At a Port Angeles School District meeting to select the architectural services firm for the Franklin Elementary replacement, board members heard 30‑minute presentations from three finalist teams, took comments from the district advisory committee and Banner (the owner’s representative), and moved to rank the teams so staff can begin contract negotiations. Director of Capital Projects Nolan Deuce told the board that “all 3 could do the work” and that “what we need today is ranking of first, second, and third” to begin negotiations.

Why it matters: the board’s ranking will determine who negotiates the design contract for a project that firms said must be delivered on a tight schedule (presenters noted an opening target of June 2028), on an occupied site, and with a focus on durability and long‑term maintenance. Presenters emphasized learner‑centered design, continuity with district standards and the Stevens Middle School work, early GCCM (General Contractor/Construction Manager) involvement for cost control, and tribal and community engagement.

Most important facts: Three design teams presented their approaches to educational specifications, community engagement, constructability and budgeting. Common points across presentations included centering the design on student needs, engaging families and Tribal representatives, using GCCM delivery to manage risk and long‑lead procurement, and drafting district standards to improve long‑term maintenance. PACAC members and teachers praised teams’ student engagement approaches but raised traffic and drop‑off safety concerns for Park Street/Lawrenson and asked firms for outreach plans to increase local subcontractor participation.

During public comment and PACAC remarks, a Franklin kindergarten teacher, Becky Lee, said she found the first team’s presentation less persuasive and said she favored other firms; another PACAC member praised the firm that worked on the Stevens project for its continuity with district practice. Banner’s construction manager noted firms that prioritize early budgeting and iterative cost estimating help the district avoid late scope cuts.

Board action and next steps: After discussion, board members moved to rank the firms so staff can begin negotiations. The board recorded a ranking with Integris listed as the first‑ranked firm, TCF (TCF Architecture) listed second, and the remaining firm listed third; staff said the next step is to negotiate terms with the top‑ranked firm. The transcript does not record a roll‑call vote tally for the ranking in the publicly available excerpt; the board chair instructed each member to state their order for the record.

Context and constraints: Presenters repeatedly noted the Franklin site is sloped with distinct upper and lower terraces, and several said that building into the slope (providing entry at multiple levels) is feasible but will depend on geotechnical results and budgetary tradeoffs. Firms described district standards and life‑cycle cost analysis as ways to protect maintenance budgets and recommended early coordination with the city for permitting because agency approvals are on the path that most affects schedule.

What was not decided: The board’s ranking starts contract negotiations; it did not finalize contract terms, a construction delivery contract, or a final site plan. Geotechnical results, permitting timelines and final GCCM terms remain to be resolved and will affect scope and cost. The board and PACAC asked firms to continue outreach planning for student engagement, tribal consultation and local subcontractor participation.

Taper: Staff and the owner’s representative said they will follow up with the firms on schedule, budget and outreach. The board asked each member to record their rankings publicly so the district has a clear order for negotiating the design contract.