2024-02-15-PBC-min - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

groups completed the second meeting to review and respond. The first meeting was intended to be a listening session and all members were heard from. It was stated that it was a successful activity. A lot of the conversation was framed within the overview of the integrated design policy, and the goal was to get as much input as possible. The second meeting was an opportunity to take in all of the feedback and dive deeper into some of the topics. The third meeting will be an opportunity to draft recommendations and discuss them in a group format. There will be a lot of content and a lot of discussion to take place in the two-hour meeting. The mechanism that was planned to be used was to distribute a listing of the recommendations that came from the first two meetings in a spreadsheet format. The list will be sent out in advance of the third meeting so that the focus group can come to the meeting with thoughts on it. It was asked if the list would be posted on the website or would be distributed directly to the focus groups. Matthew Rice stated that it would be sent to the focus group attendees initially, but there would be discussions regarding widely distributing it in the future. It was asked if there was documentation of the full meetings for individuals who could not be there for the full meeting. It was reported that all of the meeting notes and recordings were available on the website. The educational planning and equity focus group covered the process and understanding of how the activities will combine with the plan. The sustainability/Mechanical, Electrical, Plumbing (MEP) systems focus group covered energy, MEP systems, and healthfulness. One of the most involved discussions was surrounding the net zero energy equation, and a rough analysis was performed. The site, safety, and security focus group discussed the natural environment, site design, programmatical aspects surrounding site design, athletic resources, and safety and security related to active and passive systems. There was a lot of discussion surrounding sustainability and how the building and site operate together, including electrical vehicle parking. The exterior and interior design focus group discussed the architecture of both the interior and exterior of the building. There was no design proposed yet, but it will be coming in later stages. The tradeoffs were discussed. It was stated that the focus groups were very informative. It was asked when projects did the reconvening later was a preliminary scheme looked at and responded to it. Matthew Rice confirmed this was the case. It was asked if the reconvene was to come back when there was a scheme or multiple schemes to do more focus group work. Matthew Rice stated that in the later phases, the focus groups would look at particular design options. Mike Burton reported that there were meetings from July to October 2024 to discuss the designs. Matthew Rice stated that there was typically an iteration of focus groups for design during the schematic design phase. It was asked if the focus group on-site, safety, and security will discuss security on the inside. Matthew Rice reported that there was a little bit of discussion on the interior and that future discussions will evolve to discuss interior security. It was suggested to have work sessions regarding sustainability and reimbursement. A proposed school size of 475,000 sf is the current estimate being used for sustainability purposes. It was discussed to have hands-on sessions to see where inputs were needed. It was noted that a working session might be desirable before activity 169 on June 5. Mike Burton presented the project schedule overview. The current phase was the Preferred Schematic Report (PSR) phase, which will conclude in June. The meetings from January were presented. In February, the project team will review the Existing Conditions, the Educational Program, the Evaluation Criteria, and the Space Summary. The Evaluation Criteria comments were due on February 16th and a couple of comments had been received. The Space Summary will be issued on February 16th for initial review. There will be a lot of content at the February 26th SBC meeting. It was suggested that the April 11th meeting could be moved to April 18th and that there may be other slight adjustments. It was asked when the narrative to the estimator was planned to be complete and if there was an activity. It was suggested that the evaluation criteria had different weights amongst the criteria. Mike Burton stated that weighting criteria could be brought up at the SBC meeting. Urgent Business There was no further business. Motion to adjourn, all approved. Next meeting: 7:45 pm