Committee members closed the meeting with an extended discussion of public outreach and community messaging, including how to explain to residents why renovation of the existing Neary building is not the chosen path.

Member Mark urged the committee to make clear the existing building’s limitations — accessibility, sprinklering and long‑deferred upgrades — and to explain why phased renovation would be disruptive and potentially more expensive. “No one who is not going to support this project should feel comfortable voting no,” Mark said, urging clearer public education about safety and long‑term cost trade‑offs.

The committee agreed to expand outreach to seniors and other constituencies. Staff confirmed a senior‑center presentation is on the calendar for March 24 and noted a lack of strong turnout at earlier on‑site open houses, which committee members said underlines the need for multiple outreach channels.

Outreach materials: staff asked consultants to prepare an updated one‑page summary comparing renovation versus replacement, a clear explanation of contingency and soils choices, and a draft Q&A about the timing and risks of federal and state energy incentives. Committee members asked that any edits be submitted in writing so the design team can incorporate them before the short reconvening next Thursday morning.

Next steps: committee scheduled a brief reconvening next Thursday morning (8:30 a.m.) to approve finalized narrative and drawings and to enable the project team to meet MSBA submittal timing.