001on Monday, March 2nd at 7:02 p.m. First order of business is the pledge of allegiance. So, if everyone could rise. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. All right. Thank you. Um, can I interrupt for two seconds? Quick question. >> I just had somebody reach out to me and say that there's no Zoom link on the agenda website. >> There is no Zoom link because this is not an interactive webinar with the public. Whenever there is no public comment, they can watch directly live stream through the YouTube channel. >> Okay. They said that YouTube YouTube isn't live yet. Is that >> It is. It is. It's live. >> It is. Perfect. Just
002wanted to make sure. I only go I go live as soon as Debbie says okay we have enough board members then we go live. >> All right. Perfect. Thank you. Sorry. >> All right. No worries. Um so good evening. Uh and I wanted to sort of jump right in. We have uh one member of the board who needs to leave early. So let's take advantage of the time we have as the biggest group. Although we have um perhaps an extensive discussion tonight. I'd like to first thank Slam represented by Jim Hogland and Ken Mo Kemp Mohart for their presentation last week. Um we sent them a few follow-up questions which there may which I hope they can um begin to address tonight and there may be a couple more from board members. Um so I
003want to thank Jim and Kemp for being available tonight as well and our aim is for them to attend the first part of the meeting. So hopefully that means around uh 30 to 45 minutes. So um if we could jump right into a couple of the follow-up questions. Um I I had a couple uh not because I don't necessarily understand them, but because I think they're important points, so I would just appreciate a very quick and high level uh explanation. Um in our public's mind the last price we heard was 110 million for the project and I know there were some changes etc. Could you just very briefly explain um the cost um the reason for the increase not dollar by dollar but just the major factors. >> Sure. Um good good evening everyone. Kent
004Mohart from Slime Collaborative. Um so we saw that question in in the questions that you sent around and you know without doing a deep dive into the previous estimate uh I think the biggest variable is the square footage >> based on the net to gross factor that we explained at the last meeting. Um and then also the um you know two two years later the escalation of the marketplace also increases our starting point if you will. So those those two factors are really the the biggest factor but the area being the biggest. >> Okay. Um, and then the grossup factor that you said was different is um I'm just gonna maybe you can summarize it better than I can, but my understanding is the original one was done um with too tight of view and
005it's not realistic >> in our opinion. Yes. Um so hopefully I can explain it a little bit better than I did last time. The way to think of it is the what we call the net square feet. to your net program which is the bottom line of all of the spaces that are in your edspec. Um that comprises in our experience for a middle school of this size anywhere from 62 to 64% of your entire building area. And so what the numbers that they had in the EDSPEC um represented a 77% net to gross which we feel is just too tight. Um you you wouldn't be able to get that much net program area into a building of 104 700 or and change gross square feet and have adequate room for structure corridors, mechanical spaces,
006restrooms and so forth. And if you recall, I made the adjustment to take out some of those things in our analysis. >> Okay. Thank you. Um, another question I had, um, and maybe that will become more germaine later, but, um, if you could weigh in on what you would think if in fact we wanted to not have a grade 6 through 8 middle school, but rather a grade 5 through 8 middle school, what would perhaps the cost um implication be? And is it even possible given the site that you selected? >> Uh the site being for the new the new >> I'm sorry. Yes. Assuming the new I'm sorry. Yes. Assuming uh build new. >> Um Jim, you want to take take a >> Yeah. >> I I do think it is possible. Um we
007we were the design team was very conscious of trying to create a efficient type footprint because that it's a pretty fairly constricted part of the site and with a fully occupied middle school right next door as you would be doing construction in that area. I think it's important to minimize the overall site impact and I think that'll benefit the project long term. You know for years and years to come. it'll just give you that much more space to add parking if you needed, reconfigure bus loops, um add some playfields potentially. Um so I think there is space there to be able to fit the fifth grade. I think the the bigger question in my mind is what the impact on all the core spaces would be and that we we really haven't gone through that
008exercise. You know, we were really focused on the six through eight with the you know that that enrollment. So adding another, you know, entire grade, you're increasing the student population by 25%. And um we would want to evaluate the size of the cafeteria. Um right now, we're anticipating three waves. So would it be as simple as keeping the cafeteria the exact same size and going to four waves? I'm not sure if that works with the schedule. Um so we would want to talk to the administrators and see how something like that worked. Um, same thing with scheduling in a gym. If if you have a single gym with a divider, you would have two work uh two teaching stations, but with the additional uh fifth graders in that building, could you schedule everybody and meet
009the curriculum needs, you know, from an educational standpoint? Um, so that those would be my big questions. And and like I said, the design team hasn't really evaluated that. Um, you know, we we can we can take the time and do it if if the committee, you know, directs us to do it. You know, be more than happy to take take a couple weeks and and dive into it and do some diagrams. Um, because I I think you would need to understand the amount of space you need to add to understand the price that's attached to it. >> Okay, fair enough. And um my last question was um demolition costs are built into your estimates. Um can you talk about what size I mean do you have a price tag for that piece of it?
010>> Yes. Um so to answer your first question abatement and demolition costs are factored into both estimates. Um for the renovation in total we were abating the entire existing building. Uh well the entire um middle school component of the existing building not the gym and pool area. That was not part of our estimate. Um and then we were demolishing in in their entirety about 31,000 square ft full structure demolition. And then if you recall that the balance of the existing building was 104 151 was the number that we used and that was a full gut demo minus demolition of the superructure. So those three components together in the estimate without contingencies and escalation applied to it um in today's dollars were estimated for just under 5 million. It was um 4.8 89 million and that
011was for the renovation piece and then for the new concept. Um both well the full amount of the existing building was both uh abated and demo full structure demolition. So that was about 5.4 million again without contingencies or escalation. >> Okay. Thank you. Um, and these may be numbers that, you know, we work work with, you know, a little bit later down the road, but thanks for doing that research. Um, those were my extra so-called extra questions since last meeting. Um, if we wanted to take advantage of Kemp and Jim, now board members have any other of those types of questions? Uh my one question is if we did want to ask uh SLAM to put together that 58 configuration, what kind of uh timeline do you do you think that would be? >> Um
012>> I'd say it probably be three to four weeks total. I mean it probably take us a couple weeks to put some things together to for review and then doing some estimating and then present. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Any other questions? >> Yeah, I had mentioned um I I had mentioned this at the end of the last meeting. I the the eligibility ratio for state reimbursement was about 1.8 and I'd really like to know what are considerations that we could all think about to try and increase the eligibility ratio to 1.0. 0 which would um thereby increase the amount of money that the state reimbures us for this project. >> Yeah. Um really the the best way to increase the eligibility factor as well as reduce costs with kind of a two-fold um impact
013would be to reduce the the area of the building. So if you were to reduce your net program which um is everything that's in the edspec by one just using a factor of one square foot it to gross up it gets multip but by that one square foot gets grossed up by 1.58 I think is the the reciprocal of 63%. Um, so that impacts your eligibility factor and it also impacts the cost because for every at this point in time when we're budgeting, every square foot gets a dollar value assigned to it. So that's the best way to reduce costs and increase eligibility factor at the same time. >> Yeah. and and we've been through this on on a lot of other projects and the conversation starts with what kind of programs you could reduce.
014Um so and that's always a tough conversation. Um you you have a robust offering for the students right now. Um and it it's a really difficult conversation to have sometimes where you're talking about eliminating a 12,200 foot music room and then saying well the kids are now going to do orchestra on the platform. So, you know, that that is one way to start reducing the overall square footage, but you know, it's it's it's difficult to do because when we reviewed your EDS spec, it it felt appropriate. Um, you know, we felt that all the modern 21st century learning uh spaces were called for. Um, so you know, and it it it may be as simple as reducing the overall size of some, you know, going from an 825 square foot classroom down to an 800
015square foot classroom, but you add up 25 square feet over, you know, 20 classrooms and it's really it doesn't get you that far. Um, you know, little by little, so you can chip away at it, but it it's very very difficult to get to that 1.0 O and you'll never truly get there because there are ineligible items. You know, you can reduce the square footage and get it closer than what it is right now, but you'll you'll I don't think you'll ever hit the 1.0 and uh you know, recognize the full uh state reimbursement. There's always ineligible items. >> So, is it basically the just asking for understanding as well? um the state uh ideal is not at all ideal is what you're saying. It's basically too small for a school to have the offerings
016that Western has. >> Yeah. What if you recall the discussion we had last time where you use the middle school teaming model, the state standards in our opinion do not not do not reflect that model in their state standards. Um it's more of based on like an old junior high school type model. >> Yeah. >> And so there's inefficiency. Well, you know, so they're they're um starting at a low spot and then as we talked about before, when you have the enrollment in between those two sweet spots of 360 to 720 students where where you fully load all of the classrooms at that ideal 24 students per classroom, when you're in the middle, you you get impacted because you're multiplying your enrollment times the allowable area. So you're you know your allowable area is down
017and then you know and then you you want to build that full two team model of space so then you're getting impacted the opposite way and that's why that eligibility factor is at 08 right now. >> Gotcha. I have a quick question I forgot to ask before if you don't mind. Um the price the difference in a renovate and a new it's like $1.5 million. Is there a way I is are there design aspects of the rent of the build new that are nice to haves not need to haves where the cost for the new would actually come in at par or potentially below renovation. So that if the board wants to look at what they're going to move forward. So are there are there ne nice to haves versus need to haves in the
018new that can be removed and now the build new is on par less than renovate. >> I'd have to give that some more consideration. But I I don't think there are too many nice to have. you know, we did um across both projects, we carried that sustainability initiative um $3.5 million to be apples to apples. So, you know, both projects had that to be, you know, to be determined how it's spent and how it's utilized is a future decision process. But um off the top of my head, I can't think of anything that you would reduce from the new to bring it down to the Renault costs. Some of the Renault costs include phasing and that's why they're so close. That's why the two numbers are so close to one another. All of those temporary
019provisions for phasing that construction over three major phases carries with it some cost and that's why that the re that's why the renovation came up close to the new. So to piggyback on what David was talking about, we haven't really discussed the operation costs once for renovation is new or for new building for the new building. Um would the costs be similar um operationally in the future with energy efficiency built into a new building? Yes, I think they'd both be very similar because the renovation to new, the way we've modeled it is a gut rena. Uh the only thing that's really being saved is your superructure, your columns and your roof structure and and so forth. Um the exterior walls would be replaced with new modern um energy code standard type wall construction. Uh the
020roof would have you know the amount of insulation that you would have in the new as well. Um so from a performance per square foot um I think that would be very similar. The only difference being is that the the new concept that Jim presented had a much more compact footprint on the site and therefore we haven't done the analysis but it may have less exterior wall square footage and I think it certainly has less roof area >> exposed to the outside. Um, so that may improve the efficiency of the new over the Renault slightly. >> And I and just one quick question to follow up on what I was asking. So would it be you or would it be Collier? So, you know, I've uh asked a couple of times about I guess it
021was Collers who said that there was a school where the cost to renovate and the cost to build were so close they were able to uh get the reimbursement rate of a renovation to cover the new do you is that a slam is that a collars who would advise us and if have you seen like within a certain percentage so I think I did a very quick calculation I'm not a math expert but it was like a 1.3% difference in cost. So like how would you guide us on if the board is leaning towards the direction of build new but we want to really focus on the reimbursement of renovate is that a you is that a collars is your experience that if it's within 1 and a half% the state would accept it as
022a renovation. >> Um I I think collars started that conversation a few meetings back. they had, you know, introduced the idea, uh, because they've seen it before. Um, we were not part of that project, but u, so they may be able to advise better than I can. I think they would probably advise similar to how I would is that it's something that would need to be discussed with the state. It's we can't guarantee that. It's not it's not written in the statute. It's that I believe that I am aware of u, it's an interpretation of the statute as written. And so there's a bit of um I guess negotiation that would have to take place with that approach. >> We have an attorney on the board, so we're good. >> I I think it's something
023worth pursuing and looking into. So I I would encourage everybody to start asking the questions and you know, yeah, we can reach out to them. I think it would be worth it. Yeah, we talked last time, you know, for for the relatively small differential in costs. Um, building new would have much less impact on the students and, you know, and give you a more compact building, you know, for those energy savings long term. All of those factors, I think, come into that argument. >> Okay. I I have a few questions. >> Okay. >> Uh for and in the weeds question for Kent, when you calculated the renovate as new, you had, if I understood it right, you hadund uh 7,000 square feet as renovate and 17,000 square feet as a new construction. What reimbursement rate
024did you apply to the 17,000 square feet of new construction? >> Uh, we applied the renovation rate to all of the costs because it's a renovation project. You can build some new within a renovation project. You can't I think there's there's a limit. I forget the number. I think it's uh 25%. You can't go beyond that. You know, the state is not going to give you that reimbursement rate for building, you know, more than 25 or or so percent of the build of the final building area as new. They want, you know, they want this existing building to be renovated. But that's the way they do the calculations because it's designated a renovation project. So, it's eligible for that renovation rate. >> Interesting. So if you build more new things, although you're renovating less space,
025you may you may get new things, but you're penalized by a 10% reimbursement margin. So it's an interesting perspective to apply to other areas on campus. So that's good to know. That's a good to know fact. Uh I suspected that was the case, but if it was that you applied 10% to the 17,000 square feet, that would mean that you're underpriced to rent. You you the the gap between new and renovate venue would be slightly different but that you gave 22% for new construction iss quite interesting or 17.5% u we'll apply that to other areas in our thinking later tonight uh question two uh and I think this was raised uh smartly by the board about operation costs energy efficiency expandability and neither of the analys analysis. Did you account for a geothermal? I don't
026recall that you added that in although Kers had added that in their in their pricing in the past and uh between the two options in the available field space and the availability to use that field space without disrupting operations of the geothermal welling. Is there a better option between the two because that drives energy efficiency and operational costs over the next 20 years? So did I hear you say that we did not include geothermal? >> Kers did two years ago in your analysis. I don't think you included in the pricing and geothermal field, did you? >> So we included a kind of a singular number for sustainable initiatives that could be spent any number of ways. Um it could be applied to geothermal. Um it could be applied to photovoltaics, could be applied to both
027in some form. Um and we find at this stage of the game, it's better to do that. You know, give it a monetary value that can be decided to be spent a certain way in the future. Um rather than trying to def define exactly what we're doing, you like, you know, are we doing a 100 wells? Are we doing 50 wells? you know, it's just it's too complex right now to be able to figure out that number. >> Fair enough. I mean, I think I think the the the gravity will send us to a geothermal field and copious amounts of electricity because eventually we have to charge EV buses, maybe an expanded xenon plant across the street. So, why not have that uh scalable energy source, right? I mean, that's really a smart move from
028green. Excellent. Thank you. And then my third my third comment on this part of the meeting actually builds on the call's question about uh our 63 figure merit or rule of thumb or whatever we call it and a 08 uh similar rule of thumb. I did a deep dive into the Trumbull Middle School and I don't know if you are directly involved in that project, >> but if you do the math, it's interesting enough they actually >> circumvented 63 and and they got closer to 75 and 08. Somehow they made some tradeoffs, right, in their in their gross versus net numbers. I think they had other capabilities near that building that they siphoned off needs to like an auditorium or stage or something like that. So they didn't have to include it. But interesting enough
029they they got they transcended 638 specs were not able to do that. And also, interesting enough, I think they got much closer to 0.9 than 08 on their original assessment of their reimbursement rate rather than the penalty of8. Politics took over and if you read their published information, they did much better than even that they were close to far exceeding uh 0.9 in reimbursement. But all right, you weren't involved. But that that's a case that I think answers two things. One is you can give up a lot if you have something else to offer next door and two uh it's really hard to go beyond 63 and point8 uh because you're giving up a lot and that's not the whole point of middle school education right so uh okay good that's a really informative exercise
030and I advise my fellow board members and others uh listening in tonight that that we should really take a deep dive into that because it really shows how they made their decisions two years ago, a year ago, how their building committee works, how their politics worked. It was it's really informative. It's a good guidepost for us. >> You make you do make a good point about the fact that you do have a high school facility immediately next door. And you know, to Jim's point earlier, you know, if and if we were talking about trimming square footage out of the edspec, if you were to do that and you had, you know, a space in the high school that could be utilized for certain things, we've seen that before in districts. >> Right. Right. Right. I
031mean, there's it's it's conceivable. I don't know if it's feasible that you could have a a walkway, you know, an arch, whatever, and use some of the high school performing arts facilities uh for some of the other students in middle school. I mean, they do plays together and do things together already. So, maybe that's the way of of uh siphoning off the little square footage. Yeah, I think one of the nicest ways to find efficiency in program is to find those potentially shared program pieces, you know, and then you work out the logistics educationally, see if you actually have the capacity and then make it work operationally. Um, I think one of the advantages that the team saw when we place the building where we did, the new building where we did, it's a lot
032closer to the existing high school. So, I think it opens up some opportunities for those direct connections back and forth. Good, good input. Thank you. >> Uh, Peter, I appreciate that you brought up Trumble because I actually was going to ask going back to this eligibility factor. Um, and what Peter was talking about the 63, which I'm not actually sure that what that is off the top of my head, but um, you know, I hear that we're not going to make it to 1.0 and I hear that.8 is reasonable. I'm just wondering if you have comparable projects where they made decisions or tradeoffs where they were able to increase their eligibility factor that maybe we could understand better. >> Yeah, I I think the two middle school projects that we've been involved with are Graten
033Middle School, which is brand new, and Greenwich Central Middle School that's under construction right now. And we we went through that process with them. Neither of them got close to one, but there was a process that we went through so that that factor improved and ultimately, you know, gain they they gained some some state dollars on the project. >> I think I think Graten was much closer to the 1.0 0 because they had a higher uh enrollment that was for 950 students and so they were able to capitalize on getting those additional allowable area cs to work in their favor. Um Greenwich is very much this very similar to your enrollment. I think it was um 660 student school. So it's about 100 square foot or 100 students different which you know allowed their allowable
034to be higher than yours. Um and and they're building pretty close to what you have in your edspec right now. Um but that project came in at 62.5 net to gross. And part of the reason why is is goes back to what what you were talking about Peter a few minutes ago. You know sustainable initiatives they had an initiative to um try and get to net zero. Um, and so we we worked with them to maximize open roof area for photovoltaics. And to maximize open roof area, we ended up moving some of the air handling units inside. And it it actually worked worked out quite well in that particular project cuz we were building into a hillside. And so we were able to put those air handlers, you know, kind of in the hill, if
035you will, you know what I mean? Uh, in the basement. And so that preserved roof area to maximize the photovoltaic output. Um and so that that creating those mechanical rooms inside impacted the area and there and therefore you had that you know lower than 63 net to gross. That was part of what drove that. Um, if you put everything on the roof, yes, you can be more efficient with your building net to gross area, but then you take away the ability to put more photo voltakes on the roof. Um, so there's a bit of a trade-off. And can you please clarify why comparable projects would be middle schools only and why we wouldn't be able to look at other school constructions as comps >> for for what in particular? >> Trying to increase the factor.
036Um, again, it goes back to the allowable area that the state publishes for middle schools and you know that that's the the one item that is driving that eligibility factor. >> Okay. So, that's not that's not per student, it's actually per middle school student. >> Well, it is the the state looks at middle school that 6th through 8th grade, they'll allocate 168 square feet per student. You get to the elementary school level and it varies a little bit, but you're looking more like 121 square feet per student. Then the high school number goes back up incrementally. So I I think we have to look at comps within that middle school range. >> Yeah, you need to look at middle schools for for true comps. >> Got it. Thank you. >> Yep. See, that's what complicates
037fifth grade there because now you're building buildings, but you have less allowable space yet you have to sort of build that to match a 618 mile. So, it's very >> that's why we would have to study the 58 mile. >> Right. Right. It's >> because there's so many variables that come into play that it's hard to answer a question without looking at all the variables. >> Right. Right. And it may be like uh like you say with the you have to account for air gaps between the head spaces. That's basically how you began tonight. And fifth graders probably can't share bathrooms with sixth and eighth graders. Maybe. I don't know. We'll ask our principles how that works. But you can see how now you have to your ear gaps changed because if you can share
038bathrooms between sixth and eighth graders, you have shared space for those students. But you don't get the benefit of that. And fifth graders should have shared space. It's it's a very complex analysis. So, I I appreciate that you agreed with our board to take it on for the next two weeks. >> Okay. I think um at this point we're asking great questions, but um they're also getting a little bit too detailed in terms of design work um and reviewing EDS specs um which I think we will get to, but perhaps not right at this moment. Um I think let's try to keep our questions just a little bit more general at this point. Um you know you can see the the doors that are opening and the questions that you know we still have remaining
039but some of that will get into the threshold of design and some of it gets into what we can do for a higher reimbursement rate. So um let's just take a step a couple of steps backwards first. Um the uh the fifth grade, the five through eight building. Um uh I know you said you need to get into much more detail to give us a sense of cost. Um do you have sort of a back of an envelope kind of general uh sense that if you increase the population by 25% you therefore need to increase the construction cost by X. And if not that's fine. I'd just like to know that because then we'll have to figure out if we want that much detail. >> We really don't um it's not it's not a linear
040relationship like that. It's um much more variables at play because it's going to it's going to change your allowable area which then changes the eligibility factor and then u we need to know you know how many classrooms as Jim mentioned the u the specials spaces we need to have an understanding of that >> and schedule. So, it it does it really is a study of on its own. >> Okay. Can we at least assume price will go up? >> Most Well, I mean, if you're going to keep more of your existing building uh and renovate it in a renovation scenario, yes, I mean, I would think that they would go up, but you'd be also demoing less. So, it kind of all comes into what's the scenario, >> right? And if and again going back
041to the question about the site for build new um you know the just the general question is can it be done? Would it fit? >> Yeah, I have no doubt that you could fit it on the site especially with a more compact multi-story classroom wing. Um it just would not look exactly like what Jim has shown you today. >> Okay. And again I don't want to get into design. All right. So, um I think I understand um you know we we need to do a more formal study on the 5 through 8 and maybe we will get there um so we know what we have to do to find the answers there. Are there any other questions before we get on to our um more general discussion uh which I guess what I'm trying to
042do is not put the cart before the horse. Uh so I just think um for me anyway, I think the question that we need to kind of dive into is as we look at these two approaches, renovate as new or build new, um can we talk about um which of those options make more sense, which is preferable, which road is the better road to go down. So I think I'd like to kind of shift into that mode. Um and um we have a lot to do. So anyway, but I'd just kind of like to to kind of look at that point first if board members don't mind and uh have everybody weigh in and then let's see where we are. Um and I think Kemp and Jim, I I don't want to hold you here
043for the entire meeting. So um I know that you're available and I know where Phil lives and so we know how to get in touch with you. Um so again appreciate your attendance here. Uh but now I think we just need to do the two roads diverged in a wood woods and um you know figure out what path we want to uh pursue more in depth. Okay. So thank you Jim and and Kemp and um u I'm trying to also take uh advantage of David's limited time with us. So David, I don't know if you want to weigh in first. Uh I don't mean to put you on the spot. I just know that you have to leave. >> Yeah. >> But I'd like to get everybody's opinion on um as we were as we're
044presented with these two options which makes the more sense in terms of our ultimate goal. >> Yeah, I'll jump in because I got to run a couple of minutes. I think that the build new makes the most amount of sense. It's uh from a financial perspective, the delta is so minimal. we don't get into the uh constant putting of the children in the portables. It's a lot less disruptive. So I I would say there isn't in my mind there's not a single compelling reason not to do build new. Um so I'm I'm all in on on the build new. I think it's the the uh the responsible choice financially and educationally. All right. Thank you. Any um I'd like to hear from everybody. You don't have to opine, but just get a sense of where
045you're coming from. >> I agree with David. Um I I think we we have to build as new. And if you look at the risk that we could take if we renovate as new, although they've tried to factor in as much as they could, there are still unknowns and the small amount to build as new. Just it it just is important that we build as new because the risk to renovate as new is too great. and the possibility of it of the costs escalating and that unknown um I don't believe we should take >> Okay, thank you. >> I'll hop in here. >> Um I I David, shockingly I'm on the same page as you. Um I I agree. I think that for me the biggest issue. Thanks, David. For me, the biggest issue is
046uh just the disruption that would take place and also the amount of time that would take place. I think that the delta between the renovate is new and build new is just not worth that disruption in particular and what that would do to children's actual education. Um which is why we're here. So I I I think that that is the case. But I do think that excuse me we have to be responsible in as far as really looking very closely at grade configuration and if we can I mean you know if we can minimize it as best as possible obviously we need to rightsize the middle school if we do um if we do go with a new route we have to rightsize it but is it right sizing it that way or is it
047changing the grade configuration so we can potentially get to three schools I don't know but I I do think that the middle school has got to be addressed and I think that um renovating as new is not not the path that I would be inclined to go towards. >> Thanks. >> Um who's left me and the call? >> Sure. Go ahead, Peter. Uh well, we were we're where we are were two years ago, but I think with a much better uh deeper understanding of where we were two years ago is that we liked how the principles uh gave really really deep why experience on why our current grade configuration works. We're a very good very good school district. We know that a bill for new, I think David said it very well, is almost the
048no risk, no uncertainty option. I think we're going to save a lot on operational expenses and uh it makes us competitive because many school districts are building new buildings and we're not and that could be a strike against us. We're recruiting, attracting younger families on a steak, stake, raising our families in Weston in a very very crowded complex Bfield County. Um, but uh we're still have done nothing. So the third option is no action and that's the highest risk of course and highest uncertainty and may cost us the most. And uh I think we'll return to the fourth option which is u the three building option cuz Sharon raised it and that has to be restored and let's talk about that in a little bit once the call chimes in on new versus renovate just
049on this one one site. >> There's Michael too. >> I don't I don't care but Nicole. >> Okay. I didn't see that Michael joined us. Great. >> Nicole, Michael, either one. >> Sure. Nicole, you want to go? >> Sure. Um, I agree with everyone. Um, mostly rationale of what was mentioned, David and Peter. I think I agree with build as new based on the numbers and presentation that Slam provided to us last week. Um, I think with everything it is just really important to do all of our due diligence, give all of the information to the public and explore all of the options. So, I think for example, if we all approve that they are going to examine a grade 5 to 8 configuration, I think that those numbers need to be applied to both
050renovate as new and build new because you need to know, you just need to give the facts to the people if we're going to go through this work. So, I don't know if my opinion might change with more information, but as of right now, given the numbers that they provided last week, there is no, as David said, there's no compelling reason not to build new, but there's just no compelling reason to renovate given the negligible difference in cost. Um, and I also agree with Peter that it's still not a number and option that I really feel comfortable with without doing I just think there's a lot we need to scrutinize and a lot we need to consider. I think it seems like we're still where Peter said where we were two years ago with just
051inflated higher numbers as expected for building a new middle school. And so I just still think there's more work to be done. >> Thank you. Yeah, just uh I'll jump in quickly. Um I'm not going to reiterate what everyone said. Build is new makes the most sense at this stage. Of course, we'd have to, you know, go through the calculations. I'd like to push a little bit more, delve into the five to eight. There are a lot of factors there um to consider. Uh more students, of course, there's the adjusted, you know, square footage per student for the fifth grade. Fine. Um but potentially then you're going to a diad model for the fifth and sixth grade versus a T model for the seventh and eighth. Does that change the calculus there as well in
052terms of the eligibility factor? Don't know. So I think we should push on that and and dive into um what a 5 to8 configuration actually looks like for that. Um also the the other outstanding question as everyone knows here is you know how do we go about how realistic is it for us to secure a renovate as as new reimbursement for a new build and I think I I need to understand that. So you know the way I I think about this it's sort of you know th those are the two major questions. Um I guess Collier has to provide us a little bit more Deb um guidance as to how we would go about doing that, how we would engage, how much time we need to engage with the state in order to try
053to secure that higher reimbursement rate. So I'd love to understand that a little bit more as well. But but right now to what everyone said because of the delay and disruption and just cutting edge, I would I would you know build as new makes the most sense. Okay. >> Thank you. Right. I I appreciate everybody's viewpoints and um everyone has said all the reasons that um I could possibly think of and more. Uh I support the the build new approach as well. Um so I'm I'm just glad I I know that doesn't seem like a lot to some people, but to me it means a lot that we're all kind of uh looking at at one um you know uh one road at least at this point. um the grade five through eight question um
054well let me think before we get to that point uh be the reason I brought it up is the um opinion of probable costs and I think if I don't even think we need to kind of go around and talk I can hear that we all think the price is high um we think it's um astounding at least that's my personal opinion uh and we're we all need to we're all looking for ways to attack that uh probable cost. Uh one way is to get in and look at the weeds as we started to do with you know what are the size of the classrooms you know is there something we could offload make smaller whatever so there's the actual design or the edspecs themselves another approach and this is why I asked if um
055we could know the demo price is uh are there and this is not a slam question I mean it might be but I don't I don't think it's um their you know their total expertise is are there grants out there for which this project could apply one of which might be along the demo line because if there are contaminants in any way shape or form and we have to sort of clean them up if you will is there grant funding available for a piece or a portion of that another thing is I'm so glad SLAM separated out the energy initiatives. Again, I think that is perhaps ripe for grant opportunities. There may be, you know, incentives for and you all had all the technical ways of of doing alternative sustainable energy. Uh so I'm not
056the engineer by any stretch, but there may be grant opportunities out there for the energy portion of it. I also think we could make a great argument to the state that for $1.5 million difference, it's dimminimous and um you know it's just it's silly on that size a number to uh to have to distinguish between renovate and build as new. The differential there is so silly I mean not silly but you know in inconsequential when you look at the number. So I think we could make a good argument. I also think uh Kemp brought up uh the idea that the state is outdated in its look at middle school design. Uh we could argue that the um penalty for not full utilization uh that ought to go to go away if you're going to build
057a middle school. We shouldn't, in other words, we shouldn't have our instructional model, which has been around for decades and is very common, used against us because we're not doing the sort of egg crate approach of a smaller elementary school. So, we could make that argument. So, all that said, and and those are all great, I think, roads to go down. I still think there are more. I was so glad to see Peter remind us that Trumbull got 44% reimbursement and uh and this is not something that Slam can argue. It is something that our town um and our politicians need to investigate. Um I think that the I understand that Connecticut has these regulations. I understand that it is the p the uh formulas that are applied are based on a town's wealth. No
058one will argue that Weston is not wealthy. But I do think that the range um starting at something like less than 10% for wealthy districts all the way up to 80% for districts with much higher financial need. I get that there should be a range. I do not understand why the floor is so low because when you're talking about the scale of construction projects and the multi-millions of dollars there is, that percentage just doesn't work. We are not talking about asking for a grant for computers. We're asking for a grant to improve our infrastructure which can't cost less than multi-millions of dollars. So, I I do think that we need to do all that we can as board members working with um our first select woman who is the liaison between us and the state
059and our state legislators that we need to go and build the best case we can for a much much higher reimbursement rate. Um and that is not to say we don't do all the other paths that we just mentioned and everyone brought up. I think we need to do it all kind of all of the above and see how see what those roads look like, what those challenges are. Um, the other thing uh in Weston is that we are small and so uh I was looking at and this is me rambling so thank you for listening but um I know that Westport is trying to build an elementary school and they are they have they've gotten close to a 20% reimbursement rate which you know sort of represents the the renovate kind of high end
060of that. So however they did that you know good for them. Uh but that's not enough because in Weston we're so much smaller. So Westport has four elementary schools. It would be as if Westport said, you know, just that neighborhood around I think it's Longot School. Just that just those neighbors are going to pay for that elementary school. And that's kind of what I feel like the burden is in Weston. It's like we're a neighborhood school, a small neighborhood school. And again, the costs are astronomical for the number of residents. And so, our size again kind of um hurts us. And also, we all know that we don't have a commercial base. And I'm not suggesting we need to change that or anything, but it's just reality. So, I think there are some there's some
061arguments that we need to support with a lot of data that we can make to our state legislators, and we need to do that sooner than later. Um, and we also need to look for grant possibilities. We also need to review the ED specs and see if we can reduce the actual cost. We need to do all of that at once and fast. Uh, so we have an EOC subcommittee. Um, so I think the members on that committee, we also have a communications committee and we have our board officers. So, between all of those um I don't want to say cast of characters, but I will um if we could agree that we're going to sort of divide and conquer and go down all these different roads um and see what the process is entailed
062with each one of them. So, I'm talking about grants. I'm talking about getting closer to the, you know, the highest reimbursement rate possible with the state. I'm also talking about um asking for a much bigger reimbursement rate than state law now prescribes for Weston. Uh the formula I think is uh is just very damaging and and um you know does not help at all uh with the affordability factor for the taxpayers here. We have to figure out a way to bring that down. So, um maybe it's a an issue that um is well, obviously it's fraught with challenge, but I think we need to try. I think it's incumbent on us to sort of go out and see what we can do. Uh the other possibility, um and this was brought up, I think, in
063an email, uh that the board received was what about just going to three schools? Um, so to me the way to do that is either you slide the kids up or you slide the kids down in terms of grade levels. Um if for instance we just abandoned the middle school just said okay you know we'll just just leave it and we'll try to fit our kids into hess and to whis and believe it or not I think collier summarized that for us that was studied in 2019 there is an option that talks about making h K5 or K4 and WIS grade 6 through 8 or grade 5 through 8. And there's even a price attached. So I think and I'm going to look at Phil. I think if collars just for just for our you
064know for our edification and to go down every single road we can that that would result in three schools. I'm not sure it's the wisest move at all. But at least let's look at it because it has been asked and answered to some extent in 2019 I think. So I wonder if Collers could take a quick look at that and tell us what ballpark we're looking at. The other way to do three schools, and I perhaps would I was interested in doing it sooner than later, but maybe we could be later, is having the capacity of a new middle school have the capacity, the potential to put fifth grade there, and it doesn't have to happen tomorrow. It doesn't have to happen five years from now. But if we build a building that has the
065flexibility to incorporate more kids and when that flexibility would be needed is a question. But if we could make a middle school 5'8, then WHIS opens itself up to take more students and Hess opens itself up to take fewer students. And the maybe I'm not sure to empty Hess entirely, but there, as the first select woman uh told us a few meetings ago, there are needs in the town. So at some point perhaps having HES be more available for town needs whether it's the senior center or other things might in the long term down the road be somewhat helpful but those are the only two ways I see to get to three schools. One is long-term building a new middle school with perhaps expandable capability to take another grade level and eventually moving more kids
066out of Hess and into WHIS and whatever we have to do for WHIS. That's a whole other study. The other thing is I think the worst case scenario is saying well let's just forget even trying to build a new middle school or trying to renovate a new middle school. Let's do Hess K4 and WHIS 58 and be done with it. And there's that again that's the question that was asked in 2017 or 2019. and we can relook at that and just kind of have Collars do a a highlevel conceptual answer because I think some people in town will have that because the the the price that we're looking at currently is astounding. So this is the time to look at everything doesn't mean that they're realistic but we at least look at it. So, I'm
067trying to as a board of ed do due diligence and um anyway, I'm sorry I talked so long, but I welcome um input, feedback, and debate. Nicole, um thank you for that. I'm just wondering, can you just explain your thinking a little bit in your second choice, your second option of can we talk about having a middle school that has capacity to expand and accept a new grade in the longer term? Why for you is that a longer term initiative rather than an immediate? >> Thank you. I think that's a great question and I think the board needs to decide that. I guess my gut is that five or six through eight's expensive enough. So maybe we hold off on more cost until later. Um that's the rationale. doesn't mean it's the the best one,
068but that was the thinking. Um that we at least have a building that has flexibility and when we use that flexibility, um we don't know, but I can, you know, that's something we could talk about. >> Hey, hey, Deb, just just a really quick question on just process here. Um seem to be a lot of questions still standing and we're running out of time a little bit here. Um, we had mentioned, we had discussed a couple meetings ago in terms of applying for the grant and that applying for the grant this year versus applying for the grant next year didn't have a I guess there is an impact. I guess I'm I'm I'm unaware of what the exact impact is in terms of timing delay, but I think what Slam had mentioned previously was that
069it wasn't significant in terms of that delay. Is that still the case? Do you have a a firmer grasp of what the delay would be if we um apply for the grant this year versus applying for it next year? You're you're on mute. You're on mute. I think Kemp and Jim will um regret that they stayed on, but um >> uh I think what I heard at the last meeting when they did that timeline for us >> Yeah. >> that waiting on the grant is in fact going to push out everything. Uh not that it can't be done, but that it does have an impact on timing. Um, and again, um, I think, uh, well, I don't know, Kemp, I don't know if you have a clear explanation. >> Yeah, I think um, you I'm
070going to Can I share the screen? I want to put the schedule up from last time. I think I need permission. >> Yeah. One one thing that we should probably talk about is proceeding before the grant application is in because oftentimes there's there's a minimal risk and minimal investment. We we could the design team could get started designing the building before the grant is even made. But the town proceeds at risk and and the risk is that you go and apply for the grant and the funding is not approved for some reason which very rarely happens. It's almost always when when you have the project established well organized and are moving forward the state very rarely does not fund it. Uh, but that's that that would be one way where you could accelerate the schedule
071because you could just start the design before the grant app was actually made and and I think Kemp has a couple of examples recently or in the last couple years where the town did choose to do that. >> Yeah. And that that's why we recommended this. If you recall from last time, we the light green bar here represents the year that the grant application would go in in June 26. I'm gonna zoom in on this a little bit. Oops. Sorry about that. Hang on. There we go. Um, so June 26 if you put it in this year and then it takes a year for it to get processed and so forth and then then you can start applying for reimbursement. And so with the design fees that are associated with this, it's in the scheme
072of things relatively small amounts of money for this town to um fund in the short term. And then you can start to get reimbursement on that if you wait until June 2027 to put the grant in. And if you started designing back here, then you where you can start reimbursements and then you're into construction dollars. And that's a lot. You still have to as a town, you have to get reimbursement, but to wait that amount of time to get the reimbursement could be a challenge >> and that's where your level of risk goes up a little bit because you're expending more funds. >> Got it. Okay. So, so for all intents and purposes, we really should meet the deadline here to minimize the risk um of the project to meet the deadline for the grant
073application of of um uh applying for this year. So, okay. Um I guess then guys, there are well, let me take it back to you, Deb. I guess there are a bunch of there are a bunch of things then on the docket here for us to pursue. Um, one of them is potentially um for us to to move forward and authorize SLAM to go ahead and do this 5 to8 study. I mean, my my assumption, Deb, was that if we moved five to eight, I guess that we would go to three schools, right? I I I didn't I guess my initial thought was why would we why would we still maintain the four schools if we were building a larger school now that was going to cost us more money potentially more efficient potentially on
074the eligibility factor I don't know where that's going to sort of out >> um but the cost the extra cost that we we would put into that of course Um my original my thought was we wouldn't maintain the four schools. >> We would just go ahead and move into three schools and over time sort of you're recouping that that extra expense, right? Because now you're maintaining, you know, fewer, you know, fewer buildings um over time for the town. Um so I guess the question is, you know, do we want that? Do we want to move forward? I I I think we should, but it's up to the board. Do we want to move forward with having Slam actually take a deep dive into the five to eight just to see what it is? Um because
075I think we're going to have to decide on this pretty quickly if this is going to take them a month. >> Yeah. Um I guess my um my concern is that it's not only 5'8 that you're that you would be I mean we could rec I mean redesign okay from new um that's one phase but you also have to look at WIS and that's going to take money and that's going to take site design and that site is challenging the way it was built. So that's why I would say maybe we kind of pause on that thinking because that's a whole other building project is the way I guess I'm looking at it to try to uh make WHIS accommodate enough kids to truly um you know take students out of Hess >> right if
076you and if you made more minor changes at WIS which is maybe the more realistic way go first given the site there because I think again looking back at some of the earlier studies that have been done in 2017 and 2019 it's a challenging site. >> So maybe um preschool would stay at at Hess, maybe kindergarten would stay at Hess, you know, there may be some benefits to um having grades remain at Hess. Uh, so that I just think it's such a if we're having trouble trying to figure out what to do with the middle school. >> Yeah, it's a >> it's a whole other universe of um of a building project. So that's why I was suggesting if we take a chunk and say can we at least have enough flexibility on the site
077and a potential future design for 58 then we that opens the door but we don't have to go through the door right now. >> Yeah. So in terms of next steps for you Deb, is it, you know, do we move forward and have SLAM potentially do that now in addition to, you know, organizing however we're going to as a town to petition the state basically for the reimbursement rates and everything else? How how do you see this all coming together? Because we have basically three and a half three and a half months. >> Right. Right. and and and you don't have to answer the question now. It's just it's a it's a lot it's a lot to take in. I just want to make sure that >> Yeah. And I and I'm sorry that I
078put so much on the table, but knowing knowing our timeline. >> Yeah. >> Um you know, and knowing the historical question of well just put, you know, can't you just put the kids in three schools, >> right? You know, there's there's an old model sitting there that I think collers can take a quick look at. Look at that $88 million price tag that it was in in 2019 and kind of u extrapolate what that would even potentially entail. But again, that's a so that's one thing, you know, where you basically abandon the middle school and try to get K8 in Hess and Wis. So I think we just need that's a due diligence question. The other one to me more realistic is if you if we go down the build a new middle school, how
079could we eventually get to three buildings? Um you you ask a great question. When is the best time to dig into the details of putting a fifth grade at um in a new middle school? And I don't know whether I, you know, if that's something Slam wanted to opine on or if the administration wants to think about or other board members have advice. I don't know. I just want to I would suggest that we look at at least assuring ourselves that the potential is there. So what that takes, I don't know. I I I can just add that in in my experience dealing with different towns, if you're looking at a single element, a single school and trying to sell it and there's a lot of other questions about well what are you going to
080do with that school when all those students move out? If you don't come in with a comprehensive plan and answers to all those questions, often times the the referendum is an uphill battle because there's so many questions left. So sometimes coming in with that comprehensive plan and a clear understanding of what you intend to do in every one of the buildings and what the cost of that potentially is, you can still spread that out over some time, but if you don't have the big picture, um often it it it's a tough cell. >> Okay, thanks Jim. Point taken. >> Thank you. >> Yeah. Anyone else have thoughts? >> This is just very lay person. I >> We're all that. We're all those. >> I understand everything you're saying about waiting to add a fifth grade
081later on because it's going to be a large cost. But my hunch is that by us asking and inquiring about adding a new middle school into the whole building now, we're trying to um increase eligibility to just somehow maximize our state reimbursement. And also just just thinking about reasons why we don't want to do the renovation because it's phased and phased adds time, money, and convenience disruption. Do the same thing about adding a fifth grade to the middle school down the road. So, and just would be more it would it would likely be more costly. So, I just think if it would be an option, it's probably of course SLAM will tell us, but it would probably be the more efficient time disruption, money option to to create a school, a four grade school now.
082>> Okay. >> All right. Um Oh, boy. Um, my computer's about to give out. Let me just plug it in. Uh, um, >> while while you're doing that, >> I did. Yes. >> I mean, I mean, I don't I don't necessarily dis disagree with Nicole, on this um on that point, the the only thing I think that maybe you're thinking about, Deb, that does give me pause, too. So, I don't know where I shake out on this, but um it's just the sheer number, the sheer cost. So, you know, we may be boosting the eligibility factor and so thereby boosting the reimbursement but at the same time boosting the ultimate price tag for us right at at one time and the number is already high. I mean I mean the number to build the uh
083you know renovate is new or build the middle school build a new building I mean is is already you know very high and I think we've all acknowledged that. So, I think that's sort of the mitigating factor here, which look again, I'm I'm rambling, but I I'm trying to think out loud in terms of I would love to do um the right thing, the most efficient thing here, which is to explore, let's say, the five to eight. It could open up additional costs for us. But I I do think we've gone this far, Deb. I'll shut up in a second. We've gone this far, Deb. I I think we need to sort of play this thing out and see what what costs we're actually talking about here. Um if you know uh with the 5
084to8 option. So my thought. >> Okay. I appreciate that. I appreciate Nicole. Um I don't know if Sharon or Peter or Lisa any other thoughts? >> I agree. I I agree with you, Michael. Um I definitely think we need to explore a building that's a 538 building. And I think that we have to have um I do think we as a board have to have a plan to Jim's point um to explain to people in town what our long-term thinking is on the campus. if it's, you know, to go with a 5 through eight and then create, you know, a a K through four scenario at whis eventually, um, keeping the administration, the senior center and preschool in Hurbut. Um, I think that that's, you know, if that's something that we want to aim towards,
085that's we have to come up with a a plan that we can articulate to people when they start asking us about spending all this money and we can talk about, you know, if we're doing that and if the town is helping to since we would have the senior center in there and etc., you know, maybe like having the town pick up maybe have the parks and wreck in there. I'm not sure. We have to have a bigger conversation for that. But, you know, not having to float 100% the cost of maintaining Hurlbut and keeping that going, that would become more of a town building than it would be of a, you know, a school building. Um, if we could figure some way to do that or come up with a strategy to be able to
086vocalize that to the community, I think that that's probably a wise way to go about it. But I I agree. I think there's got to be some sort of flexibility or at least we have to look and see what it looks like to have a a 5 through eight middle school. Okay. Thanks. Thanks. >> I I guess more information is good to a certain point. Uh my intuition is the information is going to lead us to the conclusion. Build a new middle school. It's the least risk, least uncertain, most fiscally prudent way of moving us forward. Um I, you know, I'm not Jim. I'm not Kemp. These guys are, you know, as good as I've seen civil engineering and architects and building building. I did my analysis on the s during the summer. I announced
087it in September right at our board meeting. I know what the number is because if it's $30 million per 160 kids to move the pieces around the chessboard, you're going to exceed $160 million doing everything but 868 middle school. But I'm leaving it to the experts to confirm that, right? I just, >> this is just me, my pencil, right, on a rainy sunny afternoon in August. Uh, but you have to do the work and I think it's fair to the town, to the stakeholders to have done some work like this just to indicate just how complex, how uncertain multiple building projects on multiple buildings at the same time, even within the span of a few years, is untenable. But you have to do the work because they need that comparison data point. They need to
088sit there and go I like the lowrisk great option new built school renovate as new is too risky too uncertain. Doing nothing is the almost the worst case scenario and then consolidating moving pieces around the chessboard at 39 acres is almost worse than doing nothing. But I I want the experts to do this work in the next few weeks because as Michael says, it's the clock's ticking and I think it's only fair to 10,000 people in town or less than if they have this in front of me. That includes all the students too. They should know what's ahead of them as they grow older and they're make commitments to be educated in our our community as part of their family units, right? So all 10,000 people deserve better information. I think it will serve everyone
089better with that. >> Okay. Um All right. So, what I'm hearing is that we want to go down the build new and we want information about um grade five, a grade 5 through eight school. uh at least some sort of preliminary um you know but real look at it. Uh I think I'm capturing what people are saying. If not, let me know. Um and I think what I need to do is um talk to Phil and Erica about what our budget is for the rest of the year and you know how much we can you know put towards finding out this information and I can do that uh separately. Um I also think our EOCC committee should uh meet and I think that in terms of pursuing either grants and or high higher reimbursement part
090of that's in the political realm. I know our first select woman is the liaison with the state legislators and so uh I need to meet with her and we need to figure out um the case we can make for a larger reimbursement rate separate and apart and above uh from what the state limits are and I know there are contacts I know um Lisa is a member you know she's our representative to Cababe Erica um is a member of the superintendent group. David is a member of the cooperative education service and all of those organizations probably uh can guide us to knowledgeable people in the grant field andor the reimbursement argument field. So I think we should pursue those those routes as well. And again I um we have board members who rep who and
091staff who are uh liaison liaison or whatever it is contacts for all of those uh different organizations. So let's pursue those um and uh then we will meet I think our regular meeting Jody March 16th. >> Yes March 16th and then EOC also meets on March 20th. >> All right. Um, we may need a EOC meeting before then, but I can we can talk about that offline. Um, and then we need to look at uh the number themselves and and I'm I don't mean to put Phil on the spot, but I think Phil has already reached out to Collars. He is our owner's representative at this point or they are our owner's rep at this point. Um, and so in terms of reviewing the EDS specs, reviewing the estimate, uh, you know, kind of getting
092a a second opinion, if you will, that some of that could be done by Collers. Uh, so I'm going to ask, you know, Phil to pursue that as, you know, as well. And then, um, if the EOC group, you know, needs to sort of dig into the EDS specs better and the the pricing and hear more details, we can do that. So, that's a lot to do between now and our next meeting, but let's give it a try, right? This is hard stuff. And um for those watching, this is kind of how the sausage is made, I guess. Uh it's not it's not a straight line. Uh any adi any advice, comments, questions? That sound like a plan between now and March 16th? meet, you know, again, contact those organizations, meet with the politicians, meet
093with the first select woman, um do all we can to uncover grants, um to make political arguments on higher reimbursement, and then also to dig into um some of the edspec questions and the what could we if we needed to reduce, what would that look like and what would that mean? and also pursue, you know, do we have the budget um to ask Lamb to do some more research on a 58 school versus a 68 school. That sound okay? All right. I'm seeing nodding question nodding heads and I'm going to take that as a good sign. So, um is there a any other items that I have missed? I'm sure there are, but anything anyone else wants to bring up tonight? related. All right. Is there a motion to adjurnn? >> I so move. >>
094Thank you, Lisa. >> All right. Going once, going twice. All in favor of journing. All right. So, be careful out there, as they say, as we try to pursue all these all these various leads and work. So thank