going to be new construction because there's not currently a building at this site. We would be able to achieve two separate parking loops as well, but there are some wetlands in this area. So, making sure that we are not encroaching on those. Um, but this does
give us the opportunity to orient the buildings such that there are great views of those natural wetlands from the academic wings of the buildings. We are able to create an additional multi-purpose field on this site. And I do want to note we would need to continue to study um how we would
replicate the existing fields that are at this site elsewhere in the town. >> So taking a look at sort of what this building might look like in 3D for the five and six option. Um so here we have the three separated wings of the
academics and then the media center kind of linking all of those spaces together and joining those spaces with some more of the public spaces like Teldia which would be colllocated with the stage for any type of events and then dining in that area adjacent to the gym as well as
arts and music which could again utilize the stage and the cafeta with the admin guidance. adjacent to the main entry. So, this is a little shy of 170,000 square ft and again would take about 32 months for construction and even simpler phasing since there is no
building on this site at all. Very similar layout for the four through six option just adding again the third story. The building would total about 240,000 square ft and would take about 3 years for construction. So this is a little bit more different
that we're seeing for the 5 through 8 option here because of the addition of the auditorium. So we would still have the three academic wings facing out into those wetlands and the multi-purpose field with the two separated loops for drop off as well as the open learning courtyards between the academic wings as
well. So here we have kind of a different view, but you can see sort of where that extra arm ends up here with the addition of the gym. Um, sort of next to that playfield that we saw in the site and then the addition of the auditorium as well. So similarly having that media
center connecting all of the academic wings together adjacent to the more public spaces and some of those specials and shared spaces as well. This building would be about 340,000 square ft and take about 42 months for construction. So, moving on to the McCarthy site. So,
we actually have an A and a B option here for the AD renos at the McCarthy site. We were starting to look at a few different options here. One, we're considering a minor ad or a major rena, which is what you see here. So we would do the majority of the renovation within
the building and then add as needed to the building. So you can see here we were trying to avoid touching that track and field area obviously and then making sure we're clear of the wetlands area that's between this building and the McCarthy as well. Um we would keep the
front of the building sort of as is and then add on to the rear of the building for all of the additional spaces that would be needed. So here we have a 3D view of what that might look like. So modifying some of the buildings in the existing academic area of McCarthy to instead be arts and
music classrooms, leaving the auditorium and admin and guidance as is. Relocating Teldia from Parker to the rear section of McCarthy and then adding in a new larger gym as well as a larger dining space because obviously this would be a
significantly increased population of students. And then we would have the fourstory academic wings here as this would be a 5 through8 option. And in terms of size, this would be nearly 380,000 square ft and take around
5 years for construction. So, this is another ad rena option at McCarthy. Again, a five through eight, but this is what we're considering to be a major ad and minor rena. Um, so this is sort of similar to one of the options that we were looking at at Graniteville, but obviously with much more renovation.
Um, still keeping the face of McCarthy here as it is and making sure that we're not encroaching too much on the wetlands area and not touching the newer track and field that are on this site as well. Here you can see again in 3D sort of
similar uh reusing the existing McCarthy in the front to create additional art and music classrooms and then relocating um health and PE a little bit in a different part of the site just create a different shape as well as having those
um academic courtyards between these and this would result in the building of about 390,000 square ft and a duration of about 58 months. So here we're proposing a new option at the McCarthy Middle School site where we would not touch the existing building at
all and instead create an entirely new 5 through8 option here. Um with the thinking being that a future project could be to renovate the existing McCarthy Middle School to instead be a fifth elementary school for the district. Here you can see we're kind of
making sure we're not touching the area of where McCarthy is and not touching the area of track and field. So, kind of filling up that space between the existing building and the wetlands and potentially utilizing that easement to create some um access for service and
then utilizing the existing parking area and creating a new main entry for this building. >> Clearly very congested on the site. >> We will admit it's somewhat tight here on this site. made it work. >> Yes. Yeah,
>> absolutely. >> So you here you can see a sort of 3D diagram of what this building might look like. Still the three academic wings that would be four stories with a media center and some technology spaces kind of connecting those all together on that
front face facing the fields. And then the separate area which would be likely one or two stories for a gymnasium, auditorium for the 5 through 8, student dining, some art spaces, and that admin and guidance space. So this would also
be about 340,000 ft and take about 3 and 1/2 years for construction. So, this is an example of a document that was sent to our cost estimators for each of these options formatted for presentation tonight. But something that
we will be presenting in January will have all of the pending information filled out by then. Um, so this considers the duration, the size of the buildings for each option and then adds in other hard costs that contribute to
an estimated construction cost as well as soft costs which would be engineering fees etc. Um, as well as some of them requiring additional modular classrooms and all of that would accumulate to a
total project cost per option. We also have some alternates identified here. So we've we we will be getting costs associated to have geothermal on site or solar arrays to um get to a net
zero energy for each option. We have the cost for the Parker demolition so that any of the options that aren't on the Parker site, there would be a value for the additional cost of then demolishing the Parker. Um, we
also have renovation to McCarthy into an elementary school as an alternate cost. Similarly, a entirely new elementary school which will be um you know has a lot of variables to it but it'll at least be kind of taking the total square
footage and multip multiplying by a cost per square foot to come to an estimate for that. Um and then we'll talk more about delivery method in the next phase. So construction manager at risk versus a design bid build delivery method and
that would be how the documentation is bid and awarded. Um those do have um sort of a premium depending on which one you go with. So when we return in January, we should be able to have the cost information associated with each of
these options. And then of course the project evaluation matrix that we talked about. Um this will be what you we are looking to have completed for the January meeting. And as we mentioned that will be in an Excel form so that it's just a
lot easier for everyone to be able to fill out digitally. And then lastly we last night posed the question to the attendees of the community forum. What is your preferred grade level configuration for the Parker
Middle middle middle school building project? As a result of hearing the last three community forums, this was their opportunity to weigh in. Um, we could see that the grades four to six enrollment option was really the clear
winner um based on the attendance last night. Um, so this is really helpful information just to have um to support the preliminary design program. And our next meeting is January 15th. We
will be submitting the PDP to the MSBA the following week. And that was everything that we had the for this evening. So thank you. >> Thank you. I would just say that um I
believe um >> well this presentation will be posted on the website hi over the next couple of days >> tomorrow probably >> tomorrow >> um that when you're um doing your evaluation obviously tonight's presentation should be a real good
reference. Oh, sorry. Um, this presentation will be posted uh sometime tomorrow, but for the committee when you're doing your evaluation the first uh excuse me, second week of uh January, this presentation tonight
should be your reference as you know as you're doing your evaluation. just it's if I were doing it, I'd be looking at this presentation as my reference >> and and the cost data that we are going to send on um January 8th, >> correct >> or 9th. >> Yeah, I looked at the presentation
tonight is, you know, you can see the pros and the cons and it's uh qualitative and when you get the numbers, the numbers are more, you know, I'll call it quantitative versus qualitative. Something else we forgot to mention was that as we assemble the PDP document
that is nearing over 1500 pages and so all of the reports that we've received to date, we can also share those in a one drive link or something. Um so that the committee can look over them as you wish for the next month. Um, that way
when we come in January 15th and request approval of the submission, you don't feel like you haven't seen any of the 1500 pages. >> You got to get through all of them, though. >> Yeah. Good. Um, yeah, time off reading.
the the norm is that there would be a uh on the screen a table of contents and um I've always advised clients that um you know the the the important components of the PDP is understanding the options
there's 14 options um the costs which you will have an understanding um all of the other um data you know again as um Julie indicated it's it's work that's been done um and it's just being, you
know, codified into a a submission for the MSBA. But we've had I have I've had one client in the past that um the committee did not want to approve the submission until certain people
reviewed 1500 pages. It delayed the submission by over a month and then it just delays the whole process. And after they experienced that for the next submissions they said just give us the table of contents and we'll approve the
So I just wanted to plant the seed that it's a extremely um large submission. >> There's going to be a link of of some type for for file share. Um who's going to be providing that? Would that come
from you or from AI3? >> Uh we haven't >> Yeah, we >> spoke about it yet. Yeah, >> we would probably assemble everything that we have and then likely share it with left field and left field will distribute. >> We could >> and
hund we could do a um like a dedicated share file. >> Yep. And once we submit it to the MSBA then it becomes a public document and after after that point we will also put it on the project website. But we will definitely share with this committee
first. When when and when is it submitted to MSBA again? >> 22 seconds. >> January. So after our vote. >> And then what does the MSBA look for in that document? In other words, like what
you know what what what >> you we're preparing this for the MSBA and then what is the MSBA looking for? And then the outcome of that. So after it's submitted, probably two or three days after, we will get an email and the MSBA will say we did a cursorary review
and they will say it appears complete as far as everything's been submitted. >> Uh and then probably two weeks after that, could be 3 weeks, um they will then provide us with a detailed response. And what they're looking for
is that did um the committee and the project do a thorough analysis of existing conditions and do a breath of analysis of different options to basically test everything. They want to make sure that um the committee in the
district is um leaving no stone unturned. And then um as part of the PDP we're going to be narrowing down 14 options to for conversation 6 7 8 and some of the options regardless of the
will of the committee it's MSBA policy you still have to study it um so they will be looking at the rationale and the reasoning of narrowing down the options so obviously um you know the
documentation on you know the direction of um the enrollment or the grade configuration is important. Um documenting the pros and the cons and then the evaluation matrix where there's you know we'll see where the scores or the ranking falls. All of that is data
for them to use and it's it's data for this project as well because um you know some community members may not be following the project and at the last minute they may say well did you study this? Did you study that? And you know
it's basically a road map. >> Was that answer? Okay. >> So basically they they're going to whittle it down based on our matrix. Are they going to look at that and say okay this is what they you know how how do they whittle it down to the six or seven?
>> So the the committee will whittle it down. >> Yes. Yep. And we'll do that on the 15th. >> Okay. So Okay. So, I I'll have a prepared motion that will be a fill-in- thelank prepared motion. Um, and again, the MSBA just they they kind
of do a just um you know, did the process pass muster with the MSBA? So, >> why don't you look at everything? Did you look at everything? Did you follow? Did you check cross these tees, dot these eyes? >> Correct. Correct. >> We're going to be loaning 52% of it. We
want to make sure everything possible. >> Absolutely. And and the other component that I failed to mention is that they will be reviewing the educational program extremely. So there will be two review comments. One will be dedicated to the educational review um educational
programming document and then the other will be dedicated more to we'll say the overall submission and the options. And the MSBA will start to um as an example, music and art, we're
over. The MSBA will say, you know, you're over by X. And they'll look at the ED program and they may say, can you clarify XYZ? And then we'll clarify it as part of the return um submission to the MSBA.
when we receive the comments, we have 14 days to return comments. Um, so we'll start to understand where eligibility may lay within square footages. Um, but there's
nothing that is um um set in stone. Um, you don't really know where the MSBA is going to fall with eligibility of certain spaces that may fall into a gray area until the PSR is submitted and the comments are received.
Anything I I just, you know, because you guys are the experts too with the review comments and anything that I missed or >> No, well said. Yeah. >> Okay. Yeah, you know, we're going to see cost estimates in January, but in your experience, is an ad rena, which is
typically more expensive? I just have no idea. So, >> an ad rena is typically more expensive because it inherently ends up larger and taking longer. So, just those two factors alone tend to push it to be more expensive. Just curious.
>> I I always tell clients the the longer duration you see us >> more expensive. >> I for geothermal it just we're going through geothermal right now on fire station project and just we were
surprised to see the the footprint of of uh well sites you need and so I didn't just for like I guess this station is only 7,000 square feet. So looking at I think it was like two over 200,000 square feet or I forget the exact number. This is pretty sizable. So just
looking at the mart I just in the spreadsheet I see that it says geothermal costs but is there scenarios where geothermal isn't even an option? Yes. So any of the so all of the options would be estimated as if they aren't
geothermal. Then that geothermal line item would be an additional cost to each of those. assuming that we go that direction >> and some some in that spreadsheet some might say zero cuz it's not feasible like so I guess it's >> because there's no space
site >> right and and something that we're doing a lot more frequently with our projects is and for a couple reasons is splitting the building such that it's zoned where let's say only the community shared
spaces are on the geothermal and then maybe all of the academic wings um are on a separate system and that's because geothermal works really well for like heating and cooling loads. Um a lot of the academic spaces use more electric
loads. So um relying more on a airsource heat pump or something. Um so we'll definitely get into all of that level of analysis. You're right in that that that spreadsheet says full geothermal which would definitely push that number to be really high. Um, but as we go through
it, if that's determined to be a goal of the town and the committee, um, you know, again, we'll look at the percentage of the project that could benefit from being geothermal. >> Yeah. I just wanted to make sure that it's a large number isn't put in, but it's not even feasible and without
knowing I know we we can't like I just don't see how it's possible. My car >> space on the ground. >> Yeah. >> Right. >> So, if it's not possible, then it should say zero. >> You know this from fire station project. So uh it doesn't take any ground space. So you can put it uh
>> underneath >> underneath the fields or parking lots. >> Uh so it will be 4T uh below the grade and goes I don't know 400 500. >> It just must be I I can't even think
because we have >> basically the half of Robert's field is being taken up by geothermal. just thinking for a 7,000 foot building for >> Oh, yeah. >> one that's 200 square I just can't imagine what the size is. >> And as I was just going to add as you
guys know I mean the installation cost for that the upfront cost is really high. Um so we will again as we get further do a full sort of life cycle cost analysis. >> Sure. Yeah. We have currently a very similized school, middle school, uh,
being constructed in Canton that is similar to the 4 to six size of a building that, um, we have the complete analysis which will compare almost directly to uh, that size of a school and the um, >> size of the well
>> size of Exactly. Yeah. So that's um a direct comparison that we can use to inform what um uh what that particular um model would be. Yeah. >> Thank you. >> And then we spent February, March, and
April sort of looking at those six or seven remaining ones and coming to a consensus on one. >> Watching those what comes ahead. >> Correct. To maintain the schedule. um the the project goes on a little bit of
hope that um cuz if we can't wait when this when the um the PDP submission is is sent in the the project can't stay stagnant for 3 weeks. So AI3 and the team continues to move forward with the
analysis and say we at that point when we submit the PDP we're down to eight. um it could be a few weeks later that you know eight goes to six or four and eventually to one >> and that's when the options become
slightly more realistic as well. So instead of just seeing sort of a massive model, we'll start to have floor plans developed >> and and we have um a matrix that we've developed where when we get to that kind of second tier of evaluation
um it's more of a granular analysis and we do a reimbursement analysis as well because um you sometimes have the dynamics where a certain option has a higher
total project cost, but when you put the reimbursement into the equation, it might have a lower district share than a different option. >> Um, so it just you have to shake out the reimbursement or the anticipated
reimbursement. >> I don't want to get to the SK maybe doing it later in the scheduling, but there'll be public input during those months of February, March, April as we winnow this down. Oh, there will be >> those sessions sessions. >> There'll be continued um >> public sessions, >> community forums.
>> Forums. Yeah. >> Okay. >> Yeah. >> I just had a question. I know the role the school committee will play in this is with the ed program. So, in our next meeting, we're supposed to approve the educational program. Um and I know the role this is to kind of whittle these choices down. I'm going to guess this
more to the group. Would it help to get a feel for what the school committee is also think about for options and preferred options because you know we haven't really sat down and talked about that but I don't know if because we're going to meet right before and we could have that discussion and almost like we did with the little graphic there
showing with the public. So my experience or my and my opinion is that within the governance of the school committee I feel that their governance is with the enrollment configuration and respectfully not necessarily the
options and the options is within the governance of this committee. That's just my >> But at least get the four or five. >> Absolutely. But but as far as getting the school committee's opinion and and thoughts extremely helpful for documentation with the MSBA.
>> We'd have the conversation. >> Any other discussion this evening? Any comments, questions? Um the next item is public comment. I don't see anybody here for any public comment. >> Anything more we need to talk about in
terms of calendar in terms of the I mean obviously we're meeting in a few weeks on January 15th and then after that we we would still be on the third Thursday and >> correct >> into February. >> Oh yeah. >> Okay. And then I didn't know if you had an idea of when these public
when these public sessions will be scheduled like one a month again from from like you know February, March, April or just trying to get a sense of >> schedule general scheduling. Not I don't need specific dates. I'm just trying to >> um so I'm so we have not talked to AI3
about this yet. um about if there's uh like the cadence of continued public forums >> similar yeah similar to how we um constructed this phase we will take a look at the next phase uh so at the next
meeting we'll have a a general idea of um uh meeting dates working with the district leadership on on what works for the district u as far as dates and times as well as how it fits in with the entire um structure of the PSR preferred
schematic report phase and we'll outlay it just like just like Julie and Tori did with the um uh with the um each month and the specific dates and what the decision points are. >> Yeah. >> Because we're meeting in four weeks, which is January 15th. >> And at that point, like you said, we're
looking at a window between January 15th and the end of the end of April, right, to get our act together to submit to MSBA in May. >> Yeah. Right. And so that's why I'm that's why I'm asking these scheduling questions because it's going to come fast. >> It's a will. >> Yeah, we need to be an agenda item specifically for schedule.
>> We have to work around school vacation weeks in February and April and just >> meeting dates and everything. That's why so I'm just trying I'm just trying to make life sane for all of us that you know >> we we need a road map. >> Yeah, exactly. That's that's what I was getting. >> We would recommend that the month every
month is probably too much. episode probably would end up being every other month or so as we develop more and have more to be able to share. But yes, we can provide a >> probably two se two community input sessions. You're thinking between
when we meet in January till the end of April. Is that what you're thinking? >> Probably. Yeah. like maybe something in February that kind of reports on the results of the PDP and then maybe something later in April that can also report on the direction of the PSR or something like that.
>> Yeah, the the one in February would have to be after we have received the MSBA comments. So when we go, you know, from a public forum, we have uh some level of certainty because we've received the MSBA comments. >> That's probably late February.
>> That's what I'm thinking. after school vacation week. >> After school vacation week target families with kids that are going to be going through the system >> y >> so that we can get a little bit more representation there >> because we're going to want them to be actively involved in all aspects >> ambassadors.
>> Yes. >> Right. >> Yeah. We're just as aside we'll be doing our um kindergarten registration in January. We have our first session. So, we'll have some flyers right on the tables when the parents come in because that would be the group that would actually um likely be the first group to
go in if it opens in 20 3031. >> Okay. Anything else this evening? >> Seeing none, I entertain a motion to adjurnn. >> Motion to adjurnn. >> I have a motion by Dennis. Second.
Second by Jim. All in favor? I >> opposed. Thanks everybody. >> Thank you.