WEBVTT

METADATA
Video-Count: 1
Video-1: youtube.com/watch?v=uZgNJrS98Jo

Part: 1

1
00:00:18.840 --> 00:00:35.400
Uh good evening. I'll call the town of Milton School Building Committee to order. It is now 7:02 p.m. on June 15th, 2026. As we typically do, we'll just do a roll call as I kind of see people online

2
00:00:35.400 --> 00:00:52.480
here. I carry Hurley. >> Yes. >> Uh Peter Robichaud. >> Yes. >> Uh Bob Mayhew. >> Yes, present. >> Yeah. >> Uh Mark Waring. >> Present. >> Uh Nathan Hutto. >> Present.

3
00:00:52.480 --> 00:01:13.640
>> And Glenn Hoffman. >> Yeah. >> And myself, Shawn Work. Uh so, agenda item number two, let's take a quick look at the news. [clears throat] Uh discussion approval. So, we have essentially three proposals that we need

4
00:01:13.640 --> 00:01:30.000
to vote on tonight. Two of which are for supplemental work with Laboure College, and then one is for our contract with PMA for our MSBA route. So, um

5
00:01:30.000 --> 00:01:45.360
just kind of focusing on the on Laboure to start. What we have are two proposals, one from Foley Buhl Roberts and Associates. They're a structural engineering consultant that will work in collaboration with the architect. Um

6
00:01:45.360 --> 00:02:01.640
They submitted their proposal, and and I've got it up if people need to take a look at it. But, it's basically the ones that were sent uh for $4,500, and essentially their role is to review the overall structure at Lab school

7
00:02:01.640 --> 00:02:17.680
and then basically provide an existing conditions report as as as essentially the deliverable that will go in concert with the work that DLR Group and Shinnawi are doing with the architecture. So

8
00:02:17.680 --> 00:02:38.280
I'll leave it there to see if any of the members have questions or comments in regards to the structural engineering proposal we received. Yeah, the the yellow background with the yellow hand is always hard to see. >> Yeah, and I don't know if we have to do the hand thing here, but

9
00:02:38.280 --> 00:02:53.160
two questions. >> It's appreciated. Thank you. >> Thanks. Um The first is probably straightforward. Um just in their purpose number one where they describe

10
00:02:53.160 --> 00:03:09.519
basically that they're looking at the classroom building and the newer wing. Um I I just wanted to make sure I followed that um you know, rather than just I think I know why that's why structurally what

11
00:03:09.519 --> 00:03:24.959
they're focusing on cuz probably those are the areas with possibility for deeper renovation than the other buildings, but I just wanted to make sure I was following that. Um if you caught that and you could explain. >> Sure. So yeah, the intention for that

12
00:03:24.959 --> 00:03:40.720
one is for the you know, the intention or the intention of the overall project that we've asked Shinnawi and them to do is to focus mainly on building C, which is the building with the classrooms in it. Um I think there were some programmatic stuff that discussed

13
00:03:40.720 --> 00:03:57.800
looking at building B, which is the other call it addition onto building A, which is the mansion. Um so I I those are what they're looking at there. I don't believe they're going to in in detail look at building A, which is the mansion, mainly because

14
00:03:57.800 --> 00:04:18.320
um you know, our ideal goal is not to do any uh modifications of that for energy purposes. >> Okay. Um my second question um it it it has to do with the comment in

15
00:04:18.320 --> 00:04:33.720
the proposal about reserving the the possibility for more exploratory um you know, review later. Um which which makes sense to me given sort of the scope and you know, timing

16
00:04:33.720 --> 00:04:51.600
that's available at this stage and we don't own the property. Um I'm just trying to and I don't know if you can answer this now or this is just something we keep talking about. >> Sure. >> Like I'm trying to picture a scenario of sort of a reservation or

17
00:04:51.600 --> 00:05:08.400
you know, of whatever we kind of get back um from the architect or excuse me, from the structural engineer with sort of a um indication that they would like to do an exploratory review to get a more complete, you know,

18
00:05:08.400 --> 00:05:25.040
whatever assessment later. I'm trying to think like what that could look like from a timeline perspective. Um that may be difficult to answer right now and it without kind of being in that situation. You know, one thing I'm trying to do you know, from the select

19
00:05:25.040 --> 00:05:41.240
board perspective is just kind of think about like what is kind of happening June, July, August and what is more realistic happening at a later time. Kind of thinking about it from two buckets and you know, not coming at it with a certain view needs

20
00:05:41.240 --> 00:05:57.360
to be in bucket A or B. I'm just trying to start to think about what's in what bucket. Um yeah, I'm just interested in in in the group's thoughts on, you know, something like that. >> Yeah, my I'll I'll lead off, but anybody else feel free to jump in.

21
00:05:57.360 --> 00:06:13.680
Yeah, my my end is, you know, for the $4,500, you know, we're spending on this and the tight timeline associated with it. Um, there's there's not much more than a visual review and essentially reviewing the existing documents that they have there to to do what they can for

22
00:06:13.680 --> 00:06:29.440
analysis. Um, this this kind of task that we're asking the architect and the structural engineer to do like I I I've made an analogy almost to like a home inspection, you know what I mean, before we purchase something to really look at it for

23
00:06:29.440 --> 00:06:45.520
um, call it visible signs of structural deficiencies. Um, I don't think they're going to run calculations or, you know, open any walls up to look behind them, mainly cuz we don't have again, we don't own it, so we can't do that. Um, but the

24
00:06:45.520 --> 00:07:07.800
it that I think as the program comes out later, if we buy it, then yeah, there there will probably be if there's things that they see that are concerning, they they would expand upon it on the future task. >> Okay. >> I don't know if anybody else, you know, Glenn or Mark from your experience on

25
00:07:07.800 --> 00:07:26.320
any of these like kind of projects for all the schools, if you have similar experience. >> Yeah, no, I very much agree with your assessment of the shop. We got to order to be competitive as relates to the time frame, we just got to go with the information we can.

26
00:07:26.320 --> 00:07:42.200
They're not going to be able to do anything. Wait, the in-depth structural assessment. Uh, we just don't have the time, similar to the architect. And we also don't want to sink too much money into something that we don't end up doing cuz it's not within our control

27
00:07:42.200 --> 00:07:58.000
to to buy it or not buy it with our partners, so you know, I I think that's something that we should make sure we're being open about with folks. Uh there will still be questions, but we're trying to answer as many as we reasonably can within the time frame. And obviously, when we buy

28
00:07:58.000 --> 00:08:21.600
it, before we put any people in it, we will do much more in-depth assessments. Uh but we just can't right now. So, totally agree with all your points. >> Any Any other comments on the structural engineering proposal that we received?

29
00:08:21.600 --> 00:08:38.719
Oh, yeah. >> amount, Sean, I think that seems pretty reasonable for the amount of work he's going to be doing. Pretty in power. >> Yep. >> And And market rates. >> Okay. And Nathan, I apologize. I didn't see your hand up. >> No, all good. I I wanted to

30
00:08:38.719 --> 00:08:55.000
I have a question that's I think along the lines of what Pete was asking, in the same family. I don't The proposal to me sounds reasonable. Just I just want to check my thinking here. Coming out of the um

31
00:08:55.000 --> 00:09:10.040
the architect's work and and the the structural engineer's work, we will have a sense of whether the the >> [clears throat] >> education program proposed by Milton Public Schools

32
00:09:10.040 --> 00:09:27.160
can fit into these buildings. What we won't have a sense of is for example, the level of deferred maintenance that sits on top of these buildings or capital investment needed.

33
00:09:27.160 --> 00:09:44.480
Um I'm I'm I'm asking this just from a place of like I I I've seen now maybe one one or two years in a row now, >> [clears throat] >> the level of capital investment that we defer every year and probably sits on some backlog somewhere. And I'm I'm curious

34
00:09:44.480 --> 00:09:59.760
if we're going to purchase these buildings just what what amount of capital debt we're purchasing at the same time. >> Mhm. Yeah, well, as as it relates >> I assume that's I got I'm leading all of that up to say I assume that's not we will not have that question answered as

35
00:09:59.760 --> 00:10:15.440
part of this. >> Uh so no, we will not. So like with with kind of encompassing your question, you know, specifically as it relates to the structural proposal, um I I I wouldn't I think any

36
00:10:15.440 --> 00:10:31.200
renovations we're doing there as part of the overall project if we buy it, um along with any additions that we put on there from a structural perspective will be all, you know, not a lot of cap of future capital investment needed there for structural improvements.

37
00:10:31.200 --> 00:10:48.760
Um but not knowing the MEP systems, um you know, when they were installed, what we're going to use them for, uh but again, my my anticipation is most of that stuff will get gutted. And you know, we we we would just renovate all of building C um

38
00:10:48.760 --> 00:11:10.680
BC, you know, soup to nuts of all systems. So the future capital expenditure is for that which start as essentially a brand new system. I don't think the intention would be to uh keep some of the stuff that's there. >> Yeah. >> And and I only say that because a lot of

39
00:11:10.680 --> 00:11:25.960
the rooms are probably going to have to get reconfigured [clears throat] from what's there, you know, from just from walking in. A lot of it's like lab space and subdivided is and then once you start moving walls around, then you have to move HVAC registers and by the time you start doing

40
00:11:25.960 --> 00:11:42.600
uh some of that stuff and balancing everything out, it's easier just to, you know, uh have it gutted and start over from scratch. Um, my personal opinion. >> So, I guess my the question or the the non the inability to

41
00:11:42.600 --> 00:11:59.040
answer really applies to buildings A and B where we're specifically not doing any assessment and not intending to touch it very much. >> Uh, correct. Yeah, so from the structural perspective, yeah, their their focus is mainly going to be on

42
00:11:59.040 --> 00:12:18.480
building C and as mentioned in his first comment uh, some of the building B. >> John, I would agree with you that this building will probably be in near total gut. Um, and the way the building code is configured, if you configure more than

43
00:12:18.480 --> 00:12:33.600
50% of the space within a building, you have to bring the entire building up to building code. Which almost definitely you would have to do with this building to change it to an educational use. >> Yeah, and >> opinion, without even seeing the inside

44
00:12:33.600 --> 00:12:50.080
of the building, I'm guessing that would be how that would go down. >> Yeah, and along along those lines, Glenn, the intention is, you know, to only do those renovations or that level of renovation to building C which is the back one with the classrooms. Um,

45
00:12:50.080 --> 00:13:08.440
front, call it mansion, which is building A, and the amended portion of that that's attached to it, building B, the intention is not to do anything there to trigger that exact scenario that you were talking about. Okay. That That answer all your

46
00:13:08.440 --> 00:13:30.120
questions, Dave? >> That was great. Thank you. >> No problem. Well, you got any questions? >> Yeah, uh, her question is why won't you throw this ball for me? >> Got you. thought. Um, any any other comments or discussion

47
00:13:30.120 --> 00:13:47.200
as it relates again just to the structural proposal that we received? And if there are none, I'd happily entertain a motion. >> I'll take a motion to uh accept the structural proposal as presented.

48
00:13:47.200 --> 00:14:05.560
>> Second. >> Uh yeah, Bob, but I don't believe you can second cuz yeah, sorry, you're a non-voting member. I I that's >> Give them something. >> That's a procedural thing I'll have to check. >> I'll second. >> All right. Carrie, sorry about that, Bob. >> That's all right.

49
00:14:05.560 --> 00:14:23.600
I thought when I swore in I >> Poor Bob. >> That's okay. >> All right. Any other discussion? Hearing none, uh so we'll go to a roll call vote cuz we're all remote. Uh Peter O'Shaughnessy? >> Yes.

50
00:14:23.600 --> 00:14:38.880
>> Uh Glenn Hoffman? >> Yes. >> Uh Nathan Hallow? >> Yes. >> Uh Mark Gloring? >> Yes. >> Uh Carrie Hurley? >> Yes. >> And Shana Worrick, yes. Okay.

51
00:14:38.880 --> 00:14:55.560
Um, the next proposal that we we saw was $6,500 and that's from uh PMC Consulting. So they're essentially the cost estimator, I think, from um the reviews of a lot of the proposals

52
00:14:55.560 --> 00:15:12.560
we had and the uh you can see they they they basically do all the schools around Massachusetts, so they have a good uh his history of pricing uh different options and different types, renovations, new construction, and stuff like that. Um, they were actually the same

53
00:15:12.560 --> 00:15:27.840
consultant that we used on the project 2 years ago when we're working with Arrowstreet. Um, so again, they'll be taking um the architectural layouts uh that the Shanali is developing for

54
00:15:27.840 --> 00:15:43.920
the pre-K K late enrollment and system program that we're looking at. And along with whatever structural inputs are provided, and then, you know, with that developing that overall cost estimate uh for the program at Labrae

55
00:15:43.920 --> 00:16:11.760
for preschool kindergarten. Uh so, just with that kind of opening statement up again, I'll open it up to see if anybody has questions or comments. And hearing none, so if there are no questions or comments, uh similar to before, then entertain a motion.

56
00:16:11.760 --> 00:16:27.160
>> I'll make a motion to accept the uh proposal uh from PMA-C as presented. >> Second. >> Okay, second by Glenn. Any discussion? Hearing none, uh so we'll do a roll call vote. Moved around again, so be a

57
00:16:27.160 --> 00:16:43.280
different order, apologize. Um uh Carrie Hurley? >> Yes. >> Uh Peter Obashamer? >> Yes. >> Uh Glenn Hoffman? >> Yes. >> Uh Nathan Hutto? >> Yes. >> Uh Mark Lowry? >> Yes.

58
00:16:43.280 --> 00:16:58.760
>> And myself, Shawn O'Rourke, yes. Um All right, so that that essentially wraps up, you know, for Labrae. Um this will get I I know Shanali's trying to do a site visit out there, I believe this Thursday.

59
00:16:58.760 --> 00:17:14.439
Um so, she you know, she's going to try to get these consultants out there with them, too. Just the structural engineer, not the cost estimator. Um so, I appreciate everybody, you know, jumping on this. The other one uh that that's that we have and that we have to vote on tonight

60
00:17:14.439 --> 00:17:29.080
is uh our owner's project manager that we selected last week of PMA Consultants uh, has provided their cost estimate or or their their proposal uh, for the schematic design services

61
00:17:29.080 --> 00:17:46.160
that we're doing as part of MSBA. Um, so it's similar to the effort that we did two years ago. Uh, but this time obviously it's going to be a little more intensive or or or structured because we're under the MSBA um, program. So uh, you know, I think as you

62
00:17:46.160 --> 00:18:01.680
guys are starting to see there's a lot of um, uh, checks and balances and paperwork associated with that. So that's kind of representative of their fee that they provided. So um, with that I'll see if anybody has any questions on the overall proposal.

63
00:18:01.680 --> 00:18:24.560
I'll do my best to answer what I can. Yep, Pete. >> You know, I mean I have some questions along the way. Probably it is just my catching up so I appreciate it guys, but uh, just you know, um, and I couple questions um,

64
00:18:24.560 --> 00:18:40.680
on the contract itself. Um, I I don't have the the paragraph um, from the contract that this refers to but I caught at the beginning and it I I don't I don't have any edits or anything like that. These are just clarifying for my own understanding, but

65
00:18:40.680 --> 00:18:55.880
um, it looks like it's there's a second contract potentially later in the relationship. Um, I can kind of further explain but if that's enough I I just was trying to wrap my head around that. >> Yeah, that's that's a good point. So

66
00:18:55.880 --> 00:19:12.120
what as I mentioned this is only for uh, schematic design that we're doing. So under MSBA we have um, certain modules that go up and the schematic design will take us uh, I I to

67
00:19:12.120 --> 00:19:26.600
um, module five where we we do the vote for the funding and at that point after the module five for the funding we do you know the the full detailed design because now it's an approved project. Um

68
00:19:26.600 --> 00:19:42.600
so the the contract that we have for them right now would basically take us up to that point for a vote. And then if the vote passed there would be a second contract that would come in with PMA to you know basically run the remainder of the project from module six all the way up

69
00:19:42.600 --> 00:20:00.200
to module nine I think it is. Um so this is if you think about it in a simple way this contract would be for a PMA to work with the architect and engineers to get us to a vote and then if it passes a vote then we would have a supplemental contract after that.

70
00:20:00.200 --> 00:20:16.800
>> Okay. Al um I may have one or two more but I'll take turns. I see Mark is raising his hand. >> Yeah sure. Uh go ahead Mark. >> Yeah I was really just commenting on that point which is the architect contract that we'll do eventually will be structured the same way. So

71
00:20:16.800 --> 00:20:37.960
they'll both end right at that end of that module to see if the town votes to approve the project. That way we're not locked into a contract for services we don't need if the town votes it down for some reason. >> All right. Nathan.

72
00:20:37.960 --> 00:20:53.600
>> Um I just have a couple of probably very basic questions that maybe I should already know the answer to. Um Sean like who who signs this contract? Like who is the owner? >> Uh I believe the town would be the owner

73
00:20:53.600 --> 00:21:10.280
so I I think Nick signs it or the or the select board. Um I I think the last time we did this was with um I don't know if Ben signed it so Winston may have to sign it but I'm not sure. >> he's he's on the contract as the signatory. >> Oh, he is?

74
00:21:10.280 --> 00:21:24.360
>> Yeah. >> Okay. Missed that. And do we have um in a contract like this, do we have general counsel do a review of the terms and conditions?

75
00:21:24.360 --> 00:21:40.760
>> I I I believe so. So, I believe Nick has has talked with the counsel about it, but I I can I can text him and ask right now if it helps. >> Okay. >> We had a discussion earlier regarding this, and there was uh another

76
00:21:40.760 --> 00:21:57.200
uh item that we were discussing that he he had talked to counsel about, so I'm just assuming they they have reviewed it. >> Okay. Um that would I mean, that would make me feel better just cuz Yeah. with you know, we can't review all this

77
00:21:57.200 --> 00:22:16.800
probably. Um And then um is is So, the proposed fee is $380,000. I don't have a I don't have a reference point for that. Like

78
00:22:16.800 --> 00:22:32.560
What do What do you For those of you who have been on this rodeo once before and and work in this business, does that First of all, I I guess is that how much of that is just set by MSBA versus differentiated based on the

79
00:22:32.560 --> 00:22:49.000
based on the OPM and how do we feel about that fee? >> So, I I I I can speak to kind of what we had previously. So, I believe when we were doing this again, kind of outside the MSBA um >> [clears throat]

80
00:22:49.000 --> 00:23:02.880
>> um guidelines that we're working under now, I believe our contract with PMA was like for $275,000 for a similar effort that they were doing. Again, not as

81
00:23:02.880 --> 00:23:18.640
uh paperwork heavy as MSBA and that was I said for $275,000 and and they didn't spend all of it. You know, for for the money that we allocated um and I believe this contract is a not to exceed. So, I think what they're

82
00:23:18.640 --> 00:23:34.520
trying to do is make sure they have a I know for myself, you know, when I when I try to enter into contracts that [clears throat] are not to exceed, I try to aim for a high enough ceiling that you don't have to go back for amendments. Um in in context, this is

83
00:23:34.520 --> 00:23:49.440
the funding for this will come out of the 1.5 million that we had allocated by town meeting and I, you know, so you know, there is capacity in there that if we needed to increase it, we probably could depending on I'm not anticipating the architect's being over a million.

84
00:23:49.440 --> 00:24:07.000
Um so, you know, that's you know, kind of what I see for it right now. The other one that plays into it and just knowing talking um with people before, the number of options also plays into it for um you know, if there are 10 options that

85
00:24:07.000 --> 00:24:27.000
we're studying, it's probably a higher fee than what we're doing. Here, we've got Well, essentially we've got three options that we're looking at and two potential sites. So, if you think about it, it's really about six uh five options. >> Got it. Good. Thank you.

86
00:24:27.000 --> 00:24:44.000
>> No problem. And Scott Terrishak's with us too. So, I I apologize. He was in the waiting room and I've uh got got him online. Sorry about that, Scott. >> No problem. >> Uh yep and Pete, you're getting your hand up again. >> Um

87
00:24:44.000 --> 00:25:01.040
section 3.2 requires us to designate a day-to-day communicator with the OPM. Um just curious if if that's you or is that this whole committee? Do you have any thoughts on that? >> Uh it will probably be me. >> Yeah. >> You know, some similar to what we were

88
00:25:01.040 --> 00:25:18.840
doing before. There were times where uh, I would be on calls with the OPM and, you know, just kind of uh, assisting with certain things over there. But obviously, when certain items come up that, you know, are called beyond my my my my scope, you know,

89
00:25:18.840 --> 00:25:34.400
those are the ones that we Yeah, we we put it on the agenda or you know, we'll have uh, standing meetings to address all that stuff. >> Yeah. That and that makes I wasn't signing myself up for that. But and I and I like I just I like uh,

90
00:25:34.400 --> 00:25:50.520
I was looking for it and I like it. 4.5 basically gives us kind of some control over you know, their team, you know, and them replacing members on their team. You know, I think they're the the team that showed up at the presentation made an impression on us

91
00:25:50.520 --> 00:26:07.800
and that basically says, you know, that's them plus them plus additional people who will be the team and if they're going to replace people, you know, subject to our approval. So I thought I thought that was good. Uh, my only last comment was um, try to see where I saw this, whether it was in the agreement or their cover

92
00:26:07.800 --> 00:26:26.280
email, but they they said something about um, uh, um, sort of outreach period and they they they reference like a two-month time span um, in 2027 or 2028 2028, I can't

93
00:26:26.280 --> 00:26:42.440
remember. And if that and I can find it if it makes more sense, but I was just if if that was referring to like a community engagement period, it seemed a little um, short, but um, I could just be um, you know, connecting to something I think we should keep an

94
00:26:42.440 --> 00:26:58.640
eye on outside of the the contract language itself. >> Okay. Yeah, and I didn't see that. So if if you could highlight it to me, I'll take a look for it. >> All right. I'll look while we're talking. >> Okay. All right. Uh

95
00:26:58.640 --> 00:27:15.000
Mark, you had your hand up. Sorry. >> I was just going to say I'm happy to volunteer Sean uh to be the point person. Uh usually it's the point I like the OPM fee. It's obviously in the full construction thing uh cost. But typically

96
00:27:15.000 --> 00:27:30.160
uh where you can like roughly estimate design and OPM costs is architectural costs are about 10% of the construction cost of the project. Uh and then OPM fees are very a little bit more 3 to 6% Usually if it's a larger project it's a

97
00:27:30.160 --> 00:27:47.280
little bit lower. Uh again, that's all on like the full construction. We're not even close to that cuz you know, 5% on 150 million is I think like 7.5 million, something like that. So um So again, we're not even close to that cuz we're not near the construction phase, but just wanted to provide that

98
00:27:47.280 --> 00:28:02.920
kind of context. >> Yeah, it is. It it's popping in my head too. So one of one of the things too, Pete, that you can look at is uh MSBA publishes all their cost data. So they do have like an overall spreadsheet of you know,

99
00:28:02.920 --> 00:28:19.040
previous projects and they list out the uh OPM overall percentages and uh I don't know if they're as high as what Mark was talking about, but um you know, essentially all that information is there and then um and you know, I can I can pull that up

100
00:28:19.040 --> 00:29:20.200
if you want me to. I can I think find the percentage. >> that would be for Nathan's question. I didn't have any questions about the fees, but >> Okay. Sorry about that. Too many questions. I'm trying to keep keep track of them, write them down. >> You're doing well. >> Sorry again. All right.

101
00:29:20.200 --> 00:30:02.480
What I can do is I can put this in the chat. Feasibility. So, let me share my screen just so I can give you guys just what I'm seeing. Screen three. Sorry, I have too many screens.

102
00:30:03.960 --> 00:30:21.360
So, at the MSBA site, they have cost for elementary for middle middle high schools. Basically everything all the way through. Um Feasibility studies for designer based services when you're there. Let's move

103
00:30:21.360 --> 00:30:37.000
this over. Reimbursables they they basically break everything down. So, for the OPM when they're looking at this stuff, these are kind of a stretch. So,

104
00:30:37.000 --> 00:30:54.800
and I apologize I'm not I'm not showing what every Michael's right both 4% of the overall project cost. I when they're showing three 3.4 million, I don't know if that's all the OPMs of all the projects that if it was summarized, I don't think it's per

105
00:30:54.800 --> 00:31:17.840
uh per project. So, I forget what this is for, but um I was just showing this for people not to confuse people, but to show like the data for what you're looking for is on MSBA's site. So, if your question for engagement,

106
00:31:17.840 --> 00:31:37.440
Pete, were you able to find, you know, the the portion of the contract that you were looking for? When you're talking community engagement and what you're >> I know you're asking for. I was I was just stalling. Um >> Sorry. >> I don't want to hold you guys up. Um

107
00:31:38.720 --> 00:32:01.120
I >> Okay. So, if there no other questions or the discussion points that can see if anybody's open to making a motion for the OPM contract. >> I'll make a motion to accept the OPM

108
00:32:01.120 --> 00:32:18.480
contract from PMC as presented. >> One minor edit, PMA not PMC. PMC is the correct >> Sorry. It's all right. I pre- Thank you. I'll take that friendly amendment. >> Yep. >> Second. >> All right, second by Nathan.

109
00:32:18.480 --> 00:32:34.520
Uh any further discussion or questions? Hearing none, um we'll do roll call vote. Uh Carrie Hurley? >> Yes. >> Uh Peter Obusheimer? >> Yes. >> Uh Nathan Hutto? >> Yes.

110
00:32:34.520 --> 00:32:55.800
>> Uh Mark Loring? >> Yes. >> Thank you. Uh Glenn Hoffman. All right. Thanks. Uh Scott Tereshak. >> Yes. >> And Sean Work, yes. Uh so I think that takes care of our

111
00:32:55.800 --> 00:33:11.960
portions of the agenda for discussion approvals. Um the other one that we we need to approve is um the OPM selection narrative. So this was uh an additional uh thing that you know

112
00:33:11.960 --> 00:33:27.600
we had to basically give uh an overall write-up for uh how the selection was made of the OPMs. So Nick Milano, I know had sent that out by email earlier today for everyone. Um so with that

113
00:33:27.600 --> 00:34:13.520
I'll see see I I I've reviewed it briefly, uh but I'll see if there's any other questions or comments as far as the narrative. And I have a copy of it if people need me to share. >> I did notice, and this is just

114
00:34:13.520 --> 00:34:43.360
request, um spell check. Because it's the very top of it. >> Attach? >> Yeah. >> Yep. So subject to what Nick was asking is if if outside of the this meeting if if there are comments that people have to it, you

115
00:34:43.360 --> 00:34:58.120
know, minor edits and stuff like that, not total rewrites, um to provide them to him, um but I I believe we'd be okay approving it tonight. Um I'm not anticipating many much follow-up

116
00:34:58.120 --> 00:35:16.880
comments. >> I mean, we should all be pretty familiar with it cuz we used part of the format, right? >> Yeah, correct. So this is an MSBA requirement that we need to be provide

117
00:35:16.880 --> 00:35:35.800
the process by which we went through to select the OPM so that they have it on record. >> No, I'm just saying it so that we can push to get this approved tonight. >> Understood. Sorry. >> I mean, yeah, I think it looks fine to me. I think there's a spot we have to

118
00:35:35.800 --> 00:35:55.040
put your name in at the end, Sean, as the point of contact that's highlighted in yellow, but I trust Nick to handle all that stuff. >> [clears throat] >> Well, Mark made that motion earlier, nobody seconded it, so I don't think I'm on there I'm just kidding. Sorry. Um okay.

119
00:35:55.320 --> 00:36:13.840
Uh so similar, I will entertain any motion uh regards to this. >> I'll make a motion to approve the OPM selection narrative report.

120
00:36:13.840 --> 00:36:29.160
>> Second. >> All right, seconded by Peter. Then any further discussion? Hearing none, um so we'll go to a roll call vote. Carrie Hurley? >> Yes. >> Uh Nick Tan Hodo? >> Yes. >> Uh, Peter Robichaud?

121
00:36:29.160 --> 00:36:51.000
>> Yes. >> Uh, Scott Terraschke? >> Yes. >> Yes. Mark Lauren? >> Yes. >> Uh, Glenn Hoffman? Glenn dropped off. Sorry. >> I was on mute. Yes.

122
00:36:51.000 --> 00:37:07.520
>> There you go. Sorry about that, Glenn. Uh, >> Not my fault. >> Yep. And then, uh, Shannon Work? Yes. Um, so the the next thing on the agenda is just approval of minutes. So, what happened was, um, along with this attachment that we're

123
00:37:07.520 --> 00:37:21.480
sending to the MSBA, we also have to approve the minutes that were uh, associated with the creation of the request for services for the OPM. Uh, so I know Nick sent out two sets of meeting minutes. I believe it

124
00:37:21.480 --> 00:37:40.680
was March 2nd and March March 9th. Um, so I'll just kind of open open it up for discussion for those two sets of meeting minutes. I know there are other meeting minutes that were listed. Uh, we're just going to table those to our next meeting.

125
00:37:43.200 --> 00:37:58.560
>> Do you guys have a quorum on those to vote without me if I abstain? This is where before I was on. I think I Well, >> Abstention doesn't count against a quorum. So, that's fine. >> All right.

126
00:37:58.560 --> 00:38:27.040
>> Yeah. Yeah, I think I I think we'd be fine with it, Pete. >> I have to abstain from the March 2nd. I was not present. >> Okay. So, we'll take one of the abstentions. Probably easier if we just do a motion for one at a time

127
00:38:27.040 --> 00:38:43.880
and then we just do a roll call vote for each one and then, you know, carry it and make it easier if you need to abstain. >> Okay. >> All right, I'll make a motion to approve the March 2nd meeting minutes. >> Okay. >> Second.

128
00:38:43.880 --> 00:38:59.640
>> Seconded by Mark Waring. Any discussion? Uh we'll do a roll call vote. Uh so, Carrie Hurley? >> I'm going to abstain. >> Abstain. Yep. Uh Peter Oberlechner? >> Abstain. >> Yep. Uh Glenn Hoffman?

129
00:38:59.640 --> 00:39:15.640
>> Yes. >> Uh Nathan Hutto? >> Yes. >> Uh Scott Tereshak? >> Yes. >> Uh and Shawn Worricken, yes. >> You skipped me. >> Who was that, Mark? >> Mark, yeah.

130
00:39:15.640 --> 00:39:31.280
>> Yeah, sorry about that, man. It's there's one less on my on my thing, so. >> It's no problem. Just want to make sure I'm a yes. >> Yep, sorry about that. All right. So, that's the March 2nd meetings. Uh and then the next one we have is

131
00:39:31.280 --> 00:39:47.080
March 9th. >> Okay, I'll make a motion to approve the March 9th School Building Committee meeting minutes. >> I'll second. >> All right. Any discussion? Hearing none. Uh so, Carrie Hurley? >> Yes.

132
00:39:47.080 --> 00:40:02.760
>> Uh Glenn Hoffman? >> Yes. >> Uh Nathan Hutto? >> Yes. >> Scott Tereshak? >> Yes. >> Uh Mark Waring? >> Yes. >> Uh and Peter Oberlechner? >> Abstain.

133
00:40:02.760 --> 00:40:19.800
>> Okay. And did I miss anyone? Sorry. All right. Um so, >> I forgot if I said this, but it's because they were I wasn't on the committee yet, obviously, but can't remember if I said that. So, thanks.

134
00:40:19.800 --> 00:40:37.160
>> Yeah, we're glad to have you now. Um all right, so item five, now that we've got those minutes approved and everything else is adjourned, so entertain a motion to adjourn. >> So moved. >> All right.

135
00:40:37.160 --> 00:40:53.000
Uh Yep. Thank you, Pete. Uh any discussion? Hearing none. So, roll call vote. Uh Peter O'Shaughnessy. >> Yes. >> Uh Glenn Hoffman. >> Yes. >> Uh Nathan Hutto.

136
00:40:53.000 --> 00:41:08.560
>> Yes. >> Uh Scott Tereshuk. >> Yes. >> Uh Mark Bloring. >> Yes. >> And Carrie Hurley. >> Yes. >> And myself, yes. All right. Thank you, guys, very much. Have a Have a great night. >> Thanks, Sean. >> Thanks, Sean.

137
00:41:08.560 --> 00:41:10.800
>> Thanks, Sean.