Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the School Reconstruction topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Peasley Building Committee votes to submit Preliminary Design Program to MSBA
Summary
The Peasley Building Committee voted unanimously March 24 to submit its Preliminary Design Program (PDP) to the Massachusetts School Building Authority on April 2, after a designer presentation that outlined renovation and new-construction options, site constraints and estimated costs.
Get email alerts on the School Reconstruction topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Erica Hall, chair of the Peasley Building Committee, said the committee would submit the Peasley school Preliminary Design Program (PDP) to the Massachusetts School Building Authority (MSBA) on April 2 after a presentation and discussion.
Designers from Flansberg presented the PDP binder and walked committee members through existing-condition findings, enrollment scenarios and a set of alternatives ranging from renovation with additions to full new construction. Jennifer, a Flansberg designer, summarized the MSBA enrollment certification used for budgeting — a neighborhood school option of 310 K–5 students plus pre-K and a consolidated 3–5 plus pre-K option — and said the binder includes the statement of interest, educational program, and a capital budget range shown in the PDP.
The presentation reviewed key deficiencies in the current Peasley school building, which the design team said must be addressed under code upgrades: mechanical systems and ventilation that fall below current standards, an electrical distribution system at capacity, dated plumbing fixtures that do not meet current accessibility requirements, no sprinkler system, and multiple building materials that tested positive for asbestos and will require further investigation. Jennifer said, “the flat roof needs to be replaced,” and added that the kitchen “warrants a complete modernization.”
Karina, the owner's project manager with PMA, told the committee teams had filed the PDP-related reimbursement submittals to MSBA and were continuing monthly reporting. She noted the MSBA website indicated reimbursements had been posted; Becky, a town staff member present in the meeting, said the town had not yet seen funds deposited and she would check with the treasurer.
Design alternatives included a roughly 76,000-square-foot neighborhood school for the 310 enrollment scenario and a roughly 108,000-square-foot building for the consolidated gradespan; by comparison the existing building is about 45,000 square feet. The designers outlined site constraints including wetland setbacks, a need for stormwater infiltration and drainage upgrades, and a septic system that will require replacement or early relocation. For the larger-enrollment option, designers estimated parking needs in the range of about 125–215 spaces depending on the scenario.
On environmental concerns, committee members asked about a former fuel-tank removal; Kent, the design lead, said the team is carrying an allowance for potential remediation and recommended exploratory test pits in the next phase. Kent said the allowance currently carried for remediation work was on the order of $200,000.
After questions and brief discussion on sequencing and phasing (including the potential to avoid modular classrooms with some options), Kelly moved and Mike seconded a motion to submit the PDP to the MSBA on April 2. The committee took a roll-call vote; Kelly, Rob, Tristan, Sean, Mike and Erica all voted yes and the motion carried. The team will proceed to the Pre-Schematic Report (PSR) and then schematic design, with local funding anticipated in April 2027 if the MSBA process and local approvals proceed as outlined.
Votes at a glance: the committee approved the February 24 meeting minutes (moved by Rob, seconded by Tristan; roll-call yes), approved invoices included in the packet (moved by Rob, seconded by Mike; roll-call yes), and created three standing subcommittees — design (moved by Tristan), sustainability (moved by Mike, seconded by Sean) and finance (moved by Rob, seconded by Kelly) — each approved by roll-call votes. The meeting adjourned at 8:21 p.m.
The presentation materials and appendices cited in the meeting packet were described as extensive (the designers noted the PDP binder was roughly 2,000 pages) and will be used to refine options in the PSR phase. The committee discussed community engagement plans including a community forum scheduled for April 27 and smaller outreach sessions in town venues to collect public feedback.

