[Music] Good evening. Uh we'll call the uh meeting of the Parker School Building Committee to order here. Um the date is uh October 16th. Time is 6:00. Uh we are recording this meeting um for the
viewing public and that can be viewed anytime at Chumsford Tele media. So uh we'll get um right to business here and go to approval of meeting minutes and I um sent out meeting minutes late today. So sorry for that. But uh everybody
should have gotten them and u if you had a chance to review them if you have any comments we take those now. I have one um change. Vivian, did did we meet at 7 o'clock or was it six o'clock >> the last meeting?
>> It was six, right? We haven't had a 7 o'clock meeting. So >> So that's >> seven. >> It says seven. Yeah, >> then. Yeah. >> Yeah, I know. I saw your I because I I sent out your edits and uh anyway. Um so that's the only change I had uh was just
six o'clock. Oh, no. Okay. >> So this whole month flew. I couldn't believe they were already meeting today. I'm like, >> no. Any other comments or uh questions on the meeting minutes from September 18th? See,
>> did the adjourn time correct that they >> um during the meeting? Uh at 6:30. Yeah, perfect. Yeah. >> Yeah. Yeah. There you go. There you go. Hope I was in a hurry. >> Okay. I will uh entertain a motion uh to approve the meeting minutes of September
18th. >> I make a motion to approve the minutes of our meeting on September 18th, 2025. >> I have a motion from Dennis King. Can I get a second? >> Second. Second from John Souza. Any further discussion? Seeing none, all
in favor? I >> I opposed. >> Unanimous. Okay. Um, approval of monthly project invoices is the next item. I'll turn that over to David and Hamdy. >> All right. Just thank you, Pat. But before we jump in, I just again uh
wanted to remind everyone that um the website has been launched. Uh that was sent out on um the the vehicle of that being launched was uh Dr. Lang's um six o'clock email blast, I'll call it. Uh and I know that um the school district
is also pushing um the uh the launch as well I believe on social media u other platforms as well. So >> good. >> So it's out there. >> Thanks. >> Um as far as uh the budget um >> David just make sure that you're talking
into the microphone. >> Just regarding the budget um you know we're going to present this as part of uh the committee packet every month. Um now that AI3 is on board um we will expand um the designer um we we will
expand a few of these MSBA cost codes. Um it's still going to fit on one page but um we'll expand the budget accordingly but this is basically kind of the rolled up um budget. And then um for the invoice log for um
invoice summary number five for a period ending um 9:30 we have I'm testing my eyes. 20,000 is that I need help. >> 800 >> 89 >> 859. Thank you Hamdi. So be looking to
uh have a motion and we have the motion actually on the uh slide. >> Okay. Um any um discussion on um David's uh presentation of the invoice for the month? Questions, comments?
Okay, seeing none, I'll entertain a motion to approve the monthly invoice um from left field. >> Motion to approve the September 2025 invoice package number five in the amount of $20,859 as presented and as issued and presented.
>> Okay, I have a motion from Dennis King. Can I get a second? Second. >> Second from Christine Clancy. Any further discussion? Seeing none, all in favor? I >> opposed. It's unanimous. >> Okay. >> Then we're going to go back to the
budget slide real quick. But, uh, the first column to the left, uh, column A, that is the original PFA budget. And then column B is budget moves or reclasses. And then column C is the actual current budget. Um so what we've
done on all projects is that once the OPM us gets on board the designer we end up doing a budget revision request. Uh this is the first one. Um we refer to it as a BRR and all it is is an accounting
mechanism document that we use with the MSBA to have our budget which is always one step ahead. Uh, and it allows the MSBA to adjust the their budget in prepaid. Um, so all we're seeing, you
know, we we have moving money around in column B. You'll see that it's still a net zero. Um, but I just before I present the BRR, I wanted to show a snapshot of the budget. Um, so the BRR,
um, this is a, you know, the slide that Hamdy put together. It's kind of a cut and paste of of the form. Um Paul signs it, Jay signs it, and Dennis will sign it u within their respective roles within the town and the committees. Um
this has to be presented to the school building committee um before we send it to the MSBA. Um assuming we get this approved, Dan Xwinny from our office will share it via docuine and then we take care of it from there. Um so all it
is is we are um moving money around um and um taking money from one budget of from one bucket and moving it to a different bucket. So um this is BRR number one and this is for the alignment
of the OPM and the designer contracts. >> Okay. Does this um so this falls through the budget that you just showed is realigned. These are the changes that
>> correct? So so if um this is the left field budget and if you were to go into the MSBA uh propay portal to look at the MSBA's budget, it would not align with this yet. >> Right? But the BRR is the vehicle for
you know both parties to align them. >> Excellent. >> Okay. Any further discussion on the review and approval of the budget revision request. Seeing none, I'll entertain a motion to
approve the BRR. >> Make a motion to approve the budget revision request number one is issued and presented. >> I have a motion from Dennis King. Can I have a second? Second, >> second from Brandon. Um, any further
discussion or comments? Seeing none, all in favor? I >> opposed. It's unanimous. [Music] >> Before Julie gets um into the presentation, I just want to introduce Tori Guyire. She's a project a fantastic
project architect um that's helping Julie and the team. Um so just want to show you you'll see her face um and some of you have already seen her face during the educational visioning sessions but just wanted to introduce um her to everybody.
>> Thank you so much. Happy to be here. >> So we'll start off tonight with a brief schedule overview. We had mentioned at the last meeting that we like to start the meetings off with our overall schedule just to track progress. So we're right where that large arrow is in
October and we're working towards development of some conceptual options and space summaries all tracking towards a cost estimating exercise this December ultimately leading to that PDP submission in January. You'll see that
the phase 2 section is designated as to be determined. That is assuming that following a project funding appropriation, then we would move into phase two. And looking specifically at the PDP
step one, um we also showed this slide last meeting, but you'll see that a lot more has been initiated. So, a lot of activities and we will report on many that have been initiated in tonight's presentation such as the visioning
sessions and our investigation activities. One takeaway from the last time we met as well was the committee requested sort of a clear guideline on the amount of action items, upcoming meetings, meetings when decisions have to be made.
So, we've assembled this calendar version to show that the building committee meetings tonight. We'll be looking at some evaluation criteria as we move into our initial options, getting feedback on that. Next meeting,
we'll be looking at grade reconfiguration, some iterations of options. Neither of those necessarily require any immediate action items. Where we start to um address some action items would be from AI3's point December
we'll be submitting cost submitting the conceptual options out for cost estimating. So having that additional cost information will inform your decisions in January. In the same month, at the same time, we'll be looking for the district to have completed the
educational program. So, you'll recall that's the document that the MSBA will learn your learning um intentions through. So, that will be the guideline for establishing the the district's
goals, educational goals for um each enrollment option. And then the real decision- making will happen in the month of January. So once you're confident in all of the information that we've collected, the options that we've
assembled, the enrollment information, we'll be looking for the committee to be able to make a selection of the enrollment option January 15th. And additionally be confident in approving the PDP submission to the MSBA at that
same meeting. Um there will also be times where we attend school committee meetings to make sure that the school committee is informed of the process and feels confident as as well in endorsing the educational program.
So this week we had um principal Black was very kind to let us walk through the school and so the professional team was assessing the existing conditions specifically looking for non-compliance in terms of
accessibility, building code and energy code as well as just some general sort of building design flaws or things that could be considered an encumbrance for the learning activities. Um so accessibility we know that based on the
S so SOI submission that is something that the district is very aware of within the existing school. Um given that there are so many stairs in in the in the school. Um, in addition to that, there's doorways that are not compliant
with accessibility, many protruding objects, non-compliant sinks, railings, um, inaccessible paths of egress in and out of the building, and then even rooms that aren't accessible from the elevator. So, all of that will be
compiled into a report as well as many other items that we flagged. um and that will get included in the overall PDP submission. Similarly, building code infractions um the railings had a lot of
non-compliance issues in terms of it being having that ladder effect where students could technically climb up it. Um the the components of the railings are spaced too far apart. In some cases, the egress widths of doorways wouldn't
be wide enough given the occupancy load and the egress from those spaces. Um, and just the in some cases, rooms that you'd have to pass through to exit the building or access those rooms aren't necessarily um code compliant. There's
also interior and exterior ramps that exceed the allowable slope. Um and and again numerous other items that will all be documented in our reports. The energy code as well. So Chelmsford is a stretch code community.
Um although even if you were just bringing the building to the base repair option, you would still have to bring it up to the base energy code. And the kind of one of the biggest infractions in terms of the base energy code for the existing building would just be its lack
of insulation at the exterior envelope in general. Um they actually in the '60s had a pretty inventive um exterior design. You know, it's one of those kind of pseudo brutalist buildings with a lot of those
concrete profiles which makes really interesting look from the outside. Unfortunately, those concrete profiles are really just transferring that outside temperature right on in into the building. Um, so without any insulation, without a vapor barrier, I would guess
that without having been in the school in kind of the late spring or summer, it probably gets kind of moist in there. Um, so that was would be something that you'd want to address in a base base repair code upgrade option.
And then we have one more slide on the what we're calling just sort of general building design flaws that could be an incumbrance to the learning. So for example, there isn't any acoustical insulation between classroom walls or classroom to corridor
walls. So it might sound kind of echoey at times. Um and then there are a few rooms that have conduit posts or columns running within the center of the learning space which isn't ideal. they there's just general aging and
cracking of the surfaces. We definitely commend facilities on maintaining the buildings themselves, but with things like um a lack of expansion joints, control joints, those materials are just going to push against each other over time and ultimately crack. Um and and
even something that stuck out to us was just the the mashup of interior finishes in the building. So, not necessarily something that isn't code compliant, but just a, you know, a design choice for sure. Um, with the concrete and the wood
and the painted CMU and so a lot of >> eclectic. >> It's an eclectic definitely eclectic collection of materials. >> Yeah, that's a good way of putting it. Um, and then of course we've heard too just the I think one of the first
descriptions of the the space is just how dark it is. So, you know, again, nothing that's not code compliant, but it doesn't make for the most pleasant learning environment. Looking out to the site, we have been working with the geotechnical engineers
to establish an initial proposed boring site plan. So, the borings are necessary because the soil that is taken as samples from the borings will ultimately inform a foundation design for a building project. And so the
geotechnical engineer has um in conjunction with AI3 has located some initial borings. This is in draft form. So we're still looking to get feedback from the district and DPW in terms of you know if these are um I guess
practical enough um boring locations if we can if we can um not or if they're kind of in the way of any sporting events or anything that's going on. we do have some flexibility in in shifting those around. Um so we'll continue to
finalize the plan and then at this point the actual boring is scheduled to take place um October 27th. Um and so that would just require they will have a rig on site that's digging small holes down a certain depth um and
then they'll pull those samples out, have them tested. >> What was the date of that again? >> October 27th. And that was four days of borings, right? >> That's right. Y >> we typically have um u representatives from the district
meet with our geotech uh engineers on site. So when they're doing uh when the rig drops on site, there's a dialogue. there's some uh movement of some of the boring locations based on like Julie was saying whether it's you know moving just
outside of an infield or moving um just maybe some disruption to a location in a parking area. Maybe it moves just slightly off of that. So there's some movement uh generally in uh the 14 borings 12 to 14 borings that they'll
do. And so that dialogue is important to uh make sure everybody's on the same page when the uh rig gets dropped and they start uh drilling. >> And you'll notice we've located two that are closer to the existing building. Those are primarily to inform and any
addition renovation options. So we would just want to know the um geotechnical evidence at those sites. >> May um who uses those fields this time of year? >> Yeah. is primarily and we use it during the day for like phys classes but we can
work around it for a couple of days. Um it's mostly the football in the evening. I think that goes until the end of October. >> I think it's like 5 to 7ish. So I guess the time frame would be during the day like 8 to and also buses come in. So I guess anything in that parking lot
>> around 8:00. Um, so yeah, I guess it's just logistically and so we have the email and we'll we'll pro we're we'll provide some information on what we know for utilities and I think it's just this B1 and B2 which are on either side of the building are just going to be the trickiest and actually
B5. >> Yeah, B6 as well, but basically the ones closer to the building. >> Yeah. And I guess also from a noise, how deep are they going? >> They'll go Yeah. down to a depth of 20 ft. So not so each born should probably take an hour or two probably I would say
>> and and the there will be a little bit of cleanup after each one just to fill it in. So >> So there will be appropriate cleanup so that they could use the fields at the end of the day. >> Correct. Yeah. They would do the um those executing the tests would do their
best to cover the holes. Um there would likely be some additional maintenance required from whether that's school facilities or DPW to come in and if you want to apply more grass seed or um you know those additional touches >> probably notify them of the potential
>> there could be the thing is we're probably yeah we'll I mean we're closing out the fields now so but yeah we'll look at it and see what we need to do as far I guess the only I was just looking at this today too is so B1 and B2 and B5 that's so close to the
school is the only other thought I mean 10:27 we can I think we can make it work but 114 is a full day of no school >> we can also we can also >> but I don't know if this is a flexibility to not have kids on the school because we won't and and it's a full um
>> I mean I know it's probably reserved for election day but there's really nothing going on at the Parker school >> it's a profession >> day so staff would be there >> staff will be there >> staff would be there oh so you still have staff at that building that Except sometimes you have different >> Yeah, I'd have to check the schedule to
see who's doing what those days. >> Um, how like how early do the boring set and how late do they go >> in terms of the time of day? >> Time of day. >> Um, I could find out. I would think it would be within business hours. I mean,
would it be possible to the early part of the day probably wouldn't work just because of the school starting, but could we ever try because I do know we need to get the borings up near school, but could we ever do those like the last of the day of each of the four days? I know they got to move the truck around a little bit, but at least,
you know, school's out at 3:00, it wouldn't be quite as disruptive to have the board to. >> Sure. >> Yeah, I'll I'll certainly make the inquiry inquiry. The other thing I just maybe I can reach out to one or two and see that we don't have too much high
school because of sports. Maybe we can help. >> We could. Yeah, I know they were looking in general just because they're fighting daylight. So we can I could reach out to them. Um >> it might be easy just to relocate them for the week. >> But they wouldn't be they sound if
they're there like till 5. I guess it depends when the practice starts I guess. Yeah. So they started earlier that would be an impact. Yeah. >> Are they trying are they trying to start earlier because of the >> I think they were trying they were struggling in starting at 5. It was more 5:30. So if the rig is out of there by and are they parking the rig on site
during the day? Sometimes they leave it on site. So we just want to have a site a space where I'm sure there's some space but we can have it you know sit for there for the four days. >> Sure. >> Might be a good idea to have um Majid on a call. >> That's what I was thinking. I was going to respond and we have some we went out
with our storm water to get some additional information so we could probably have a call first and next week. >> Yeah. >> Um the other idea I know sometimes they have a really early start so they started like at 6:00 in the morning to do B1 B2 and they were because you probably have staff starting to show up
at 7, right? >> Um no closer to 7:30 >> 7:30. >> So you might be a if you're doing four days if you do B1 and then you jump to the FE field. So you maybe you hit those at first thing because sometimes they do start six. I don't know what time they want to start though.
>> Yeah, the first day they probably won't drop it that early, right? >> But the second, third, fourth day maybe that. Yeah. >> So that might be even easier because in the afternoon you still have people dropping off for activity. So like I feel like in the morning you >> before 7:15 at least you're it's kind of
a ghost town over there. And you mentioned if the if you are planning on sort of closing the field down in the next week or two, we could look at just moving it after that. >> Yeah. So, we've um the field as far as like the irrigation that's been shut off and blown out. So, because that's one
thing we were going to turn the heads on to make sure there's no conflict, but those are that's all that's all shut off. So, >> okay. >> Um >> but yeah, we can I guess we'll so we'll we'll have a call I'll respond to that email. We'll have a call next week to coordinate. >> Great. Yeah. No, we appreciate the
interest and compromise and flexibility on that. So, this week we were also able to after being able to tour the buildings and confirm some spaces and and any additions that have come up like new walls that weren't matching any existing
plans, um we have since been able to generate a 3D model of the existing building. So that will be a useful tool in analyzing the spaces and also as we start to get into generating some actual building options and during the PSR
phase um that will be useful as well. So, we have the the main level, the intermediate level, and the lower level. And and in by our next meeting, we'll also be able to share an analysis based on the MSBA space guidelines versus your
existing building and be able to show which learning spaces the MSBA would consider unders sized. So, this week we also had our visioning sessions, another one of our visioning sessions. So first visioning session in
September was the core leadership group and that was really specific to identifying some goals and norms of the district. Um and the outcomes were that the the group was able to generate these
six goals um which really center around embracing every learner collaboration creating a safe environment, fostering growth, supporting the whole child, and honoring the community.
Then in our second session that was open to a larger group of students and staff. This was run by our educational program consultant, Mike Prolo. And the outcomes here were that groups were able to focus
on all of the age groups that are considered for the various enrollment options. Get a better understanding of the traits and developmental stages of each of those students. And ultimately having that background knowledge would then just help inform any future kind of
discussions on the benefits, advantages or disadvantages of the enrollment options. And in our most recent visioning session this week, the participants were able to discuss what you all value in learning with
concepts including hands-on collaboration, student input, simulation and roleplay, curiosity, visual learning, trust, activity, social connection. A lot of things identified on these sticky notes. um and and participants also discussed how to
improve collaboration and interdisciplinary learning. So there weren't any kind of the visioning sessions aren't intended to sort of establish rules for the project. So those aren't the situation where we're
selecting an enrollment option or anything. It's really just to hear from the students and staff, keep them involved, get their feedback, um, and also hear the way that you guys do things in the district just to inform how we start to think about the spaces
that could support all of those learning activities that you're looking to do. And I don't want to put anyone on the spot, but I know a few members of the committee were at all of the visioning sessions. So if there's any observations or reflections you want to share, we
would definitely want to hear those this evening. Otherwise, >> yeah, I I you know, one of the nice things in these sessions, at least the last two, is we have students there. So it gives the student perspective of, you know, what they feel works for them for
education and how they like to learn. So I I appreciate that to hear their their opinions that were there. >> Pretty unshy students, too. >> Very unshy students. They were very opinion. >> They weren't shy about saying what they like and they don't like. Yeah. >> Yeah. >> Josh, did you want to >> I find I' I've found um the visioning
sessions really exciting to think about what could be. Um, so it's a lot of like searching at what's what's most important and what we think would best meet the needs of kids and like thinking of it beyond barriers to like what what what were we you know um what are we
aiming for and then we can deal with some of the details see if that works later but the visioning is it's really um energized me and I think it's energized a lot of our staff who are attending them um it's it's super exciting um and the kids have loved it
So that's awesome. >> Yeah, it's been great. The educational consultants that they brought in are clearly educators and they're really good at getting people talking and thinking and moving and the three-hour sessions go by very quickly. So that's a high compliment for anyone who doesn't
like to sit, you know, constantly moving and talking and it's it's run quite well. >> I realize I have a lot in common with fifth graders. I'm impulsive. I sometimes speak when I'm not supposed to and I fidget a lot.
So, it it was was enlightening. >> I think that'll be helpful as we get further into >> uh No, the the first two sessions were great. I think we're all looking forward to uh the next one as well to kind of bring everything together. Uh for the viewing audience, we had about 40 to 45
u individuals join us for the first two. So, we expect about the same for the third one. Um and it was it was a good mix of uh staff from the schools. We had some parents uh of kids at Parker Middle School. Um we actually invited some admin and teachers from the fourth grade
to join the group because one of the options is um a four, five, six school and uh we wanted to get their perspective because um setup wise fourth grade runs a little bit differently than fifth and sixth grade as far as teaming is concerned. So I think they very much appreciated being part of the process
and uh Mike and um his partner really did a very nice job of uh facilitating the sessions. I think everyone felt heard. Everyone was able to give their um perspective and walk away with um I think just a better understanding of where we're at and and what's to come. So overall, I thought they were
excellent. We're all looking forward to uh for next Tuesday. >> Thank you. No, we really appreciate that feedback. I know that in our observation of the visioning sessions, the groups that are in those are very um open to communicating and immediately sharing
ideas. So that's always nice to see because we've been in other districts where it can be a lot more shell shelled of um participants. Okay, great. So the initial options for consideration. So we put together
um we'll have a matrix at the end that outlines all of the options that encompass these broader categories. But the first would be a code upgrade option that we'll call option X. And this is an option that the MSBA requires you to carry through the PDP and the PSR. This
is really just focused on bringing the building up to code based on compliance thresholds. So it doesn't address any educational space deficiencies. For example, if your classrooms are undersized, this does not look at making them adequately sized based on MSBA
guidelines. It wouldn't address like making the the building brighter, adding more natural daylight. Um it would really be bringing the capital using the capital repairs to bring it up to code. And there are really two access two
thresholds um that require whether or not you need to bring it up to code. The first would be the accessibility upgrades. So if the cost of the repairs is greater than 30% of the assessed value in any 3-year
period that would trigger compliance requirements or similarly fire protection upgrades. So if cost of repairs is greater than 33% of the assessed value or if the area is greater than 7500 square ft that would trigger
it as well. Um so this is an option that MSBA requires us to carry through. We recognize that it wouldn't resolve your overcrowding issues or anything like that and it would be um you know identifying capital repairs that would
have to take place over the course of a few years um as a as opposed to a singular project. We wanted to remind the group of the grade level configurations um for consideration. The enrollment option for grades five to
six being 930 students. Enrollment options for grades four through six at 1390 students or the enrollment option for grades 5 through 8 at 1885 students. And that the following
options consider each of these sites. So we are showing the McCarthy school rear fields as an additional site. We recognize that that was something that has been um up for consideration. So we just wanted to we'll have a slide that
assesses that those site conditions. So the first is the existing Parker School site and we have this would be the site constraints diagram. So you'll you're seeing that there are wetlands on site and the riverfront area. That's no
surprise being that there is the existing stream that runs through the building. Um, and with any wetland that does require a 100 foot buffer. So the orange line here is a buffer that does not allow any kind of construction
within it. Um, additionally the 200 ft riverfront area just extends that and so no building can occur within this cross-hatched blue area. Um, and then the outline of the existing building. And you can see there is relatively flat
topography at the se at the fields. And then it starts to drop off as you get towards the woods. Looking at that site then and identifying buildable versus non-buildable area. So everything in that dark purple we would consider
non-buildable given that the existing building is there. There's the wetland constraints, there's the topography constraints. However, the open buildable area is definitely suitable to fit a project. So, what we're showing here as
just a test fit is the approximate size of a new building for the largest option. So, a grade of 5 to 8 option, which would result in the greatest square footage. Um, so this test fit is showing just the outline of we'll say
sort of a 300,000t building that's four stories high. Um note that there are the existing fields on this site. So um some fields could be located on the site still following any kind of project especially
if the existing building were no longer there but there may have to be some studies as well for where else in the district or the town those fields get replicated. Looking at the Graniteville Road ballfield site.
Um kind of similar to the Parker site, there is some wetland area, some flood plane area that we would have to avoid. Um but relatively flat given that it's used primarily as recreation fields and a similar diagram. So you're seeing
a lot of the perimeter is considered non-buildable area, but still a more than suitable amount of land area to put an actual building on. Um, note that any kind of project would also require like roadways and parking and some outdoor
areas. Um, and we we aren't recommending that you just plop a building right in the middle of the site. So that's just for the test fit purposes. But again, this one also showing a sample 300,000 ft² fourstory building. Um, with the same caveat that any kind any of the
fields on this site may or may not have to be relocated or replicated elsewhere in the town. And then lastly, looking at the McCarthy site, which is actually the largest amount of acreage. Um, and it also has
that riverfront area. We know there's a water body here that um enters a culvert over on this side and some steep topography at this perimeter that comes down into the rear field.
But on this site, we would consider or it actually results in a lot of non-buildable area assuming we want to stay away from the existing McCarthy building while that's continuing operation. assuming that the track and field would be off limits. There's also
a lot of um tree coverage. So, a project could require removal of trees if it was if it was um determined to be the site to put a project on. Um so, that you can see that's why there's a little bit of a
vegetative buffer here. Um, but ultimately the test fit with the 300,000 square foot fourstory building is the tightest on this site. Pause on this for a second. I have a just question for the for the town and
the district. Um, because I've I've attended um track meets at this location and you know the the buildable area is used for track meets. Correct. Well, well, the track meets that I've attended,
>> you know, >> the primary um area that we would want to maintain is basically within the fence line of the track. So, the field itself and the track that runs around the perimeter and then it does extend there's a little fencing around the back. Um like that's used not only
during the school day for support of the MacAF say fizzed program, but also the high school um track team and things like that use that space. So, we weren't desiring to take the field space or anything like that. Um, we had just previously identified that back corner
of McCarthy as like a potential site. Um, again, I know you're trying to test fit just the largest option that, you know, we're trying to test fit. I don't know personally that that largest option really fits back there. It was more in our minds maybe if we had to like a
smaller option, you know, could potentially fit in that back corner. Um, and that would also include a discussion around what were the grade level configurations because you'd have probably seven eight in some capacity up front. Is there something that made sense with the back grade levels? And
then even then integrating like um um parking and driveways and things like that for pickup drop off of kids. But um that's why the site had just been identified to be looked at. That back corner isn't necessarily used. Um but we weren't thinking about doing anything
with the the field itself or the the track that is still functional and needed. >> Okay. >> This this one with the looking at the three site options and even considering the three grade level configuration,
excuse me. Um this is this is a a bit of a gut check to see what made sense um at the largest scale. And even with the other two grade reconfiguration options, the 56 and the 46,
this would be a tight, very restrictive um site to work in. uh even for a 56 arrangement uh with all the amenities that you you talk about with the uh access drives with the vehicular drives or or um um area around a a building
that's required uh for development. This would be extremely tight. So, it just it does give us a a good first um gut check as to as far as what might or might not work. Uh but we'll continue to
>> take a look at this um this and the other and the other options. Yeah, >> it's definitely better to have more sites to consider than to only have one and really struggle to fit something on it. So that's the silver lining. >> So will you be doing test formings out
here as well as >> though? Those won't be necess they won't be necessary in in either um um at this at this stage like it will just be looking at site development of uh the area and we'll do some conceptual
options for each of the three sites. Uh that will provide uh a lot of information whether or not um you know to to allow you to make that determination of which grade reconfiguration option and also which
site to uh investigate further. >> Currently yep yep >> and the borings for this will be a phase one boring. So there will be a phase two which would occur after the vote. So depending on the site that's selected, we would be able to continue that
investigation. The other question I have is talk about the replication of fields at, you know, if if the, you know, if the expansion or relocation occurs at the Parker site or Graniteville, does that
replication cost get included in in into the cost estimates or how do how does the town weigh or the community weigh that cost in in terms of replicating those fields because I don't know where those fields would be replicated to. And I know MSBA won't reimburse like land
acquisition and so forth, but does that get baked into the cost estimates for in terms of that replication costs or the loss of those fields to the community? >> Yeah, it's certainly something that would need to be identified um within
each of the cost estimates and uh each option, right? and would work with left field to um identify at least a ballpark figure of what a development cost would be for and location. Uh we're in work with you all uh in a location. So you
you're comparing apples to apples for each of the options. Uh for sure that that would definitely be included. I >> mean as far as the the existing site those fields are used for gym though too. So is this is it part of the curriculum site too? Yes, I was under
the impression that if let's say whatever was built on the existing Parker site and then Parker came offline when you occupy the new building, you obviously have to demolish um the Parker building. And I almost kind of view that as like a a trade-off. So, you'd open the new building, you'd move in, you
then demolish the old building and probably make playable space. Maybe it wouldn't be like quite the field that was at some of the other places, but at least you'd have open uh play area. Is that um covered under the the project or budgeted for under the project? >> It would be.
>> Okay. So, when you talk about like replicating field space, you are you talking more like if we did the Graniteville Road one? >> That's right. >> Then obviously and that was a site, you couldn't replicate Graniteville at the Parker one, you couldn't really do it at McCarthy. So, you'd have to find like an alternate site somewhere in town. And
that's when the land acquisition would come in. Um and that obviously wouldn't be part of the project. That's exactly >> but something at the Parker project you could build on the lot and then incorporate the cost to demolish and make a playable space there into the actual project.
>> The more you can do within the property, >> right? >> Um the better reimbursement formula it works out to be, >> right? But if you had Graniteville, you still would have demo of the existing
Parker in the project budget or no? typically as far as what our experience has been um in understanding the MSBA's approach is that if you decide to build on another site
that uh the cost of of constructing on that other site as part of the um um the reimbursement um project costs if you decide to develop on the other site another site or the existing Parker
site then that is not that would be excluded from any participation from the MSBA. So demolishing the existing building would be um would be would be excluded from the participation.
>> So in other words, we want to work on the same site we're currently is basically what you're telling us. I mean, because we would have to demo. Basically, you'd >> unless you use it for another municipal purpose. That's what the MSBA's response would. That would be MSBA's response is, well, you have this building and you can
elect to do what you want with it, but we're not paying for >> Well, let me see how I can phrase this. Um, >> the change of use, >> the abatement and demo is reimburseable with no cap. However, they don't pay for
abatement of flooring or ceiling finishes. So, you know, months back when I explained the riveting process on how um reimbursement works, >> you know, so MSBA will say yes, we'll reimburse that, but there's always a
cap. But with the baitment and demo, there is no cap. However, with abatement, there's two two finishes that are not um reimburseable. That's ceiling and uh for and and there I mean my
opinion is their logic is that if it's ceiling and flooring finishes, that should have been part of the abatement process within the district just ongoing. So to to Troy's point, um you know that that that's a big that's a big cost that
would then be borne to the town. Um >> the other and I wonder um what um would be the restorative um effects of the wetlands after demolition of a building like that. You
know, I'm sure there'd be an effort there'd have have to be an effort to meet D guidelines or or or EPA guidelines and those types of things. >> Yes. The benefit of the existing Parker site is at least where the existing
building is, it's already been developed despite the site constraints showing that it's wetland boundary. Um, so there likely would be some flexibility in that it could be restored to open green space. It wouldn't necessarily have to
become wetland again. Um, so it would still be usable and that would be something that we would confirm through a permitting process with the Chelmsford Conservation Commission um later in the process. But >> Gotcha. Thank you.
uh but from a costbenefit analysis that it is probably likely that the Parker site would be um most effective and as we develop our conceptual building options those will also come with a landscape plan a conceptual landscape
plan as well. So we'll be working with our landscape architects to make sure that we can fit as many playfields or meet try to meet the same number of playfields on the existing site. Um, so then that new site concept or addition renovation site concept will also be
part of that estimating exercise. So you'll have a cost that includes the building and the site development. So all of those sites, the three sites plus the code upgrade option and that would each have the enrollment
option associated with it. And in terms of the Parker site, there would be the new construction options and the addition renovation options. So from an initial standpoint on the number of options, this is looking at 13
options for us to study. As we get further in the process, this evaluation matrix will serve as a tool for evaluating those options against one another. So we will want to
work with the committee to confirm and establish the criteria of which all of the options are evaluated against. Um but this could be it's it it's something that the MSBA does require as an exercise, but it also serves as just a
very qualitative objective method of weighing the options against one another. this becomes a great vehicle um 12 months from now when you know because people say well how did you end up where you ended up
>> and you know this is the vehicle. >> Yes. Yeah. It does make communicating to the community how the committee was able to get to an option very clear. Yeah. And Julie, if you could just comment how um the code upgrade, I mean, there's 13
here now and 13 will become six or five and then eventually one and so forth. I'm just throwing out numbers, but the code upgrade is required as a MSBA policy to continue into the next phase.
It doesn't matter what the committee thinks. Um, it's just part of their their their policy and protocol. >> That's correct. And based on our assessments earlier this week, that will help inform an itemized list that we'll
give to our cost estimators to be able to provide a cost of option X or what it would cost just to bring the building up to code. Um, which would likely still be a large sum of money in the millions.
And then these are initial options, but following our continued study and conversation with the working group and leadership group on establishing the space summaries and programs specific to each enrollment option. We might find that there are iterations of these and
and the committee might feel strongly about adding another new construction option um onto Parker site or whatever the case may be, but we can start to lock what those are. um within the next couple of building committee meetings.
And so our last slide is really just a little bit of a summary of some of the discussion topics um from this presentation. So we we talked about options definitely looking to keep the conversation open on
which sites are viable for continued study. um and also which enrollment options are viable for continued study. So, not necessarily looking to eliminate anything tonight, but really just if there was any open discussion on, you
know, maybe maybe the maybe I'm wrong and the committee does feel a type of way, um then we could at least take that information and roll it into the next um for the next building committee meeting. Yeah, I would ask if um for homework for
the committee if um they look at the evaluation criteria that um AI3 laid out. Um you know we we spoke offline and um you know it it's somewhat similar evaluation criteria that is used with
other projects you know both of our firms have done but they they may be something that is the committee or member might be very passionate about that is not listed there that you would like to see there >> because at some point we will Julie if
you could mind going back one slide this what we'll call it a rating scorecard. Um this will be shared with the committee. Um and we'll set up a um kind of a metric, you know, four to zero.
Four being highly advantageous and zero, you know, take it off the table. Um but that's how we've kind of uh um you know, had a come to a consensus. Um so, you know, this will be shared with you at
some point. Yes. >> Yeah. To to actually score. >> Yeah. Getting your getting your feedback um sooner rather than later. So the next few billing committee meetings we can make progress on this uh evaluation
matrix would be extremely helpful. It may be a scenario where um we're eliminating sites first and then we're eliminating options after that. So it it um you know going through the pros and cons of uh whether a site is um
advantageous or not um may be irrelevant to the option the grade reconfiguration. It just might not work uh in general or it may you know one of them may be more advantageous. So getting that dialogue um going would be um really helpful so
that as Julie mentioned in in December in January when we um need direction from the committee we'll be in a good place to submit uh the PDP to the MSBA in January. And again, regardless of the
scoring, code upgrade is going to continue to the next phase and one addition renovation and one new. So the MSBA has certain no matter how you score it and how it, you know, shakes out,
you're still carrying a few through. [Music] >> We did we did list just to expand that just a little bit more. We have the educational program,
community access, construction phasing, energy efficiency, and cost as sort of the five pillars of the the matrix. We'll we'll and what we're asking is for for you to confirm and or expand um some
of the um individual items, but just on the on the on the top of um anybody's head, are there any other major categories that anyone can think of that would be a consideration that we need to
include as as a category? We can build out the category later, but is there something that um uh that comes to mind that would should be a consideration? [Music] And if not, that's okay. But this this
is u >> right. Yeah, it's hard when you're seeing it for the first time. Yeah, we're not looking for it tonight, but to to think about it [Music] >> and one thing that sometimes happens is
uh you have a certain um criteria c you know pillars and and subset of pillars and then once you go from 13 to four >> sometimes you re-evaluate the criteria >> and the pillars >> adjust sometimes because it might Well,
it's not applicable anymore. So, the criteria will change. [Music] >> Okay. Um, and our last slide is just our
upcoming events and activities. So, the first community forum is scheduled for this Wednesday, the 22nd, 7 p.m. That will include more of a broader intro to the process for the community, similar to tonight, an overview of our existing
conditions analyses, the visioning process, um, and and likely some of those inspiration photos that we showed last month, um, just to get the community interested and excited for the process. Um and then a second forum is scheduled for November 20th, which I
understand will also be the next building committee date. Um so we'll have the building committee meeting first and then the community forum right after. >> So we have it listed here for the um committee meeting the 20th as Julie
said, TBD. But um and with left field speaking with AI3 you can see that we have um you know a lot happening and I know it's it would be a long evening but right now I am leaning towards I I think we need to have the meeting a committee
meeting on the 20th because I I just I feel that we don't want um you know the project team doesn't want to feel when we get to December and January we're kind of ramrodding things you know through you. Um, so that's just my initial opinion right now.
>> Would the committee be willing to meet at 5:00 maybe that night to give us a little bit more time? Um, I know that's that's tough for most for a lot of people, but uh or even 5:30 just to just give us that little edge.
>> I I'd have to say for the project team, you tell us when to show up. Yeah. No, >> I just What is the willow of the committee, I guess. Um cuz it it's it's going to be a fast and furious meeting if we're meeting at 6:00 >> and then we all have to drive over to
the Elks afterwards. Um you know >> how far is the Elks from here? >> Well, it depends on how busy North Road is. >> There is a backway could be 15 minutes. >> Yeah, >> you won't have televised but can meet there. >> How about the police? You could have
tell me to video still have it, but it wouldn't be live. >> That'd keep us from running around. >> No, no, no. That just session. Yeah, maybe we could have them meeting. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. >> It wouldn't be quite as structured as this, but um that at least be easier for
us um to be in the same space and then just roll into the public session. >> Yeah. >> Okay. Makes sense. Makes sense. So, we would leave the committee meeting at 6:00, then just knock it out in an hour and then just turn right on. >> Or we could even if we want we kind of
poll people. I mean, maybe if if let's see what items we have, how long we think they would take. If we really think they're pushing it, maybe we're going to ask people if they could do 5:30 or 5:45, but we could put a little email out to just see who's available. But at least we'll just do it there. That way we can roll right into
>> I just like if people can put it as a a placeholder right now >> and like you said we can dial in the time based on the agenda and >> what we want to present and kind of get feedback. >> Good. >> Excellent. >> Okay.
>> Okay. >> Was um did we talk about having a third public visioning session or is it just >> No, there is one in December. >> There is one in December, right? Is it >> we It's just not listed in the >> Yes.
>> Um it's in the the four month calendar. If you could go back, Julie, it's >> Wednesday. >> Yep. >> Perfect. >> Yeah. Oh, yeah. Okay. The town did do an
electrification study just to really ballpark estimate how we would electrify our schools. Um Parker was included in that. It's a very high level uh ballpark estimate and it show I mean it's costly for a lot of our buildings just because they weren't you know they were built so
long ago. So I will forward it along just it's just it's just a tool to help with because they went through every electric bill, gas bill and it does show that these buildings are not meant for the current stretch code. So, you know, if the town was looking to purchase all of the solar,
>> we own the solar on all the schools. >> Good to know. >> Solar reimburseable to the project. >> Want me to take this one? >> I'm gonna say no. But here's the asterk
is that um there's a cap with construction. the allowable um construction cost per per square foot of construction. So if you do solar or don't do solar, you're still going to be over that cap.
>> So it it's I can't answer that with it's just it's going to be over the cap. >> There are additional reimbursement incentives though for through their green schools program. So if if we if
this committee elects to pursue the specialized stretch energy code for a building project, then the MSBA would there would be a reim extra reimburseable incentive for that as a result.
>> Actually they increase it to 4%. >> Four. Yeah. >> Addition 4%. And there's other um grants and avenues that I think has become an expert on >> as far as they
>> likely not federally but statewide. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. But if but if those come in, you still have to report them to the MSBA. So it's it's not like you can double dip. The only other criteria that comes to mind it could be for the evaluation criteria
just in abstract would be environmental. In other words, does the community value in particularly for the current parker site when looking at the three of the options, the the fields and then the McCarthy site, Graniteville and McCarthy, there may be a value in the community for the environmental what we
were talking earlier about the restoration and of that site in terms of the wetland area and environmental impact. Um because you know when we look at those you know evaluation ma matrix that's sort of the only notion that came to me in terms of what's not listed that
a community may value and that might be environmental impact. Um and so that you know I don't know how you flush that out but I think that might might be you know because you've already got the green part with the energy efficiency the only other aspect of that would be our
environmental impact >> wetlands so rename that category too to sustainability just I was thinking sustainability is we have a um you know we really it's energy efficiency but also environmental impacts and so if you kind of pair those together under that
category or just rename it. You might be able to avoid adding a whole category. >> Under environmental, would that I just want under environmental, would that also bring in consider bring into the discussion like what the removal of green space would be as far as like if
we you know removed Graniteville from the equation like we really don't have another place to create it, right? >> Um you know if we removed we put something at at um McCarthy, you know, technically we're removing space and we're not um addressing that in any way, right? So, however it gets put up there,
I wonder if that could come into the discussion. >> Yeah. Environmental >> or even about McCarthy, if we cut down all those trees, that's g that we know from our experience that's going to get a reaction in an adverse way, the loss of the tree canopy and so forth. So, that I'm saying that it's that sustainability, environmental, green,
>> in addition to energy efficiency, I think, is what what we're trying to struggle with. how and and maybe you have some insight on this. How the climate action plan, >> the green open space and recreation plan
and the new um um um overall strategic plan plays into this >> and some of these very specific um components of that, some of which you you mentioned, right? And and maybe that dovetales into this evaluation matrix as
well. you know because if like I said we lose the fields at Graniteville there is a concern that we don't have adequate amount of open space particularly for active recreation >> and that would you know and that's why I asked my question earlier like well does that factor into the cost analysis or
consideration because I don't know where you replicate that often because if they were we'd already be doing it >> quite frankly if it was that simple we'd we'd be actively doing that and we just haven't been able to identify a location not to mention you said not identify it but then acquire it and then produce it
into usable fields which is not insignificant. >> Yeah. Maybe it's a category like does this how does this align with some of these larger master plans as a category but I think I think energy efficiency could be built for sustainability or is a separate category whether trees
>> and then there's also it's associated with >> before can really design as the permitting if there is some project that is more of a permitting um challenge that might sway one way and I don't know if that is is the case because you mean
it seems like all sites have riverfront so you want to avoid it but if there's one site so permitting might be under con construction I mean I know it comes before construction but it is a a design >> I mean meer has to >> yeah that has yeah
>> that's permitting luggage it it's it has to be in the equation >> yep >> because it's there's going to be a dollar value to that >> um not just with um the management of the mea process but I I It's just it the
the length of the time and the schedule that time time is money. So >> I guess you have cost would there be is there any in any scenario that schedule would be less too? I don't know if
usually I mean cost is a function of schedule too but I don't know if schedule if there was one project that I mean I guess it depends on the size of the school and the site too but >> yeah absolutely I think that's a great point because the addition renovation an addition renovation project is inherently going to take longer than a
new construction option. Um, so we could make sure that that is included on >> construction phasing, right? >> Yeah. >> Oh, yep. Okay. Yeah. >> We we always say the the longer you see us, the more money it's going to cost. >> Oh, no.
>> Where to choose now? >> Yeah. >> Christine, the easement and water man for the district that goes to McCarthy, is that in the area for the proposed fields school? It is it is but it's in that um
if you go back to that site >> um not it actually does cut through this site so we will have to send those easement plans. It does cut through that site. So yeah >> in that area where the Yeah, it just does I just don't want it to lose it >> on the other site though the Graniteville site. It does cut through
it as well but it's really just that uh 20 ft on the edge of Graniteville. Um >> so it has less of an impact and it's just a water it's really it's an ement for a water man. So I don't know if it would have as large of an impact because you would probably still put a building but I will send those along. There still
be f >> I think I think a parker though the line the area that they have grayed off I think is where the easement would fall. >> Maybe I got to double check to see that one. I was focused on McCarthy. >> I'm sorry. This is Parker, right?
>> This is the Graniteville Graniteville. Sorry. >> Graniteville. >> You go to the Parker one for a second >> because it comes down Crooked Springs. So >> all right. I thought that was Crooked Springs. So, no. >> So, it comes down Crooked Springs. So, that 20 foot setback is essentially the easement. You're not building there
anyway. So, it shouldn't have. But I guess that's that's something >> town GIS. >> No, we're just going through easement um final finalize the easement with the water district right now. But I will send those plans too because maybe in it's like P permitting and easement
coordination because that that is potentially I think more for the the McCarthy might be the most problematic. >> You can probably still fit in a building because it's it's a water main but >> um >> yeah sort of a site developments
restrictions category >> which is a component of the PDP that will be reported on too. So that'll be >> I'll send those. >> They're just being fine. Like they're just not stamped yet. So I'll I'll just It should be by next week and I'll send them along. >> Okay, great.
>> Anything else? >> Anything else under upcoming events and activities? We're we're good with the meetings. Um I don't see any um any of the general public here. Uh so I don't expect
there's any public comment this evening. And is there anything else before I ask for a motion to adjurnn? Seeing none, I'll entertain a motion to adjurnn. >> Make a motion to >> motion by Dennis King, second by Jim.
>> All in favor? >> I. >> Thank you.