Okay. Okay. The time being 5:36, we will call the meeting of the school building committee to order. Um, this meeting is being recorded um um by council tele media for future viewing and uh we are
not live tonight but uh uh this is being recorded. So with that um we'll start off with the first uh agenda item which is approval of meeting minutes from um October 16th. So do we have any corrections or
anything um any concerns any questions or corrections to the meeting minutes of the 16th? Seeing none I'd entertain a motion to approve the meeting minutes of October 16th 2025. >> Motion to approve
second. Motion for Tim, second from Matt. All in favor? I. >> That's approved. Unanimous. Okay. Um, at this point, I will turn it over to our project managers and let them all
>> take it from here. >> Thank you, Pat. Um, so we have a 12 item agenda tonight, so we have a lot to cover. Um, on the slide, we have uh the budget. Um there's really no change here with the exception of an accounting standpoint, just um more more invoices
being encumbered. Um and Julie, if you can go to the next slide, we have a invoice packet um dated October 31st. And we have a left field invoice for $20,859.
And then we have an AI3 invoice for $71,875 for a total invoice summary of $92,734. Um, we have a prepared motion. I can read the motion. I just need someone to move it. Motion to approve the September 2025 invoice package number six in the
amount of $92,734 as issued and presented. Should the word be September or October? >> September >> because the the invoice dates are October 31st. >> Yep. September 2028. >> How can the invoice package be prior to the invoice?
>> Yeah, it should be period ending um period ending um October. >> So the motion be to approve October 25. Okay. I amend the emo the motion to be
October 2025. >> So move with the amendment. >> Second. >> We have a motion and a second. Any discussion? Seeing none, all in favor? >> I >> opposed. That's unanimous.
>> Thank you. >> And then I sent out an email to the committee on this. I'm going to go fairly quickly, but if anyone wants to take pause, we can go through it slowly. But we had a kickoff meeting with uh the MSBA on October 7th and we were notified
verbally during that kickoff meeting of these are the minimum options that um the MSBA is I'm going to say uh requiring or mandating us to study. Uh during the call um reading the room uh I think there was some confusion but uh it
was not the right form to um have the debate with the MSBA. So the following day they they sent us this and then the following day after that if you can go to the next slide Julie we sent them a mocked up version um we conveyed our
opinions and rationale and thoughts which I you know have on the slide again this was our part of the email um and then the next slide so long story short um it was conveyed to us on the 7th of October on the 8th we presented our
opinions and rationale of not studying the options related to the four grade uh 5678 at the McCarthy school. Um and then on November 4th, 19 days later, we received official word from the MSBA
that they're not accepting our um request. So, we are studying those options. Um the email I sent to the committee was just so it's not a surprise tonight when we go through um the 13 options that AI3 is going to walk
us through and you see you know what might be considered why are we studying that or a little bit of a surprise. Um so um I can take a deeper dive if any anybody wants to but that's the summary with with this
or if anyone has questions >> any questions or discussion or otherwise on the changes to what we're studying seeing none please proceed. The next is all AI3. >> Great. Starting off with the schedule
overview, the broader schedule for both phase one and phase two. No changes to report in the proposed schedule at this time other than just the satisfaction of seeing that red arrow tick another month further um as we work towards the first
the PDP deadline and then moving into PSR in at the beginning of the new year. This would be more descriptive of that PDP phase. And what's important to take away from this slide is really that from what we showed last month now, you're
seeing that almost all activities have been initiated with the exception of the cost projections. Um, so the a lot of activity has happened on the site over the last month to pursue those assessments and testing and investigation. um and we'll have another
update on that. But all of the reporting for those are underway. We also completed all of the visioning activities. We've done architectural walkthroughs and we've really started honing in on that educational program development.
Looking at the anticipated action items, no changes again to report on this. Here we are at November 20th. So we'll have our backtoback with the community forum this evening. You will find that there's a little bit of overlap between some of the slides presented here and the community forum just given that we're um
providing both tonight. And then as we move into December, that'll get busy the third week as we present the educational program and the activities associated with that to the school committee as well as targeting the December 12th date
as an action item for at least the district to complete the educational program um or at least get a solid draft put together to be able to then report to the school committee. >> Okay. Just as a quick question on that. Is there um so the school committee meeting is that that's just a school
committee meeting that's not a joint meeting or any there's no reason for this body to be at that meeting. >> Correct. Yeah. At least um from our perspective, it would at least just be an opportunity for the architectural team and the ownership team to get in
front of the school committee and just relay the current activities and in anticipation of them then seeing us again in January to be able to endorse that educational program. But we would certainly offer it if um if this committee felt it would be advantageous.
Um >> no, I just wanted to understand uh what the obligations of this committee was. Yes, absolutely. And that's really just in the vein of not having any surprises in January when the school committee is asked to approve the ed program that it doesn't seem like something they've
never heard of. Um, which I'm sure with Dr. Lang's involvement that that wouldn't be the case anyways. But >> yeah, the school committee does have to vote to just the school committee the educational plan. So that has to happen in January for the submission to go in. So, I think this is just a preview in
case any of that have questions, but I don't anticipate any issues. >> Yeah. >> And also um I think feedback um of um great configuration as well >> because I think the MSBA would be looking for >> Yeah. >> feedback from the school committee on
great configuration. >> Absolutely. Um, also in December, we'll be able to provide more development on whole building conceptual options and we have a little bit of a starter in tonight's presentation associated with that. Um, and then looking ahead to
January, no changes to that schedule, though we are leaving it a little bit open between the proposed date of January 22nd. We have until January 28th to be able to submit to the MSBA. So you might see that in future meetings maybe
float another day or two um depending on the breakdown of cost estimating and school committee vote um etc. For an update on the existing conditions evaluation so all the site activities have occurred with the exception of we
will have some destructive testing happening at Parker this Saturday. um that'll really just be having a contractor on the roof to do some sampling to investigate whether or not that is hazardous materials and then that will ultimately inform the
abatement report and any associated costs to remove that hazardous material. Um so the geotechnical has occurred on site as well as the environmental site assessment. You'll probably see some flagging of wetlands out there. Um, we
had surveyors out there as well who were using the drone footage and now are putting together digital mapping. Um, and then the traffic analysis as well. So, we don't have any of the completed reports at this time, but those will be rolling in within the next couple of weeks, but we can certainly share those
with the committee as they start to come in. Um, all of which will be encompassed in the final PDP report. This is just an update on the boring plan. So, we did meet after last
building committee meeting um with DW and the district um and facilities to be able to just pinpoint which of the borings would be okay to pursue, which ones needed to be shifted a little bit. So, all of that activity has occurred on
site. As I mentioned, we're still waiting on the full geotechnical report, but moving forward, at least into the winter, there shouldn't be any more borings, which is great timing given the weather. And then, additionally, as David
mentioned, we're now assessing McCarthy as well. Um Tori, myself, and then our team of engineers were actually out there earlier today, so we were able to walk through the building and around the building. And so we'll be putting together a full assessment report for
that building as well as coming up with some addition renovation concepts for later meetings that we can share for the programming development. Aside from the existing conditions activities, we've also been working on more of the
educational diagramming and concept development. Um we've had a couple workshops already with some staff from the school district leadership um following a series of tours that were taken and unfortunately most of the
members from the building committee who attended the tours aren't here tonight. Um but I think the overall takeaway was that it was pretty enlightening and um sort of sparked conversation as we started to develop these academic
concepts. So the first here is looking into this idea of having pods and the pods would support team teaching such that there could be three teams per pod
also inclusive of special education um resources support spaces and even having a more open student collaboration area that all of the teams could utilize. Um, and then you're seeing that there's three pods in this diagram, for
example, and that could be representative of an entire grade level. So, at this point, we're working on how do the grade levels come together? How do they connect to shared spaces, community spaces? So really taking the
feedback that we got from the leadership group, from the tours, from the space summary development, being able to fit all those pieces together, and then we'll continue to u get feedback on the configurations that we work through. So
our next step is a workshop on this coming Monday so that we'll just continue that conversation and we'll be able to share some more of these schemes. A second version also looks at the coming together of each of those pods
into maybe a shared space um common gathering space such as media media center. Um and then again just having those support spaces like art and teacher collaboration and seeing how all of those can best support team teaching
and the functions of the educational program. Some of the spaces that came up in our broader conversation aren't included in the MSBA's template. um such as health classrooms, student
collaboration, additional music classrooms to support the robust music program that Chompsford has, your local access TV studio, teacher collaboration spaces, and additional fitness spaces. So, none of
this is really in the cookie cutter template that the MSBA has us fill out. However, that does not mean that these are automatically excluded from any opportunity for reimbursement. That's just where the development of the
educational program becomes even more important. So that the requirement for these spaces within your program is described in a way that shows the MSBA it's importance. A >> question on you on spacing and maybe Dr.
Lang knows as well. Does the MSBA allow and will we accommodate additional space to bring some of the special educated students back in onto the site and into our system um in terms of the spacing available for for those programs? Is
that factored into the spacing or can it be factored in? because I know that's sort of the the goal that they're trying to do now is bring the students back >> into the districts whether it's our own students and or students within the region >> for on-site special education services is right
>> is that factored in or is that is that does the MSBA allow that? >> Sure. It absolutely is and that will be in subsequent slides too. you'll see a little bit of the breakdown, but the template does include a special education category and the MSBA does
have line items specific to that. However, when we plug in the the programs specific to Chumsford's district, >> those will be included and proposed in a project. And I know within talks of that
leadership group and workshop um there was consideration of bringing programs and making sure that we're accounting for those that aren't currently in Parker but ideally would be. So those have been included in the space summary. It will twofold is that it will be
important for the use of those to be explained in the educational program and then additionally there will be a review by the department of elementary and secondary education for rationale of those spaces, development
of those spaces as well as the location of them within the building and that will also support and reinforce the need for them. So, it all is definitely factored in and then will likely be considered reimburseable um by the MSBA
when we work through that spreadsheet. >> Yeah, just quickly I agree. Um we do have a significant number of um specialized programs we call them now in the district. Um and one of the things that this has allowed us to do is really take a look under each of the options
whether it's 56 456 or five to eight to make sure that we actually have sufficient um classroom spaces you know OTP any of the related services that we would need to properly service not only the students we have now but kind of projecting out over the next 10 to even
15 years based on just the the uh type of student that we have the type of need that they have in their ps to make sure that we do have space in the in the district um sorry in the uh in the school options. Um we do actually um keep a tremendous amount of students in
district as opposed to um say sending them to like a valley collaborative or even a private school. Um we have added um quite a substantial number of programs over the number of years and something we'd want to do. Um we you know I obviously value and I think the district does as well. Um if Chelford
kids can be educated in a challen school and remain part of the community, it's better for them, it's better for their families. Um but we do need to make sure that we have the proper spaces and supports for them to make it um not only successful for them but all the other students that are being educated with them. So uh we have actually worked very
closely with the special ed staff. What we're going to talk about in a few minutes but we went out to do the different site visits. um you know the special ed staff is very interested in maybe even just seeing some of the configurations of some of the newer schools that have been built, how they've utilized different um spaces within their building and again making
sure that we're kind of right sizing the space not only for the immediate need but for the projected need over the coming year. So that has been factored in. >> Oh, great. It's good. Good for the students and saves the transportation costs and transportation hassles and everything else. So Okay, great. Thank you. Yeah, it's definitely been at the
forefront of discussion and will continue to be a part of it. This is a comparison of school, recent school projects that just reinforces that almost all of them have some percentage over the MSBA guidelines. So,
all of these school projects likely included spaces like these that weren't a part of the MSBA's original template, but they were likely reinforced in description within their educational
program or just deemed important to um the operations of the school. So, you'll see that on average 13.6% 6% out of these 12 or so 12 or so projects um is average. Um we typically
see about a 10 to 15% swing or overage from what the MSBA's spreadsheet formulas calculate based on enrollment. Um and so at the end of this presentation, we do have all of the
space summaries for reference. The MSBA number is a function of the enrollment options. So when you plug in the enrollment number, it's automatically giving a total square footage. Once we've gone through with the team and
input all of the spaces that were deemed essential for development of any of those enrollment options, the total square footage was larger than what the MSBA's template calculated. Um, but you can see here that that's really typical
with most school projects. Julie, can I interject for one second? I think um Julie and AI3 and Leftfield have kind of hit on throughout this whole process that the educational folks have been working on, just how important the educational plan is to really kind of document what we're currently doing
and how we're doing it. And again, some of the MSBA documentation is just very boilerplate when you look at a particular space and how many square feet they allocate to it. One example is say the gymnasium. Um and we saw the gymnasium at a Walpole school we went to and it's just your standardsiz middle
school um gym and there was one class in it at the time and they looked like they were having a great time. Um at Parker we actually have a bigger gym already but we actually have three classes potentially in the gym at the same time. So one standard just based on the way our schedule works one gym would not
suffice for that school. Never mind if you add another grade level of kits. So if you add say fourth grade up, you still with the MSBA template have the same square footage, but now you're actually introducing another 600 kids to a school and you know you might have four classes going on. We have separate physical education. We also have
separate health uh for the kids in middle school. So our health are more in classroom as opposed to being in the gym. Um so there's extra classroom space that's needed because you'd have kids in a classroom at the same time you'd have them in the gym. So the educational program needs to just really delineate that and explain it so that we can make
the argument to the MSBA where even if we're over one square footage now it's actually part of our program and you're not just serving 30 kids in a gym class we have 90 kids in a gym class. So uh we'll try to make that argument to make as much eligible as possible. Um that's been a big component of what we've been doing so far. Thanks.
>> Yeah, it's a really good point too in that no one is trying to overbuild. We're really just trying to isolate spaces that would support the enrollment that's that is planned for. Um the following three slides start to
show which of those categories are pushing the template over the MSBA guidelines. So just as Dr. Lang pointed out, there are many that are boilerplate and so anything that isn't read um the
district was able to just land exactly on the prescribed square footage. And where the overage overages happen are really core academic special education, art and music, health and physical education, which would be inclusive of the gym, and then other programs. And
that would be like the TV studio. That isn't something that would be in the MSBA standard template. So for the four to six enrollment, the total proposed area that we're coming to on the space summary is a
little over 160,000 net square feet. The grossing factor takes into account all of the spaces that aren't occupiable such as wall thicknesses. Um it also includes the service spaces. So any
mechanical or electric rooms, toilets, circulation spaces. So that's just a factor that then gets multiplied to that net area and that's how we get the building gross area. So the total square footage of a proposed new building
project for grades 4 to 6 would be 240,576 gross square ft based on the most recent draft of the space summary. The second column shows the allowable area per MSBA. So that's what the the spreadsheet
spits out as a result of plugging in the enrollment with the difference here being 14.6%. So the proposed new 14.6% over the MSBA guidelines which still
really falls within that average of about 15% over. And then for anyone that wants to get more in into the weeds, we do have the breakdown from the spreadsheet that shows where the differences are. And just to touch on
the point on special education earlier, that second bubble, um the first three line items are standard to the MSBA's template. Because Chungsk has prescriptive program and unique spaces
to support the special education, we did make sure that each one of those received its own line item. So, we essentially took um I guess we kind of canceled out what was part of the MSBA's standard
template, added what is critical to Chungsford, and then the resulting number is an overage of about 3,000 square ft, which is which is really acceptable. Um it's not not an outrageous overage at all for that category.
So I guess at this point I guess Dr. Lang um there's not much of an argument that could be made that the TV studio could be part of the educational program. So that's >> well no we are making that argument. So like as of right now like we're going to
in my opinion I think we should try to argue and fight for as much as we possibly can to have it be included but the U TV studio um you know we need to show how it's actually part of our school day. um you know potentially could be used as a um like a special uh
program for kids. Our kids do um TV programming and after school program type stuff. So we've got to make the um kind of compelling reason why it should be included. We'd very much like it to be included in the new uh buildout. I believe tele media would like to be included in that. So I say we've got to
proceed uh making the argument that it should be included in an eligible space and then see where the gods lie. But um it is integral to the programming that's taking place. Now I think we have a valid argument. >> Okay, good. Thank you. >> Yes. Yeah, absolutely. We played around with it landing in maybe the vocations
and technology category as opposed to just the other category, but we have done enough of the MSBA projects that we know they would just request we move it to another category, which again doesn't change what they would potentially reimburse or not based on its
description in the ad program. But at least for the purposes of this first round of the space summary, um the TV studio is what is falling in that other category. >> As far as for eligibility, we won't um get final determination from the MSBA
until after we submit the preferred schematic report. So this is a living as as Julie said, this is a draft. It's a living breathing document. I don't want anyone to think that you know the building is going to be you know whatever the solution may be it's going
to be this >> and again we have another meeting Monday so this is going to change more on Monday like this literally is a working document as our group has been working on this but it just kind of gives you ballpark like where we're at now >> yes >> snapshot in time >> right and particular particularly in
terms of just what is the total size of these building options going to be >> so for a 56 very similar overages in all of the same categories and then the resulting building gross area would end
up being smaller than the 4 to six for example just given the population um but still around that 16 1.5% in this case um overage for the MSBA there is a little bit of a sweet spot so you'll notice that the 5 to6 though it's a
smaller building is a percentage higher um than the four to six of being over the MSBA guidelines. That's because some of those spaces like the gym, you're having the same amount of gym square footage for the five to six as you are
for the 4 to six, but a smaller population in the 5 to six. So, there's really just a less of an efficiency um of the square footage in that regard. Whereas the larger you get with the 5 to8 um that percentage over is actually
going down because it's just a little bit more of an efficient use of space given that the proportion of the size so the number of students um is just mathematically kind of working out in in the favor of that percentage. So you can see here for the 5 to8
version that's when we're getting upwards of over 320,000 square ft for the total building size. Now I'll just note that we did put that together for all of the new options. We will be doing the same exercise for ad
renal options. But what was important with the new is that in all of our programming discussions and the workshop discussions, it's just really understanding what are the spaces that the district needs to support the educational program. Once we have that
information, we'll be able to essentially reverse engineer any addition renovation options um in conjunction with looking at the existing building plan and being able to see what what makes sense to save um and where
we're able to act on and then project evaluation matrix. So we are just showing this again to because we implemented the feedback that we got from the last meeting as well as some correspondence that happened via
email and and other meetings in between the October SBC. This is where you're able to see that all 13 options now land on the evaluation matrix with the addition of the McCarthy options that David
identified the beginning of the meeting. One of which will be looking into a code upgrade option. So, very similar to the Parker building, we'll be we'll be putting together a spreadsheet that really just identifies what are all the
all of the aspects of McCarthy that would need to be updated to meet code and then being able to provide a cost associated with that when we meet in January or actually likely when we're leaving the meeting in between December
and January. um will be an opportunity for then the committee to really review this evaluation matrix and work on filling it out once our options conceptual options have been presented. Um so so that when
we meet in January we'll have more of a direction on which of these 13 options should continue into the next phase. It it's almost um I can envision that this matrix could start to be filled out um in December with the exception of cost
because the numbers won't be back until first week of January. >> Right. dish. >> Yes. >> And then similarly, we put together a site selection evaluation matrix
with um items in green satisfying the statement, those in yellow kind of satisfying the statement, and then those in red not satisfying the statement. Um and so we welcome any feedback on this site
selection matrix. Um after tonight we can certainly share it. But we went ahead and put together criteria as well as filled out the site selection matrix because a lot of it is objective in that
it's related to zoning or environmental conditions. um sustainability opportunities. And so just in the initial passing of the site selection
matrix um you'll see that there are the sites are pretty much ranked kind of in order um of the columns um with the sort of the unsatisfactory statements being more related to that conversation
of rep having to replicate the fields um that we started Ed last at the last meeting. Um, which would have to be which site would require, you know, an existing building to be demolished or abaded if you're not using the Parker
site. Um, so those are some of the aspects that start to come into play with the site selection matrix. This is intended to be a tool to aid kind of the final determination of
which is the preferred site. It's not to say that this is enough information to be able to make a decision right now. It's just something that you can have in your toolkit for either the next meeting or the January meeting where we want to start to make
some of those determinations. And again, happy to share this. Um, and please feel free to review it. We can make some updates. Um, >> can I is this will this ultimately be shared with the MSVA as well?
>> The site selection matrix. >> It will. Yes. >> Okay. >> Yeah. >> Um, and all of this information will be Yeah. will be part of the >> So, it's all part of the package that goes in. Yeah. >> Okay. I mean given the code requirements
for to upgrade an old building when you hit that threshold. >> Sure. >> Is there any scenario where if it where a renovation expansion is is cost feasible in never mind practical in terms of physically because as we've seen earlier that the rooms don't meet
the size of today's MSBA classrooms. Never mind the the code issues in terms of and not to matter the energy issues in terms of you got these buildings that were built in 1959 or the 1960s, >> right? >> That I mean is I mean I know it's a nice
exercise, but it's is you know what your I mean is is that is that sense practical on a on a building of this vintage buildings of this vintage? >> Sure. um you know some districts do seek do seek that um option but we have found
and you will likely find that when the cost estimates come back it you're exactly right that it's just not as economically practical to pursue that addition renovation um it it and not to downplay it uh because we'll certainly
complete the full analysis but you'll find that it also tends to be phased a lot longer if you're um occupying the building while you're renovating. Um and to your point as well, just updated energy codes, so the entire exterior of
the building would have to have attention made to it. Um so in our experience, it hasn't proven to be the most feasible feasibly advant advant advantageous um option. Um but we'll certainly be able
to present all of that um >> within the next couple of meetings. >> And again, not only what you do with the kids while you're trying to occupy it, you know, we've seen how those work in LOL during time, >> right? It's absolutely factor. Yeah. >> And and temp 10 temp 10 temp 10 temp 10 temp 10 temp 10 temp 10 temp 10 temp 10 temp 10 temp spaces for children. It's
ineligible for reimbursement. So um a lot of times when the analysis is done it's what's the total project cost but then you look at for what's eligible and ineligible that also paints another picture of what might be the most um
educationally appropriate and costly solution >> right and it would it would be challenging to fix sort of the accessibility issues on even that ground floor of Parker. Um but we'll certainly take a look at it. it'll be a part of
the analysis. And then just a few more slides here. The the following are just support and backup to the site selection matrix. So, um we didn't want to have to give it to you guys and then you say, "Well, how do we know what you know how it's zoned?"
Um so, we've just done a little bit of that background. All of the sites are likely permissible for a building project based on zoning. They're all within the public zone. um aquafer protection zone. So the current Parker site as well as the
Graniteville fields do have this overlap of the aquafer protection zone. That isn't to say that a building project isn't possible. For example, we know Parker is already built um in this area as well as on top of a stream and the
wetlands. Um, but any project on Parker and Graniteville will just likely require approvals from planning board, conservation commission, and any kind of >> and board of health. Yeah, >> that's the bigger one. But I think they're coming to the realization that
the a protection zone encompasses so much of the town that it's it does these discussions the other day site. I guess I guess I would say Parker is different from Graniteville because Graniteville is not constructed, >> right? True. Yes. At least the Yeah. The advantage at Parker being it's
previously developed. So that tends to um have greater weight um with the conservation commission having the confidence for another. >> A lot of times you can prove that at the completion of the project you're taking something that might be non-conforming and improving less
>> non-conforming. Right. >> Yeah. You're making it better. >> And it's and it's not a zone two of a of a well public wellhead. It's an African protection zone. Sometimes people get confused by that. It's not a threat to the water supply. >> Proposals to move the building away from the water.
>> Exactly. >> Further away. >> Further away. Yeah. So, >> yeah. So, this doesn't really help us. And, you know, bottom line was that there isn't really anything sort of saying no for any of the three sites. Um, which is a great option for the town
and the district and that you're not so restricted that you only have a small parcel to choose from. Um, but at least it sort of helps in contrast one from the other. >> Well, I think when you said you did earlier you did the traffic studies, did you do at the McCarthy school as well as
Parker or >> We did. Yes. So, it was all basically the area that you're seeing here along Graniteville. Um, we know from the community before our last time that some some were just commenting on traffic nightmares and
>> Well, that's why Yeah. McCarthy school and North Road being one of them. >> Yeah. Now you're going to add another >> I'd have to check. I I know um we will expect to get that report in the next couple of weeks. We'll certainly share it.
Um the one thing about Graniteville Fields is it does overlap with some a FEMA flood zone um that was already identified as part of that wetlands area and you can see there's still quite a bit of real estate um if that were to be
chosen as being developed. That's that was what warranted um one of the yellow or red categorizations in the site selection for Brandon. >> Pat, you were grew up here. You remember seeing them the Graniteville fields
flooding? >> No. >> Of all the flood system. That's amazing. That's in the flood zone. >> Yeah. >> So, yeah, this is a very cool site that um you guys had as a resource. And then just repeating these three slides um
that we had last last presentation um just zeroing in on each of those and getting more ingrained on the non-buildable area. So um Parker site we know non-buildable being heavily wetlands topography changes the existing
building. Here's Graniteville with that strip at the top of what is the FEMA flood zone as well as wetland area. and then McCarthy proving to be quite restrictive as well. However, based on the MSBA's
prescribed options that we are to study, we will investigate um both a new construction as well as an addition renovation here um which which will be challenging given the overlap of the riverfront area um and the tightness to
sort of the setbacks and the property lines. But we will be able to present something at the next meeting. um some sort of conceptual option for that. And that was everything we had for the building committee this evening. Um we
are scheduled to meet December 17th and then we'll have the following night, oh I'm sorry, the meet on the 18th with the previous night being the next community night. Space summaries for reference. I won't go through all of these, but we
definitely just wanted to include them in the back of the packet. So, um, for those who like a good spreadsheet, this is definitely some light some light reading for you for all three um, enrollment options. But really, the one
takeaway is that the way these are organized is the spaces on the first column. All of the existing spaces are identified. So, you get a sense of the size of the existing spaces. The middle
set of three columns is all related to proposed new construction. So if you were to want to save any of the existing spaces, that would fall in this column. Proposed new construction would be in this column. And then the combination of
those two is in this column. This is the variation to the MSBA guidelines. And then the last column is the MSBA guidelines. So, when you're starting one of these templates, you'd plug in the enrollment
and then that is what is calculating the total square footage based on the MSBA's template. Um, and then any of the spaces that we're proposing new are what um start to calculate those
overages from the MSBA's guidelines. Any questions or comments? >> I'm going to apologize that I was the one that was pushing for this meeting to start at 5:30 thinking that
>> I didn't want to rush the committee. So, >> and the only thing I was suggesting is with the dates or sub subsequent nights that probably makes sense to keep it that way. because as opposed to doing what we're doing tonight doing because we really want to get that last input session until we gather and then look at
the options and make a decision. >> We Yeah, we can certainly >> No, I'm just trying to help you out because you're us traveling from distances. I'm just trying to be considerate. You know, you're a week before Christmas and just just trying to be helpful. But does it make sense to meet the following evening after so we can,
>> you know, take all the input, have the site selection or or would it make sense to do what we're doing this evening? Just trying to be helpful to you. >> Sure. >> And you guys, too. >> Yeah. >> We don't have a problem having to come back for the second night. Um
>> I think in ideally they'd probably be switched so that um the community is not hearing anything that the committee hasn't maybe heard yet. Um, but it's likely will be that, you know, we wouldn't we would make sure that we're not presenting
anything in the community forum setting that we're not previewing with the building committee first anyway. >> But that works for us. >> School meeting. >> Okay. it doesn't know.
>> So, um >> the visioning session on the 17th is the review of the grade reconfigurations in the education program and and tonight's session is a little bit different. >> Yes. So, we will introduce the topic of
grave reconciliation tonight and then we're just anticipating that there will likely be a little bit of a >> you know continuation of that think about it comes back >> right at the next forum. >> Okay. >> Okay. Any other questions or comments on
the uh presentation? Seeing none, uh I don't see anybody here. So I I'll ask if there's any public comment, but uh I can see that there isn't. So um that'll can can take care of that. Anything else this evening
that any other comments on anything presented this evening or or so on? Everybody understands the future meetings and the events. So with that, I would take uh a motion to adjurnn. >> So moved. I got a motion to adjurnn and I have a
second from Christine. >> All in favor? I >> opposed. Thank you all.