clock. We'll call this meeting to order. The meeting of the Chelsea Parker School Building Committee. Um the first item on our agenda tonight is approval of meeting minutes. Do we have any uh questions, comments,
or discussion u surrounding the meeting minutes from January 15, 2026? I move approval. >> Okay. Um, seeing none, I would uh entertain a motion to approve the meeting minutes from January 15th. >> Move. I'll second.
>> Okay. We have a motion and a second. Motion by Paul Cohen, second by Dennis. Um, any further discussion? Seeing none, all in favor? I opposed. That's uh unanimous. Thank you. Uh, the next item
um on the agenda is approval of monthly project invoices. And I'll turn that over to uh David, I guess, or Houndy. >> Yeah. Turn over to Houndy. >> Okay. >> Just need >> one of those guys. Anyway, >> need a mic. >> Throw the mic.
>> Somebody get a little bit closer to the mic. So, uh before we start, maybe Troy, if you want to just introduce Kristen to the team. >> New face. Uh so, want to introduce everybody to Kristen Kendall. Um she
similar to Julie is senior associate u she's been working on several uh um complex projects for us been with us many years as Julie moves toward her maternity leave. Um
Chris will lead the uh design team and um has been transitioning for about a month um behind the scenes and will continue to uh fold into the project uh moving forward. Excellent. Thank you. Welcome. >> Thank you so much. Excited to be a part
of the project. >> You can't like her more than me when I say >> we'll make a special note of that in the meeting minutes, please. >> Okay. So, the next item on the agenda is updated uh project budget review. So uh
I know this is little bit hard to see but I believe I shared the updated copy with the comedy uh as part of the um comedy package. So the only changes from last month is the expanded and unspent
column. So as we get invoices and u as the invoices are paid so we update the expanded column. Um, so far we have uh $5 of $44,000
spent and one approximately $1.1 million unspent and the owner's contingency is uh $17,000. Uh the next slide, please. So these are the monthly project invoices. Um as
usual we have one invoice from left field for the OPM services for January and then uh the second invoice is from AI3 uh for physibility study services uh for the month of January 2026
and the total amount of the invoices is 159,329. If anyone want to make a motion, it's it's on the screen. >> There's a motion at the bottom of the page for anybody that appears to make one. >> Make a motion to approve the January 2026 invoice package number nine the
amount of $159,329 as issued and presented. >> We have a motion and I have a second. Okay. Any further discussion? >> Okay. Thank you. >> Sorry 15.
Um, okay. Any further discussion? Seeing none, all in favor? I >> I post unanimous. >> So for schedule and MSP PDP submission overview, I will turn it over to Julie. >> Great.
>> We provided another fourmon look ahead for our anticipated action items. February looks light in this graphic, but there has been a lot that's been happening behind the scenes with the development of design options. We also were able to preview a dozen or so
options with the district leadership group last week. So, Chris will share more about that later in the presentation. Looking ahead to March, there's a few things we wanted to point out. The first being that the MSBA will
be providing us with their formal PDP review comments. We do have a slide in here that references some initial comments that they had, but there will likely be a multi-page full report review that they'll provide to us. The
professional team will respond to all of those comments. There may just be some collaboration required with the district if the MSBA had some questions regarding the educational program or some of the spaces included in the space summary.
With the development of the options, we're working towards specifically March 11th at this point so that we can send those options out for cost estimating. And with that timeline, we'll be able to
get cost data in hand prior to the April SBC meeting where this committee will have to select a preferred option. So you'll be equipped with the cost data much like the sequence of events that happened with the PDP selection of the
options to move into PSR. And then the third item to bring your attention to for March would be we're looking to confirm a community forum date. So we're recommending that that maybe get coupled
on the same night as the next SBC meeting just to maximize participation and attendance. It will be critical to get back in front of the community prior to selecting a preferred option. And that's of course to make the committee
the community feel like they're a part of the process moving forward, but also to support that we have done that due diligence to the MSBA and that the project process has been shared continuously with the community.
And then as we move into April, again, that will follow much of the sequence of events that occurred with the PDP submission. So the educational program will make a reemergence. This time though, we're looking for a final draft
of that educational program. So instead of it describing three different enrollment options, it should be um finalized to include only one enrollment option. And we recognize there's some sensitivity with
that and that you know this committee won't even have had the opportunity to vote on what that option enrollment option is yet. but having an educational program draft that caters to the discussions that have already been had
and the endorsement that's already been provided by the school committee um presumably for that four to six option and then in April we will get back in front of the school committee for a similar series of approvals. So allowing
time for the school committee to review that finalized educational program to confidently be able to endorse it and approve it at the April 14th meeting. Additionally, we'll be looking for a certification for the grade
reconfiguration if it does move in that direction on April 14th. And we have a slide that details more of what that cert certification is based on the MSBA's requirements. And then later that week, we'll have our
SBC meeting in April and that'll be approval of this PSR submission and the opportunity to select the preferred option that moves into schematic design. So, a lot of activities in April that will propel us into the next phase
following a submission at the end of the month to the MSBA. Um, and so, yeah, that's where we're at with the schedule. And then May, of course, we can get more into that following the the PSR submission.
Julie, I just on this a visual I wanted to add that um >> you know the team the team submitted the PDP um on time as we planned which was on January 20th and I believe the 12th
of February was the 21day marker. >> Yes. Yeah. And obviously Julie uh and the team updated this. Um unfortunately I don't you know hopefully we'll get the comments back on March 2nd
but uh I just wanted to go on the record that um you know the team submitted it as planned on time and unfortunately um there must be a internal delay within the MSBA process from a review standpoint. So,
>> and I uh talked to the MSBA yesterday on the phone and they indicated that um we are not going to get it like the earliest we will get by the end of next week. So, the MSBA senior staff is
focusing for the projects that are uh scheduled for the February board meeting. So that's why they put us a little bit at the back of the uh queue. So >> they're pri prioritizing the other projects that have to go in
front of the board whereas a PDP review is um only done by MSBA staff doesn't go to the board. So unfortunately um yeah said we're kind of on the back burner until others get cleared up
>> and it won't impact our schedule moving forward. it doesn't push the PSR submission at all um as a result of waiting on their comments. Many times at the PVP's phase, a lot of our response comments are this will be included in
the next report that gets um distributed. So we don't anticipate it being anything that would um negatively impact the project schedule. So if I may add another item so we don't
see uh on this calendar uh but in June we will also have the uh MSBA board meeting like this is little bit different than PDP submission. So at PSR phase uh PSR will be submitted in April
and then in May there will be MSBA facilities assessment subcommittee and then uh in June we will be before the MSBA board for the uh approval to move forward into the schematic design phase.
Okay. Anything else on schedule? Nope. Um, we can and we can talk more about the community forum dates or finalizing those u maybe in at the end of the presentation unless there's a recommendation for a date other than you
know coupling with the SBC meeting in March. >> Okay, we'll come back to that. >> Great. So the next item on the agenda is MSBA PDP submission overview. >> Sure. So, as related to the MSBA submission, there was, you'll recall,
the educational program was included with the PDP. Now that we've moved into the the PSR phase, um, as I mentioned, that the MSBA requires a grade reconfiguration certification um, as part of the feasibility study.
So, what that really is is just a formalizing the decision on whether or not the district is reconfiguring your grade enrollment options. So, if um if you were to select the 5 to 8 or the 4 to
six options, um the MSBA would be looking for a certification that fulfills this template that they've prescribed. And what it really does is describe some of the background that brought the committee to that decision point. Um, and one of those things being
how many school committee meetings or public forums were held where this was a topic of discussion. So that just makes the need for a community forum in March that much more critical to be able to supplement the certification that will be written as
part of the PSR. We do recommend as well that the the grade reconfiguration topic be an agenda item in all school committee meetings and SBC meetings over the next two months as we lead up to that PSR
submission. So that it is further evidence as well that it was a main topic of discussion and that not only the committees but the the community has had the um opportunity to listen to those discussions and contribute
contribute to the discussions as well. One of the things I would just u just add one of the things that will be important to include as a supplement to potentially this document but definitely as we work through the summary in the PSR is the fact that you all and the
community has been working on and talking about grade reconfiguration for years. It hasn't been this past 6 months. it's been several years that you've been talking through uh the possibilities, the options, the various um scenarios. So, giving the MSBA that
backstory will be very helpful in this process. So, we we can work together to um formulate what that narrative is and the history that has occurred uh to supplement this uh this document here. Any
questions on that sequence of events or the deliverable of this certification? >> Real picture. What is the date you think that this will be certified on? >> So the April 14th school committee meeting would be when we're looking to
at least have that or following that meeting would be when the certification could be signed. So we'd likely want to have a draft prepared. You'd want the great configuration on every agenda between now and then. >> We would recommend that. Yes. >> I'm gonna put it on mine just as a
public comment opportunity so that if someone had something to say, they could. >> Then we mentioned that we're anticipating the formal review comments from the MSBA. We just had a slide in here to um
to reference the MSBA initial comments email that went out a couple weeks ago. Um ju to David's point, the PDP was delivered on time. It was again just the MSBA reacting with some initial comments. We provided the supplemental
information they were looking for and really now we just will wait for further comments. Just I was going to say just one item related to this one. Since we have the approved meeting minutes from the January 15th uh meeting. So tonight
or tomorrow, I will uh get that certified uh by Dr. Len and then share it with uh the MSBA tomorrow. >> And Hami uploaded the PDP submission uh on the website.
>> Okay. I'm going to have Tori will walk us through an update on evaluation of existing conditions. Yes. So during last month's building committee meeting, uh we mentioned that there were some contaminated soils found
at two of I believe total of 15 borings that were completed on the Parker Middle School site. Um so those were at locations of B6 and B9. So to follow up on that, um we completed an additional eight borings total and um placed some monitoring wells to determine whether
there was any additional acetone contamination in the soils um or if any of the groundwater was contaminated. And fortunately, we're happy to report that there was um the the samples were sent to a lab and while tested and no additional acetone was found and the groundwater was not contaminated, which
is really kind of best case scenario. Um so those took place in January. Everything has been tested. Um, and we believe the extent of the contamination is only about 7 and a half cubic yards. Um, which is great news. It means that now the town can complete a limited
removal action. Uh, also called an LRA. Um, so this is an action that can be taken. And that means um if within 120 days, which the period ends on May 6th of this year, if the town can remove and replace all of the contaminated soils um
up to 20 cubic yards, then they do not need to bring this information about the hazardous materials to mass DP. Um so we have been working closely with the geo environmental consultants that we have as well as the DPW to come up with a plan um to make sure that this happens
within the 120 days. So the plan currently is to have the removal and replacement of the contaminated soils take place during April school vacation. Um so that that can all be done before the May 6th date. Um because if it takes place after that time then we will need
to bring it to mass D for their notification. Um so the good news is that uh we will be completing that before that date and um we will be completing a report as well for the DPW's reports. Is there any additional
testing that has to happen after the removal of um >> I don't believe so. >> There will be a phase 2 geotechnical investigation once we're beyond this PSR phase, but that's not necessarily
related to the results of the contaminated soil. >> It's not a time-sensitive thing that by May 6th we have to be retested and ready to go. >> Correct. >> Okay. >> Yes. So here you can see oh I believe if I heard this correctly in one of our
meetings that um Sage provides a kind of letter for the file that remediation was complete and it's you know it doesn't have to be quoted but just is you know filed away. >> That's right.
>> That's what I heard. That's correct. >> Yes. Exactly. Um, so here we have the Parker Middle School site. Um, kind of showing all of the locations of the original borings as well as the supplemental borings, which you can see kind of blown up here. Um, noting that they are on what we have speculated
might be a hall road from left over from the construction of the highway. Also near an area of layown for the construction of the current middle school. Um but you can see kind of north, south, east, and west of each of those contaminated borings is where we um did the additional eight borings as
well as those monitoring wells. Um but the good news is that our path forward is relatively simple. Um shouldn't impact construction moving forward. Any questions on the soils? Okay, great. I'm going to turn over to David and Hamdi for the contract
amendment regarding the soils. >> Thank you. One more. >> This page is good. >> So this is the contract amendment one uh to AI3's uh contract. So obviously this
unknown uh will add some additional um dollar uh to the project. So and to AI3's contract. So the total amount of this additional uh services is $25,883
including u3's markup and uh the consultants uh fee. So Tori walked us through about the services. So Sage will be on site. They will prepare uh LSP opinion letter. they
will coordinate with the uh receiving facility and then once everything is uh removed from the Parker school site they will prepare a L report and then uh I mean this is not uh this is not an item
that uh to close with the D but uh the um issue will be closed. So um and all these services will cost about $25,883 uh uh just to add one more thing this is
only for the design services. There will be some additional cost for the tracking and for the receiving facility. Uh but since the amount is uh so small uh we
don't expect more than 15$20,000 uh and everything will be funded from the project from owner's contingency >> and I believe HDI I could be wrong but I think we have 107,000
yes give or take. Yes. >> No. Uh well, I just have a question. Um so I was just looking at the the cost breakdown of the change and u I can see um the consultants price of 23530 with a 10% markup from AI3 and uh you guys uh
do all this stuff the changes for free left field. You do that. >> I'm just trying to understand why there's no markup from left field. >> No, there's no markup from left field. And um the 10% markup for the um the designer. Uh that's a standard.
>> I understand that. >> But no, there's no >> I'm not questioning that. >> No, no, there's no uh >> Okay. Just want to make sure there's nothing absorbed. um if there's some event that you know is um I don't know
catastrophic sideways and it extends time for some reason but no there's there's no uh no component from left field. >> Great. Thank you. >> Okay. So I'm ready for a motion. >> Okay. I make a motion to approve AI3 contract amendment in the amount of $25,883
as issued and presented. I have a motion from Dennis. >> Second, >> second from Jim. >> Any further discussion? >> Seeing none, all in favor? >> I >> opposed. Unanimous.
>> Okay. >> Uh the next item is BRR number two approval. This is a standard MSBA form. uh whenever we need to um do any budget revision we utilize this form as
required by the MSBA. So in this case uh we will be using this form to move money from the owner's contingency to the design services um to fund the um event
that we uh spoke about. So um yeah once once this is approved I will send this form to Mr. Cohen uh Dr. Lang and Mr. King uh via docu sign and then we will share it with the MSBA so then
they can update their budgets in prop bay system. >> The fine print within this form says um this was presented to the school building committee. So, um, hence that's why we're presenting it. And BRR number one that we did was when, um, when AI3
got on board, we did just a, um, quick budget alignment based on our fee and AI3's fee. So, that was BRR number one. >> Okay. Any comments or discussion on BRR number two?
Seeing none, I'd entertain a motion. I make a motion to approve uh budget revision request number two as issued and presented. >> Have a motion from Dennis. >> Second. >> Second from Jim. Any further discussion? Seeing none, all in favor?
>> I posted. That's unanimous. Okay. Development of the design options. >> All right. So, I'm going to walk us through this. Uh we're going to start, as you may recall, at a previous building
committee, it was agreed to eliminate furthering design options at the Granitefield Ballfield sites as well as the McCarthy Middle School. So that has been allowed the team to turn our focus uh entirely to the Parker Middle School site. If you look on this map, the
western portion of the site shown in red really identifies that non-buildable zone of the site, which includes the stream, the wetlands, and the existing school. really opening up that eastern portion of the site. From there, we've identified sort of three areas for
development. All of these have different advantages and challenges. The team has identified area three as the most advantageous with its um addressment of the site constraints as well as its opportunities to the green connections,
its entry opportunities with Graniteville Road and its solar orientation. As Julie mentioned uh the other week, we had a workshop with um some of the committee and district leadership. At that workshop, the design team shared
multiple configuration options. These options really focused on how the academic wings will respond and align with the shared community core of the building. Two of these options rose to the top and those are identified in
those yellow circles. The one on the left had a more favorable condensed community core where the one on the right was really a more favorable approach to how the academic wings are arrayed and respond. So from that meeting we had a few key
takeaways that really rose to um our attention as a response to that feedback. That being the academic wings on one side of a dedicated separation zone between the academic and that condensed community core allowing for a
secure separation between those activities. So, the options we're sharing tonight, while they look pretty detailed, we do want to uh underline the fact that these all have a lot of opportunities and need for further investigation, not only on
the building configuration and shape, but also um where those um different program pieces are located within the building and their adjacencies. This option here for a grades four to six and a five to six configuration
um is landed in that green zone and is a hybrid of those two options that sort of rose to the surface from the workshop. We're taking the academic array oriented towards the wetlands and combining that with that consolidated community core.
Uh located centrally within that community core is the student commons and then all the way at the far east end of the building is your wellness area comprised of your gym and its adjacent programs and allows it for direct exterior connections to the site.
Um, this configuration within that area three also allows those academic wings to have the ideal solar orientation allows different entry configurations uh along Graniteville Road. The building is oriented to take advantage and respond
to the alignments with Crooked Spring Road and Graniteville Road. We have identified multiple entry locations uh for potential different functions of the building, whether it be after hours. And with these academic wings, the way they're configured, it creates a clear
separation for community use and that private academic use for that secure separation for after hours. >> Threetory building in the fourth grade, fifth grade, and sixth grade. Is that >> Yep. Yep. So, we'll go through those floor plans. We'll go through each floor. >> Visualize it. Okay.
>> Yep. Um this is a very consolidated footprint and the benefit of that is really to maximize the site potential um as well as help minimize those construction costs. As you can see there's a little portion of our building in the academic wing that overlaps those
modulars. Um, we are exploring the minimal overall project cost impact that it would take to replicate those modulars within the short-term construction versus further studying the massing of the building and maybe mitigating or removing that overlap.
It's really important that we consider all of the short-term and long-term considerations um with whatever direction we move in. So, on the second floor um this is where you see fifth grade. the first floor had fourth grade. This is showing uh the
opportunity for a horizontal grade distribution. Um because of the 3x6 clustering of the grades, there is an opportunity to either show them horizontally or they could stack vertically. Um the benefit of this option really allows the building to
have that flexibility for future grade um use or configuration within the building. If it was a five to six, you would have just those two floors. If this was a four to six, you would need the third floor for sixth grade. Uh the opportunity with the program would allow
that building massing to step back further from your main intersection, allowing your building to sort of grow with your entry approach. >> Is the dining area threetory or
like it you don't show the roof? That's why I'm asking probably right like it's >> currently we're we're looking at all the studies of how tall of a space is within that dining. Uh we would you know have all the considerations of how many floors are actually open to that area to
mitigate any atrium potential. >> Okay. >> Way we're showing the dining commons as well right now is as this very centrally located open space within the building plan. We also want to explore if that shifts a little bit more to the
exterior. Otherwise, the third floor may be an opportunity to make sure we're getting some light into that central dining commons as well. So, additionally, we studied a very similar grid configuration for a 5 to8
option. Uh we start with adding the auditorium at the far east end of the building and enlarging the gym. But other than that, the building is a very similar configuration. Um, this also has fifth grade on the lowest floor. So, similar to the four to six
option, the grades would increase as you step up the building. This allows an opportunity for a lower school and an upper school and also consideration if fifth grade wanted to be a fifth grade academy. Sixth grade on the second floor would allow a direct one-story vertical
connection with fifth grade, completing that lower school opportunity. And this option, unlike some of the previous grade 5 to 8 configuration options, um really keeps the building at a threetory by getting all of seventh
and eighth grade on that third floor so that you don't have to jump to a four-story building. creates a lot of program on the top floor, but it also achieves a much more compact footprint than the previous 5 to
eight options that we've studied. Still pretty big given the sight space and how it starts to creep over towards that intersection. Um, but there's no hiding that it is a lot of square footage to put. >> And we did just bring the new construction options today. That was our
focus for conversation uh for the most part when we met at the work the working group that workshop. Um, we are going to take these configuration options and implement them onto an addition renovation scheme and share that at a future meeting.
>> Have a question about this is curriculum basis cur because I know right now so fourth grade you're assigned a teacher and you have and so I know when you move up to fifth grade you and I don't know exactly but it sounds like you have more um different curriculum and I guess that's what I see right here. And so in
fourth grade, would the would you align with the fifth grade um curriculum more so than what we have right now? >> Yeah, it's not as much the um it's the curriculum. It's more just like the pairing of teachers that we have. So right now through grade four um all the
students have one primary teacher. And then when you move up to fifth and sixth grade, they have two teachers. So one teacher specializes in math science, the other does ELA and social studies. And then when you get to seventh and eighth grade um it's a pure subject based um system. So and it actually aligns with
desi lensure. So by the time you get to seventh grade the content is just much more specific. So you have a dedicated science teacher, math teacher. So there's like a fourperson team. >> Um the so we're not quite there yet. So we we we're not restricted in four to six with regard to having you
technically could have one teacher, you know, for everything. Um fourth grade could technically have two teachers if we wanted them to. Um I think a lot of the talk has been um actually keeping the fourth grade as a fourth grade however they came in with the one teacher and then doing the teaming for
grades five and six. Um what we kind of liked about the plans when we talked is by kind of having the three different fingers if you look at it on the map. You can just do the vertically so that you can have a whole grade level on a school. You also could do because of the stairwells like a horizontal if you wanted to to get there to be some
spread. But um we don't really have to make the decision right now whether it's one teacher or two. Um if it's two, it's basically two groups of kids splitting two classrooms. So the sizes are the same. It's just who's actually delivering the instruction. There's pros and cons to both, but we didn't uh we
didn't quite get that far yet. >> Just a question on that. You know, so area three is the one you said most. You already talked about the modules, which would definitely be something we want to know more about. Is it any other impacts to like the playground, the traffic patterns if you were to start to build
it like there? I mean, it looks like it would go through like where the cars usually cut through and >> Sure. So, it Yeah, it certainly pulls the building further from the intersection without situating it as far away as the existing building is. So, we
saw that as an advantage as well. And when we're thinking about site circulation and wanting to be conscious of how much queuing length is there for the amount of buses and the amount of parent drop off, that will be that next layer of information that we're able to
add. Um, given the curb cuts and and typically the traffic coming off of Graniteville Road, we do think that by having that front yard space between the building and Graniteville does also offer offer opportunities to better
mitigate that site circulation. I was more concerned with like the current building like if we >> start construction like this this is cutting into where the cars are normally driving where the kids are playing in the playground >> other impacts to besides the modules which again >> and that's three plus years of right of
them still using the current Parker middle school and needing that space. >> Yes, absolutely. Yeah. So when we get further in the design process, there will be a lot of scrutiny on making that phasing amendable to keeping the existing building up and running. In
this case, if the building were to be in that area three, it's likely that there's some temporary roadways and parking areas that get built as enabling work um during that construction period. So then the typical the staff can have a
place to park, drop off can happen. There will be some hardships which is natural >> because you're going to cut kind of cut it into two different sections because you can't go to the wetlands obviously. >> Right. Right. And at least with the, you know, just as Chris mentioned, this is barely touching the modular. So we could
certainly finesse it in that we want to find that location that maybe does have the least impact. It seems like there's opportunities to avoid those. Um but even if we did need to replicate the two classrooms that are in those modules, it's likely only a million or two
dollars in the grand scheme of um the full project >> in the if um you know remember this whole thing was maybe $400 million. So >> we'll see any type of like >> any type of like temporary provisions like that with either roadways, parking
lots, playgrounds are all very typical in a school construction and will be further refined. It also very common practice especially when you're building on the same site as your active school. Yeah, we I mean this is going to be something we're familiar with doing, but at the same time like um yes, the
wetlands out in the back side of the building, you know, wouldn't be part of new construction, but we may need to use some of the back side of the building where there's that back parking lot even for like fizz and recess and things like that. Um as opposed to just the front of the building where um the fields are right now. But that is all going to have
to be phased um but taken into consideration with the the bigger picture. But obviously you're thinking is where it's a 50 or plus year building you you want to achieve the long-term benefit of the best location to the short-term sacrifice. That's why you're kind of because the simple thing we'll
just scoot it down a little bit. I I get okay helpful. Thank you. >> And just to set expectations this >> this construction project will engulf that entire um east side of
the building. all that playfield area, the construction, the lay down, the circulation, the air, like that entire section all the way to the intersection will be lost for construction. So there won't be any part of that. So on the opposite side on the leftand side or the
west side as as Dr. Lang is was suggesting that is an opportunity for some um some of that outdoor activity or parking or or um circulation. But certainly many many many discussions that will occur over the next um over
the next year uh about um uh the entire plan and phasing. >> Are there any other questions about the design options that were shared? I guess not. >> Julie, do I can just >> Sure. So, our last slide is really just
the upcoming events and activities. So, confirming some dates for March. Um, and then otherwise that will conclude our agenda for the evening. >> We've been looking to do the Elks again if we did a public meeting for >> Yeah. So, um, we got good feedback on
the Elks the, um, the first two times we met there as far as like easeability and whatnot. Um Robin put a call in to just see if it's available and it is available. It is on the 19th. So I think it would make the most sense if we wanted to do it just for consistency sake to use the Elks again. Um with this
group already has the 19th scheduled as a meeting date. It kind of makes sense in my opinion as well. Um so I think it it would make sense to go forward with the 19th doing want to if we need to do a quick school building committee meeting right at the site as well as the community forum for for input. I think
that makes sense. >> We'll share a a flyer for publication to get that um out that message out there as soon as possible. >> You Pat? >> Yeah, that works. I know. I was just
looking at the uh overall schedule. So, we don't have any decisions due on March 19th. Our decisions are due on April 16th. >> Correct. Yeah. So there will be likely be some overlap in content, but for the community's benefit, we'll want to update them on the conclusion of the PDP
and this PSR phase on grade reconfiguration of course and then share a similar update on the design options that have progressed. They will be further along by then and we'll also be able to update the committee on the progression of the design options as
well. So we should have all six options, the three new and the three ad grano to share. >> Is one hour um for us enough time before the um visiting session? >> I think so. >> Okay, you guys agree with that? You
good? Okay, >> we're pretty good at running a tight ship. >> Yeah, we can make sure we cater it. >> I've been successful. >> It's all to the chair. It's all to the chair to keep going, you know. >> Yes. >> Okay. Okay, >> great. I'm good with all that.
Um, so nothing else on development of design options and we talked about um, so you'll check on the Elks and we'll put out a a message to the entire committee. >> Okay, good.
>> And then um, I don't believe we have any public comment. I don't see anybody in the audience and we have nobody on Zoom tonight. Right. >> Right. >> So there is no public comment. Any other um any anything else uh regarding what we discussed this evening?
Seeing none, I'd entertain a motion to adjurnn. >> Make a motion to adjurnn. >> Motion by Dennis, second by Jim. >> All in favor? >> I opposed. It's unanimous. Thank you.