The Pre K–8 Building Committee spent most of its Sept. 30 meeting reviewing a planning matrix and debate over whether the document overstates space and cost needs for putting second grade at the Finn School and for other building options. The committee voted to accept the Sept. 11 minutes as amended, tabled approval of the Aug. 26 minutes and agreed to deliver the matrix and a brief cover letter to the Select Board for inclusion in the Oct. 7 Select Board packet; the committee’s charge expires Oct. 15.

Committee chair called the meeting to order at 6 p.m. and turned the discussion to the matrix and a short cover letter that committee member Tim pulled together and displayed for members. Tim told the group he consolidated options, applied a 21.1 percent “soft cost” factor drawn from Massachusetts School Building Authority (MSBA) project summaries, and updated dollar estimates across the scenarios. The committee’s work includes prior material from the Neary building process and enrollment projections the schools provided.

Why it matters: The matrix frames the scale and likely phasing of any K–8 or grade-reconfiguration option the town may pursue. Committee members said the document will be used by the Select Board and the public to understand potential capital scope and timing — from preliminary design through construction — so accuracy and clear caveats on feasibility are essential before broader circulation.

Key points from the meeting

- Feasibility disclaimer requested: Multiple members said the draft matrix lacks an explicit feasibility disclaimer indicating which items are preliminary estimates, which have been validated by school administrators or architects and which still require a consultant-led feasibility study. A committee member asked the matrix author to add a short, prominent caveat to avoid suggesting the estimates are definitive.

- MSBA soft-cost adjustment applied: The committee applied a 21.1 percent soft-cost factor derived from MSBA project consolidations; that adjustment raised earlier totals across the options. The committee discussed how those assumptions affect headline totals that the public will read.

- Unclear program-space counts (4.07): Committee members repeatedly pressed for a clear, “hard” number for how many program spaces listed in matrix item 4.07 would need to be doubled (for example, special classrooms, art/music rooms or other specialty spaces) if second grade were added at Finn. The group did not settle on a firm count at the meeting.

- Enrollment projections and timing: Members referenced enrollment projections (including NESDEC and district projections) presented at recent meetings. The committee discussed timing: several options assume work starting in fiscal 2026 with full scope impacting fiscal 2027. Members noted that construction phases, inflation and bidding schedules will shift when costs are actually encumbered.

- Range of scale and uncertainty: The group discussed multiple cost estimates. One working figure cited in discussion for an option that would add significant space at Finn was roughly $40 million; other committee comments put plausible ranges between about $47 million and $60 million for larger-scope options. Members emphasized these are draft, high-level estimates pending consultant validation; some speakers argued the preliminary totals could be rounded up or down substantially depending on design choices, code triggers and whether additions or internal reconfigurations are used.

- Specific space concerns: Members questioned assumptions driving large square-foot additions (examples discussed included 7,200–9,000 square feet of added program space). Concerns included cafeteria capacity and scheduling, art and music room capacity (how many classes those rooms can support per day), gym space, bathroom and circulation impacts if the building is expanded upward, and whether existing larger classrooms could be subdivided instead of adding new construction.

- Operational strategies and scheduling: The committee discussed non-construction options such as adjusting lunch periods, reconfiguring schedules, or repurposing existing large classrooms to reduce or delay capital need. Several members noted that some specialties (art, music, PE) are scheduled across multi-day cycles and that adding a second room for a specialty is an operational decision as much as a capital one.

What the committee directed or decided

- Submit matrix and cover letter for Select Board packet: The committee agreed the matrix and the draft cover letter should be submitted to the Select Board packet on Thursday so the Select Board can consider the materials ahead of its Oct. 7 meeting. Members agreed that, if no further meeting is scheduled, the chair and the member preparing the matrix would finalize edits and submit on the committee’s behalf.

- Delegated final edits: The committee gave practical authority to the matrix author and chair to finish cleanup edits and add the requested feasibility caveat and any clarifying comment section if members do not meet again before the Thursday deadline.

- Scheduling and public presentation: The committee decided to post a public meeting and to have representatives (the matrix author, the committee education lead and the chair or designee) available to walk the Select Board through the matrix at the Oct. 7 Select Board meeting. Members noted the Select Board packet must make the document publicly available in advance.

- Administrative motions: The committee moved to accept the Sept. 11 meeting minutes as amended (motion moved by a committee member; second recorded; vote in favor) and tabled acceptance of the Aug. 26 minutes for later review. The committee then adjourned.

Outstanding items and next steps

Committee members asked for clearer answers on three items before finalizing the report: (1) How many of the listed program spaces in matrix item 4.07 would need to be doubled to accommodate the grade changes; (2) precise enrollment numbers from the Oct. 1 official counts and any consequent shift in classroom need; and (3) confirmation of which design/code triggers would force full building code, energy-code, and accessibility upgrades versus what could be achieved through interior reconfiguration. Members agreed to send edits and remaining questions to the matrix author by the next day so the document can be updated before submission.

The committee noted the advisory charge formally runs through Oct. 15; members discussed whether the Select Board would be willing to extend the committee’s charge but reported there was no clear willingness to extend beyond Oct. 15 at this meeting.

Ending: The committee will provide the matrix with a feasibility caveat to the Select Board packet for Oct. 7 and will record any administrative clean-up (minutes approval) between Oct. 7 and Oct. 15 if needed. The committee did not adopt any capital authorization or design contract at this meeting; members emphasized the matrix is a working planning document that requires consultant validation before any formal project decisions.