total time: 43.17 minutes
total words: 2283
total time: 8.54 minutes
total words: 789
total time: 9.01 minutes
total words: 522
total time: 2.32 minutes
total words: 177
[Jenny Graham]: Please be advised that on Tuesday, November 26th at 5 PM there'll be a strategic and capital planning subcommittee meeting held through remote participation via Zoom. This meeting is being recorded. The meeting can be viewed live on Medford Public Schools YouTube channel through Medford Community Media on your local cable, which is Comcast. 9, 8 or 22 and Verizon channel 43, 45 or 47. since the meeting will be held remotely participants can log in or call by using the following link or call number. The meeting ID is 917-9449-2754. Questions or concerns can be submitted during the meeting by emailing Jenny Graham at medford.k12.ma.us. Those submitting must include the following, your first and last name, your Medford Street address, and your question or comment. This is a continuation of a meeting, so I'm still going to take the roll. Is that right, generally speaking? Yeah, yeah, okay. So member Reinfeld. Present. Member Ruseau.
[SPEAKER_07]: Present.
[Jenny Graham]: And member Graham, I'm here. So three present, zero absent. So as I mentioned, this is a continuation of our first subcommittee meeting that we held back on 10-15. And the goal of these two meetings is to sort of put together and formalize Um, a view of our capital plan for the schools and think about, um, what kind of recommendations we want to make to the broader school committee. Um. Which will happen at a meeting in December, I think it's the 11th. And I see that we have a couple of guests joining us. So we have Alicia Hunt from the Office of Planning, Development and Sustainability, and we have Paul Riggi from the City's Facility Team. So welcome. Thank you for joining us. I'm actually hopeful this meeting will not take an hour and a half, but this is the first time we've done this process, so we tried to make sure that we had enough space in the schedule to do all the things that we needed to do. So I'm going to bring up the capital plan that we worked through last time and just provide a little bit of context for those of you who are newer to the conversation, just as soon as I can find the plan. Here it is. And this capital plan, the way that we created this is we started with Um, last year's capital plan, which was created in a meeting, um, as like a starting point back in, like, May or June. Um, and then, um, from there, um, Peter, uh, did solicit input from the building principals to say, um, what other capital needs exist in the district that we may or may not sort of have on our radar in terms of, like, things that we see. And that's sort of how this list has come to pass. One of the things we talked a lot about in the last meeting was sort of this intersection of a whole bunch of work happening at McGlynn and Andrews that this committee is aware of and apprised of. And sort of how does that play into the overall capital plan. And I actually met yesterday with Director Hunt and Dr. Cushing and the OPM for the project to try to get some clarity around. Some of the work that's going on and just sort of having some discussion and we, we sort of did this when we met last time there was some question about, like, what's included in that project and what is excluded from that project. I think some of that has come into focus a little bit more, or at least we have sort of a directional focus that can help. And the other thing that we talked about with the OPM was sort of the timeline to prepare to keep the project on track. And we asked the OPM also to be available to join us at our committee of the whole meeting, which actually will become a special school committee meeting. Just to give us an update on the project itself, but I can I'm happy to relay sort of what we talked about yesterday in terms of, like, you know, sort of things that are lumped into this and things that are excluded from this so that we can revise this capital plan. Because that's, like, the biggest block of things that are in process right now. So, in scope is the. the piece that we think about as HVAC, right, for both schools, McGlynn and Andrews. So that's in scope. There's not been a question about that. But a couple of other things that we talked about and confirmed yesterday as directionally sort of where we're going to include includes both the roof rebuild in some fashion at the McGlynn and the network splits and the mini splits that are in the network closets in those two buildings. So that's what these two rows are and I'm just going to move them up here because this is up here is stuff that we're saying is in progress and funded and all of these things Um, all of these things sort of are bundled into the. project at this time. And what that is going to allow is for the OPM to actually, because we have sort of like a chicken and egg situation going on, right, where we say, like, how are we going to pay for this? Well, it depends on how much it costs. Well, it depends on what's included. Well, it depends on how much it costs, right? So which is sort of very typical at this point in these kinds of projects. But what we talked about yesterday was that We are proceeding as though a bond will need to be issued by the city for this project and that it will include these components and solar for the roof. And that will enable the OPM to actually go put that package together with pricing so that then we can look at that comprehensively and say, OK, yes, that is the go forward plan. And yes, that is the funding mechanism. The other thing we talked a little bit about as a group was in order to keep this project on track so that it can be completed before the next school year, there is a tiny window that we've got to get exactly right between now and February. If you all recall, at the last school committee meeting, we took a vote to authorize the mayor to enter into a CM at risk contract. And Paul and Alicia, feel free to jump in if I get this wrong, but what that allows us to do is bring the construction manager into the project sooner than we might otherwise do. And that allows them to do things like. Get the equipment purchased that we are going to need that has long wait times while we wait for, like, the final design to be completed. So the timeline that we talked about yesterday was that really in order to keep on track, we need to be in a position to fund. the CM contract startup cost and the equipment cost in the month of January, which does mean that all of this question about funding and bonding has to make its way through the process between now and then, which does include an appearance at the council meeting, then an advertisement, and then a second appearance. Is that right, Alicia? Yes. Okay. Yes. And there's many more steps than that. That's like a grossly simplified version of what's happening. But what we did ask the OPM to do was to be prepared to come to our special meeting on the 11th to give us an update on the project, and particularly that timeline of what needs to happen, what do they need from us, do they need from the city side, et cetera, to make sure that the project stays on track. And that's the McGlynn project in a nutshell.
[Erika Reinfeld]: Any questions about that one erica yep just to refresh the funding source for that some of it is allocate where's that coming from how much of that is already allocated and how much of it needs to be directed. The final number until recently.
[Jenny Graham]: Yeah, the is under contract and being paid for. And I believe that is coming out of money. Is that right? Yeah. And then all of the rest of the costs, we have to bond in order to have the money to do that. So that's why the bonding process is so. Important timeline wise, because. If we can't get those things in place in January, it's going to push the whole project. Right back and then we're going to be back at, you know, in impeding on the start of school.
[Erika Reinfeld]: Okay, yeah, because I know we had designated some things for each back, but it's all bonded. Thank you.
[Jenny Graham]: Um, also includes move. Similar to the end network. OK. So in terms of in progress process activities, those are that's sort of one big block of activity. Does that make sense? And we would consider all those together. So I'm putting that above the funding line, although obviously there's still a lot of work to do to secure all the right approvals, et cetera, for the bond. But that's sort of where we're at with that.
[Erika Reinfeld]: Does that make sense so far? Yes, I'll just put in a request to keep it bundled when we present to the full committee. We don't need to go back and forth on every element of it with that funding source.
[Jenny Graham]: Yeah, and the school committee, actually, we won't vote on the funding piece of it because it is bonded. So the city is the only authority that can take out the bond.
[Erika Reinfeld]: Right. I just think the rest of the committee is going to want to know that and see that in front of them.
[Jenny Graham]: Yeah. Got it. Okay. So the other. The other thing that we did talk about that I think is really important is we talked with the OPM about these recommissioning assessments. And that's another place where, broadly speaking, the OPM is on board to do those things, but funding has been such that There's not clarity about when we wanted to do that because we didn't tell them and we didn't tell them because we didn't have money. So that's 1 thing that I think we can sort of start to clear up what. We talked about yesterday in addition is that is opening up an accelerated repair window, like, usually between usually, like, between January and. Maybe April, March, April, and that accelerated repairs for things like roofs, boilers. HVAC, et cetera, MSP has adopted a new process where they'll open up a window this coming year. January to June or January to April, and then they will do it every other year. And so if you hop into the window this year in January, you would learn if you. We're able to be funded sometime around now. So it is a long process to get the notification to start. But if we are interested in doing that, we have to either get in this year or it's two more years so it would be January 2027 before we would have another go at it. I did talk to MSBA last week and they did confirm that yes districts who are in the core program can apply for accelerated repair projects Um, so I think what probably makes sense is for this. Um, re, commissioning assessment line to sort of split into. To maybe 2 lines 1 is a mini assessment that would enable us to. If we need to take advantage of that accelerated repair program so that assessment could get us ready to submit for Brooks, Roberts, and Mississauga if we find that the needs there are pressing and urgent when we talk about roofs and HVAC. Um, so what we may want to consider recommending to the committee is that we pursue a mini assessment that looks at those pieces that are eligible for accelerated repair in an effort to put forward, um. Uh, an application in that program this year, um. If we qualify, but we don't know yet. So, um, the thought the thought that we batted around yesterday was, let's. Try to, um, do some sort of mini assessment. Um, the is going to figure out what the cost of that is. And based on that mini assessment, it will inform our ability to go into this accelerated repair program. And then once we have clarity on that, then we can circle back around to the sort of like regular routine recommissioning projects into the future. But that would get us sort of on track. Does that make sense? Any questions about that? He was going to give us the price, so once I get that, I will fill that in. But I think one thing we may want to do is identify this as a thing that we are recommending that we take up urgently. So in the project status, there may be some things where we say, we're recommending that we do this in FY25. And then we can have that discussion with the committee and make sure that they agree with us. I don't know what you all think about that.
[SPEAKER_07]: Sounds good to me.
[Erika Reinfeld]: Yeah, I think it makes sense if it's going to up the chances of getting some funding for these other projects that we know are coming. And are those, do you know, are those typically. Funded at the full cost, is it a portion and then the district needs to come up with the rest or district slash city?
[Jenny Graham]: Yeah, I think it's usually a portion. I don't I don't think it's full funding, but it is a piece of it. Okay, and then. The other idea that I had is that we. At some point talk about with the OPM this idea of a district wide electrification enablement assessment and where that might fit and whether that is in the scope of their work. And we did not do that yesterday because we had terrible full plate, but I don't. think we necessarily need to recommend that we proceed with that in FY 25. But that could be something that we circle back to with the OPM who obviously is getting to know our buildings intimately and would be in probably a decent position to be able to do that.
[Erika Reinfeld]: This was one of the items where I was wondering if there was any alignment with similar efforts, parallel efforts in other city buildings?
[Jenny Graham]: That's a great question. Alicia?
[Alicia Hunt]: Hi, good evening. So yes, there will be. We are applying, we're basically doing the certification to be a particular kind of green communities, a green communities leadership program. And through that program, there's going to be technical assistance to help with some of this evaluation of buildings. And we always include our school buildings in that so that that would be in what we say we own for something like that. Brenda Pike in my office is working through that process and is keeping an eye out for those timelines and she I wasn't anticipating that question this evening, but I could easily get her to give you guys some information on that so that we could look at the technical assistance, because there's a lot of incentives from the state to move forward with electrification. So the whole make a plan, figure it out, and then help with the actual doing is stuff they're looking to do. And so we're putting ourselves into that program.
[Erika Reinfeld]: Yeah, I would love to that timeline. That's fantastic. And do you think it's possible to get a sense of the timeline before our committee of the whole term special meeting?
[Alicia Hunt]: Yeah, I'll shoot her a note asking her if she could put something together. I suspected if she was sitting here right now, she could have just given it to you off the top of her head. But I can't. That's why I have good staff.
[Erika Reinfeld]: Thank you.
[Jenny Graham]: Thank you. I think the other question is around, let me just move this down here. Any of these other projects that we are suggesting, That we are recommending like, proceeding with an F. Y. And we last last time we met, we talked about. The 5 pump control in the McGlynn. The failed flashing behind the Brook facade, the brick facade and the freight motor elevator is being like, and the door sweeps and dumpster mitigation being. urgent types of projects that we should consider recommending that the school committee look for funding for? I don't know if you all have any thoughts about that in terms of which ones we should be recommending.
[Paul Ruseau]: I don't know how many years we've been talking about bike racks. I'm kind of tired of talking about bike racks. And, well, it's not a lot compared to a lot of the other things. It still surprises me how much bike racks will cost us.
[Jenny Graham]: Christiane, did we lose you?
[Peter Cushing]: No, I apologize. And I have a baby in the background, so I do apologize for that as well. Well, not apologize for the baby, but she's a little distraught. The bike racks are in the process of being ordered. We received $20,000 from Community Preservation to install modern up-to-date bike racks and bike repair stations for the McGlynn, Andrews, and the high school. So those are in the process of being ordered. Surprisingly, there are delays in that supply chain. I also, I apologize, can you hear me?
[Jenny Graham]: Yes, but so there's two pieces. There's one that is above the line and it says it's grant funded by the CPC. And there's one that's below the line that's for Brooks, Mr. Tuck and Roberts. And I think that's the one Paul is referring to. If you're.
[Peter Cushing]: Yep, I mean, we could definitely do that or wait until the next round of CPC funding in the summertime to request of that and demonstrate the project that's completed. or just take it out of the local capital budget?
[Jenny Graham]: If the CPC has been amenable to that project, and we think that that's a good thing to at least try to leverage the CPC funding for, maybe that's what we recommend to the school committee. Questions, thoughts, Erica? Well, I agree. OK, cool.
[Peter Cushing]: I also remember Graham. I also it appears I updated the wrong capital planning spreadsheet with numbers for McGlynn and Andrews parking. That's in the neighborhood of $1.3 million to do. Granite curbs is $125 per linear foot. comes out to about $600,000. The pavement is about $400,000 to do the bus loops and the parking lots at those two schools. And then in speaking to the city engineer, Owen Wartella, he suggested because of the price fluctuations in asphalt to do a 30% contingency, which is $300,000. So that would be $1.3 million on that. The the re the plaza, the ADA compliance of that. I believe I forwarded it this email on on October 22nd, but that is a ballpark. And unfortunately, it's it's 1 of those things. Another chicken and an egg. You don't know it until you're necessarily into it. in the neighborhood of $300,000 to $600,000 to fix that plaza, the entry plazas for the McGlynn and the Andrews. The drainage at the Brooks to do the curbing is about $7,500. There are also two, there are two French drains that, number one, seem a bit undersized. And number two, and once again, I apologize, definitely need to be cleaned out, but they seem undersized for the water that they might be required to handle. So that would probably be in the neighborhood of an additional $15,000 for 22,500 in that ballpark. And I will go on mute and I'm here if you need me.
[Jenny Graham]: Can I just ask you a question about that one? Is that assuming DPW has the capacity to do the work or that somebody else is doing it?
[Peter Cushing]: That would be somebody else doing it. I think DPW has a lot on their plate. And if we want to get the project done, we may have to get the project done.
[Jenny Graham]: And so the front plaza, we had somewhere between 300,000 and 550,000 between design and construction, is that correct?
[Peter Cushing]: Yes. I think the higher number came in at 600. Okay.
[Erika Reinfeld]: That was one of the ones we flagged saying, should this be concurrent with HVAC? Did we get an answer on that? It's not sounding like it's tied to that or there's any real connection.
[Peter Cushing]: There is no real connection. Okay.
[Jenny Graham]: Director Hunt, while we have you here, the issue is both at the McGlynn and the Andrews, the front plaza is settling and causing an ADA issue. Are there Other funding sources besides just city cash that we should be considering here from a grant perspective or particularly because of the ADA aspects of that.
[Alicia Hunt]: I haven't seen any. good funding sources for ADA compliance. There tends to be an attitude of it's your responsibility, and so you should fund it. When we've seen things, they've been so small that, you know, a couple of thousand dollars here or there. Sure. The paperwork usually.
[Erika Reinfeld]: Yeah. And former member McLaughlin had mentioned a grant that I know was a challenge logistically to apply for. And then when we did get an application in, we were not funded for it. I don't know if that's something that we can revisit. I think Dr. Cushing might have been the person involved with that, but also Director Nwaje.
[Jenny Graham]: Dr. Cushing, are you there?
[Peter Cushing]: I am. Could you quickly restate the question?
[Erika Reinfeld]: I was asking about the grant that member McLaughlin mentioned. I know we couldn't get the application in one year and another year we got it in, but it didn't come through. I'm wondering so.
[Peter Cushing]: Yes, so director Nuala Jay worked on that this past year. She encountered the same frustrations and issues with that online submission. Um, uh, like, uh, frustration to the point of not being able, uh, in similar to what we went through, um, of, um, it, it is the most archaic submission system I've ever seen. And, uh, it has caused, uh, you know, we're going to have to work at it this year, but to figure it out, but that was taken on the city side this year.
[Jenny Graham]: So it was taken on the city side, but ultimately not successful.
[Peter Cushing]: Yes.
[Jenny Graham]: In submission.
[Peter Cushing]: Correct.
[Jenny Graham]: And so when you say we're gonna have to do it again this year, who do you mean is going to do it?
[Peter Cushing]: Oh, we're gonna have to figure out, we're gonna reach out to the state partners on it to try to figure out how the best way to actually submit this is because we have proven in two years unsuccessful.
[Jenny Graham]: And who's we?
[Peter Cushing]: I tried to submit it twice in.
[Jenny Graham]: No, but who's reaching out, I think, is my question. Like, is this something Francis is doing? Is this something we are doing? Like, who's doing this reaching out part?
[Peter Cushing]: So it'll either be myself or Francis to do that work, to reach out to them and to figure it out.
[Jenny Graham]: Something's fall crashing my house. Not sure what it is.
[Erika Reinfeld]: Then let me ask a clarifying question about these items. Are we out of compliance or are we in danger of being out of compliance?
[Peter Cushing]: I would say that Right now the buildings are not accessible under the Americans with Disabilities Act for entry into the buildings by the main entrance and the doors affected.
[Erika Reinfeld]: And are the fixes that are costed out here, I know the range is big, will those have sufficient longevity that we won't need to be looking at this again in the immediate future? Is this a bad fix or is this a real fix?
[Peter Cushing]: Yeah, in speaking to the people at Weston and Sampson, they're gonna, if I remember correctly from the October 22nd email, they think that this will be a permanent fix because they think that the settling has occurred. But once they get into it, they'll be able to test and to see, to make sure. But the idea is that we're not doing this once every 20 years. The idea is to fix it, to maintain it, and to make sure that it is still accessible.
[Jenny Graham]: And Dr. Cushing, when you say we need to work with the state partners, who are they?
[Peter Cushing]: I'm forgetting the exact name of the office that runs that grant.
[Jenny Graham]: Is it a Commonwealth office, or is it a private?
[Peter Cushing]: Yes, it is a common. No, it's a Commonwealth office.
[Jenny Graham]: Do you think it would be helpful to reach out to our state delegation to ask for their assistance? Or Alicia, do you have thoughts on how to navigate this? I know we haven't given you really any information.
[Alicia Hunt]: I wanted to get a clarifying if you don't mind was is the problem that you're talking about is the system combines and is it literally the application or is the problem getting the right materials together to qualify?
[Peter Cushing]: Nope, we've had all the materials to go to qualify we've had all the appropriate plans requirements, all those types of things. It is a form that times out in an exceptionally short amount of time it does not save. We have, on numerous occasions, entered and re-entered and tried. We were told, not this past year, but the previous year when I did the submissions, that, you know, they would accept it, that it was in, but then, you know, I don't think we qualified, but it is the tool itself to go online and to enter it is an exceedingly archaic submission tool to work with. On the school side, we've moved to a system called GEMS. It is unlike any other grant submission software or program that I've seen in having done this now with both state and federal agencies.
[Alicia Hunt]: I ask because we've run into technical problems with grant applications in the past, and usually when we reach out to the granting agency, they are aware that their system is a problem and they have a workaround. So it's surprising to me that they haven't just said to you, just email us the forms.
[Peter Cushing]: Yeah, that has not been said, and there have been no workarounds offered. At least when I did it.
[Paul Righi]: If I can interject, it's the Massachusetts Office on Disability that is providing these grants. Thank you.
[Jenny Graham]: The Disability Commission?
[Paul Righi]: No, the Massachusetts Office on Disability, unless they've renamed themselves. They may have renamed themselves to this, but I know I spoke this week to Frances about this, and she said she submitted it, and then the application disappeared from the system. And they don't understand why. It is a problematic system. You can't, you actually, when you start the application, you have to complete it. When you're doing it, there's no way on their site to save it and then come back later if they ask you for information. So it's very cumbersome and doesn't operate like any other website that's out there.
[Peter Cushing]: And just so the subcommittee is aware, 18 months ago or so, or 13 months ago, whenever it was that I was working on it, we were looking to do curb cuts at Medford High School. We were looking to do wayfinding signs within Medford High School and in other places in the district. for accessibility as those were the two primary fixes that we were looking for. We were looking for 19 curb cuts, I believe it was, at Medford High School, as well as to do the parking improvements for ADA accessible spaces. That work has been completed on the local budget, but we did that work at the end of last year, April of last year.
[Jenny Graham]: I'm going to suggest that our recommendation to the committee is that we successfully, for the first time, submit this grant and that meanwhile, I'm going to send a note to our state delegation asking for their assistance in how they can help get this moving in the right direction. Dr. Rapunzel?
[Marice Edouard-Vincent]: Yes, at the time when we encountered all of the technical difficulties, I was in communication with Representative Sean Garberly. So he was aware. But at that point in time, everything had been lost. We thought it was in there and it got lost. So he was aware of all of the technical difficulty that we had. So he may be a good starting point when we stop the process again to keep him looped in from the beginning.
[Jenny Graham]: Okay. Um I will send a note to reach out to him if the if this group and then ultimately the committee is agreeable that the recommendation is we should submit but grant the share.
[Erika Reinfeld]: I think we should I also think we can't be dependent on this grant coming through to get in compliance for accessibility. I think this has to be a priority. With or without the grant.
[Jenny Graham]: So, let's see if we can't move that along. Grant wise, and if not, that may need to be a request.
[Erika Reinfeld]: And then you asked what else here in the shaded portion is a priority. When you say the flashing failed, the word failed is always worrisome. What does that mean for those of us who are not stonemasons?
[Jenny Graham]: It means it rains inside the kindergarten when there's a driving sideways wind.
[Erika Reinfeld]: Yeah. And we're fixing that for the roofs on other buildings. That also feels like a... Mend.
[Peter Cushing]: Well, and so my question, I am sorry to interrupt my question on this is all right. You know, we could move this project forward now with, you know, with. Funds that are becoming available, or, you know, like, I mean, this is a long standing problem, so I'd like to get it fixed. But I could also see a realm where it's rolled into the roof replacement slash roof repair restoration. But I also don't necessarily want to wait on it.
[Jenny Graham]: How is the flashing on the brick related to the roof?
[Peter Cushing]: It's all where that section of the building connects back in. Basically, while that work is done on the roof and building envelope, I would make sure that it is written into the scope that that has to be addressed.
[Jenny Graham]: The flashing issue behind the brick is not at the roof line, is it?
[Peter Cushing]: It appears to be. It appears to be.
[Jenny Graham]: Alicia, have you all talked about that piece of that at all? Or should we ask Tom about potential integration of that into the bigger project?
[Alicia Hunt]: Yeah, I know there are some flashing issues on the roof. I hadn't heard that there was a problem down the side, like behind the bricks and all. If it is in fact that the water's getting in at the roof level, that makes sense as opposed to, you know, coming really straight through the wall, which sounds odd to me, but I don't know, it could be. We need to get a full quote an assessment for the roof. But I think that if we mentioned this problem to the people looking at that, they could tell us if they believe that it's a problem. I see. We already know that.
[Peter Cushing]: We did a water infiltration test. Yes, we did a water infiltration test that I've circulated around. Alicia, I apologize that I didn't circulate it to you. And there's, again, once again, the topic of the night, chicken and egg. In order to repair this and build a scope of work, we needed a scope of work to build the scope of work in another circular issue.
[Alicia Hunt]: I mean, if it's in any way related to the flashing on the roof, then it clearly makes sense that it should be at least. Because I wonder, I don't know, maybe Peter knows, is there work that needs to be done literally on the bricks and behind the bricks, or if it's just roof-level work? If it's roof-level work, then do it with rebuilding the roof or even the roof wall connection.
[Peter Cushing]: It appears that it may be the roof wall connection as well as removing three courses of bricks along a section of the rear of the building.
[Erika Reinfeld]: Will that come out in this mini recommissioning assessment that we've just split off?
[Jenny Graham]: Well, we already have done that for this problem. We just haven't funded it to actually fix it.
[Peter Cushing]: So I think it's a known problem that requires funding. It's about $80,000. I spoke with a community member who has extensive construction background about this because he was surprised at how much it would cost. And then we looked at what was in the high level assessment. He was like, oh, well. That seems actually appropriate. And so it would generally speaking be about $20,000 in construction management costs to manage the project and make sure it's done right. And then $80,000 in actual equipment time materials.
[Alicia Hunt]: Right, so one thing is that I see is that if we already have people mobilized to be doing work on the building and to oversee construction, etc. Then there's some cost savings, right? Like there is this idea of mobilization, getting the contractors and stuff out to the site. And then every time you do that, that's an added cost because of all their overheads. So if it is an option to do it together, then there is some economies of savings, there is, you know, it's certainly that's, and I do question, can you actually fix it without doing the roof? Like, are those two integrally, like, if you were to fix the area behind the bricks, but not the part on the roof, which is the flashing? Does that defeat the purpose and the problem reoccurs? So you actually need to do them together.
[Peter Cushing]: And then another idea would be to just replace this section of the roof now and, you know, the course of bricks and all that. But I don't know what that would do to increase that $100,000 cost when adding in the roof or roof reconditioning.
[Paul Ruseau]: Yeah, but this is one we definitely get called on every time it happens, because it's not like a little water streaming down. It's a lot.
[Alicia Hunt]: We're still talking about the McGlynn, right? Yes. It doesn't make any sense to do part of the roof and not the whole, like if you're going to do the whole roof within the next six months.
[Peter Cushing]: Sorry, Director Hunt, this roof is a lower portion of the building that juts out. The classrooms in that area jut out probably about 30 or 40 feet. And so they have their own separate lower roof. It's a one-story roof. So I would normally agree with you 100%, however, it is almost a separate roof from the main larger roof. Not almost, it is.
[Alicia Hunt]: My apologies, I'm looking at the overview and I never realized that that existed as a separate little roof.
[Peter Cushing]: Yep, it's a fun architectural thing that I wish didn't exist. And I mean, member Ruseau is 100% right. You know, we get called on it. It is definitely something that was brought to the committee's attention, I believe, in November or October of 2021. There was another thing I was going to add, but hopefully it'll come back to me. I apologize.
[Jenny Graham]: Okay, so I can get a note to the, we can get a note to the about. This piece, so that there's at least an opportunity to talk about whether inclusion in the project is an economy of scale or not. But also. We can talk to them about. Whether there's an opportunity to advance this work ahead of the rest of the work, because it is its own separate little roof. That is not the same as, like. The bigger roof project, so we can get that information and integrate it before the special meeting that we have.
[Peter Cushing]: And member Graham I do have one other number that I I think I forgot to mention earlier are our roofing inspector conducted an infrared scan of the roof. I believe, and Director Riggi can jump onto this, the initial thoughts on a visual inspection of the roof a few weeks ago, the thought was that it was about maybe 10% wet, that that could be fixed. The infrared scan revealed 20 to 25%. water saturation, water infiltration, the right terms. I'm not doing right now, but he then changed his recommendation and said that it should either be a reconditioning which would be similar to what was done at the Andrews, or a roof replacement which would increase the insulation. The number I'm recollecting on the roof reconditioning slash restoration is $1.4 to $1.6 million. Whereas the roof replacement, which includes all new insulation, but both products are guaranteed or are listed at a 20 year roof. So, you know, the white night slash film that goes over the roof. similar to the Andrews is 20 years, a new roof, 20 years. The price on the second option for full roof replacement with the added insulation is at $2.8 to $3.0 million. OK. Got it.
[Jenny Graham]: Thank you did you also get a price for the dump the door sweeps and dumpster mitigation.
[Peter Cushing]: So the door sweeps are are nowhere near as expensive as we thought that can be covered in the local budget and will be the dumpsters. I'm awaiting emails back from waste management on what the cost would be to move from. We currently own our dumpsters and own our equipment to move towards a lease option on those. I do not have that number at this time.
[Jenny Graham]: When you get those numbers, can you let me know and I'll update this?
[SPEAKER_07]: Absolutely.
[Jenny Graham]: OK. OK, so we have some items here. The network closet mini splits for Ms. Duck Roberts in Medford High. Dr. Cushing, you were in the process of parsing out that estimate of McGlynn-Andrews versus everybody else, is that right?
[Peter Cushing]: It is. I have not finished that and we'll get that to you as well.
[Jenny Graham]: Can you help us understand how urgent is this need at Brooks-Roberts, Mississauga, Medford High?
[Peter Cushing]: So it's beyond urgent. The systems have essentially, the systems have failed. They're 20 years old, many of them original to the building, and they have either all failed or in their last stages of failing. As member Rousseau can definitely back me up and attest, network infrastructure requires climate controlled. They generate a tremendous amount of heat, and especially in those small closets, they need to be climate controlled or quite literally they will cook themselves as we are seeing. One other project that I'm working on is rebuilding our network infrastructure. We have a significant amount of E-rate funding available to us. that we have not accessed, the lion's share of it. But in order to access those funds, we would have to put up in the neighborhood of $150,000 to $200,000 because basically the government does a 60% match. So we're right now building a proposal with our E-rate consultant on this. However, the E-rate money does not, it only supports networking and direct network infrastructure. It does not consider these mini splits and cooling systems as part of that infrastructure. It is ancillary to, although really required. So those systems have failed. I do have a report. on that that i can share with everybody from royal air met with them and went through every single system in the district and what would be needed to replace them and then b2q has done the designing of it which you know it's basically figuring out the system of the mini splits to put in there are a few various options but they are Right now, the refrigeration and HVAC world seems to be going through a lot of shifts with various refrigerants. The equipment we'd need to replace them really would not be available until Q2 of next year. So that April, May, June timeframe.
[Jenny Graham]: And are you Are you suggesting that we need to prioritize this in FY 25 or that we should prioritize this for FY 26?
[Peter Cushing]: I think it needs to be prioritized across the district as an urgent need. It would be unwise to replace the network infrastructure in an environment that is simply going to cause it to fail.
[Jenny Graham]: So you're quickly 25. So 25 does that recommend proceeding in FY 25 is the recommendation. Yeah. Yes. Yes. Yeah. Okay. Um, and then we have, um, the fire pump control at the McGlynn elementary, uh, that can be removed that has been replaced last night. I'm going to say it's complete then. Perfect. Okay.
[Paul Ruseau]: Do we even have a section for complete? First time for everything.
[Jenny Graham]: Great. We put it at the top. The first thing in a new tab is what that is. Uh, yeah, project status complete instead of in progress. Excellent. Uh, okay. We have the freight elevator motor at Medford High.
[Peter Cushing]: Uh, just got an update on this today. Director Reggie was with me when we got it. We're trying to figure out, um, the actual pricing But it has been recommended that when this motor is either rebuilt or replaced, that the controls for the freight elevator already should be replaced because they will need to be replaced shortly thereafter if we don't do it at the same time. So we're going to get some clarity on pricing to make sure that it was fully inclusive of everything I need. But Paul, if you have anything to add on that, please feel free.
[Paul Righi]: No, Dr. Cushing, you're exactly right. The elevator company that I used, when they looked at it, said based on the age of not only the motor, but the controls for the motor, that it would not be in our best interest to do one without the other, because then we're guaranteed that they would work properly going forward.
[Jenny Graham]: And is this member and member so a recommendation for 25.
[Paul Ruseau]: Oh, yeah, I think so.
[Erika Reinfeld]: This isn't on the verge of failing or this isn't already failed.
[Peter Cushing]: It failed due to the flood last year.
[Paul Righi]: The motor is not even in the building anymore. It's with one of the elevator companies. So yeah, it has failed.
[Jenny Graham]: Got it. And the door sweeps and dumpster mitigation, are we putting that in a recommend proceeding in 25 category?
[Peter Cushing]: I think if I can offer a suggestion, I think both of those should be. I want to get not just cost, but a real understanding of the dumpsters. I can't believe, yep, so I would like to make sure I get a comprehensive understanding of the dumpsters and what needs to be done.
[Paul Ruseau]: Can you remind us what the dumpster situation is?
[Peter Cushing]: So, they're, they're essentially they appear to be, they've been all the dumpsters have been previously repaired. They've rusted previously. They've been sent back to waste management. We've paid for repairs and what director McLaughlin has told me is that, you know, there's, there's no more opportunity to really repair them. So I don't see why we would want to purchase dumpsters again. Seems like if we have a problem with a dumpster in the future, we're leasing it. Waste management, please come take the dumpster and replace it with something that's going to be preventing rodents and leaking trash and things like that.
[Alicia Hunt]: This is something that we've talked a little bit with waste management about as part of our new waste program for the city. So we do have some pricing with them. We have a direct contact with them. But to be clear, what you have at all the schools are compactors with dumpsters in them that have rotted out. I would like to have a consultant, a waste consultant, just come and take a look because it might be that the, and we have somebody who I believe who could do that for free, who might, it might make sense to have regular dumpsters that are emptied weekly might be cheaper than replacing the compactors. It's a little unclear to me if you can just, like if you rent a dumpster from waste management that you put inside the compactor that actually is possible. I think we may be looking at replacing the compactors with dumpsters emptied weekly, and that might be cheaper than purchasing new compactors. But it's something that, let me hook you up if Director Cushing is the right, sorry, is the right contact to get you in touch with the people at waste management who we've been talking with a little bit about this. It fell off my radar, but we were thinking about it about a year ago.
[Peter Cushing]: Yeah, and that's, I emailed those individuals that we were speaking with a year ago. I'm just awaiting a reply.
[Erika Reinfeld]: I was gonna ask what the timeline for the assessment is, but it sounds like we don't have that number either.
[Peter Cushing]: I also don't know if that would necessarily need to fall under capital if it becomes part of the annual, if we're not making a large purchase of dumpsters and instead we're moving to a lease option, whatever it may be, whatever it may be, but.
[Jenny Graham]: Oh, what I wrote was recommend proceeding in FY 26 potential From the operating budget, because I think realistically. It's the end of the year and 25 ends in June. And if we're going to boil the ocean between now and then, like. Realistically, we're not going to get to doing a replacement of something like this until summer, which is already FY26. So if the goal is between now and then, we figure out what the right go-forward plan is. And whether that's capital or budget or whatever, I think what I'm hearing is it's FY26. Do you guys agree with that?
[Unidentified]: Yes.
[Jenny Graham]: I do. OK. Got it. And then drainage at the fields for the Brooks.
[Peter Cushing]: This year.
[Jenny Graham]: Thank you. That's a very long time coming. My kids are going to graduate before it gets fixed.
[Erika Reinfeld]: And it happened in elementary school when we started this conversation. Do we have what we need to do that? I can't get that. Yeah, it sounds like we have a quote.
[Jenny Graham]: So it's just a funding issue.
[Erika Reinfeld]: And is it going to affect? I don't know how long it takes. Is it? Are people using the field now? Yeah, so is. How long does it take? I remember when the Roberts playground drainage issue was happening and kids couldn't play on the playground and I won't mention that.
[Jenny Graham]: We should be able to. This isn't under the field, it's. On the hill, OK, that's like essentially dumps run off onto the field. But it's because the the hill is not properly drained, so the field. Shouldn't be impacted by the work. I wouldn't think.
[Erika Reinfeld]: OK, so this isn't going to disrupt essential recess activities.
[Jenny Graham]: No, I think so, right, Peter?
[Peter Cushing]: I mean, if anything, maybe a few days, but not nowhere near. Any type of a lengthy disruption.
[Erika Reinfeld]: Okay, I'm in then. Yeah.
[Jenny Graham]: Yeah, got it. And then these items, the other things on the list here. are all this whole group, I think I would suggest that we leave them as not committed. So there are things we have to plan for in the future, but the mini assessment is going to tell us what that means. So many to support taking any like urgent immediate action in terms of funding, but we should leave them on the plan because they are upcoming needs that we know we're going to need to think about. Um, the other remaining items on the list. With district wide security upgrades. And then we have playground renovations also that are. You know, I guess. They're not like urgent things are falling apart, but they were also noted in our last meeting as things we could possibly talk to the CPC about. And then the last thing is the parking lot paving.
[Paul Ruseau]: So can I answer directly on the playground?
[Peter Cushing]: Yeah. Sorry, sir. But happy member. So go ahead. Sorry. My apologies.
[Paul Ruseau]: No, no. I just wanted to talk about the district wide security upgrades. Is there can we parse that a bit? Because there's a portion of that that I think we should do. Sooner or consider doing sooner, and that's the. the key lists, the IDs to get in, the FOBs or whatever they're called, Peter, you have to fill me in on that.
[Peter Cushing]: Key FOBs, and I actually have reached out to the first of the three companies I've worked with previously to update the quotes on that, but to also include, well, our telephone project has been great in all honesty, and I would consider it very successful deployment. One of the problems that we're facing is with the door phones. So when you walk up to any of the five schools, all right, not the high school, but any of the other five schools and not the Curtis Tufts, what you're actually pushing is a telephone that is set to ring someplace. Those are 20 years old. And just we didn't have the money to put in the scope to do that work. And they're having issues, some of them, not all of them. But what would be nice is to also have an integrated doorbell that has a camera so that security or secretarial or building leadership can see who is at the door clearly. Um, so I've had them price out, um, putting those in at, um, the elementary schools, which is two because they basically all have two entrances, um, and then the loading dock. So three at those schools, um, two at the Andrews and I think either two or three at the McGlynn. The McGlynn, while a bigger campus, has an interesting setup that there's really no need for one on the back door if we go to Key Fobs, but one on the main door and one on the loading dock. So I believe we just went with two there for the quote. So I do have those quotes updated. I do believe that that, I would highly recommend it as work that we should do. because it gives you a clear and accurate record of who's entering your building when and provides you with really enhanced security. However, I will say that I realize my limitations and I would recommend that as part of this we either use the house doctors of that the city has set up for architectural firms or some other security management firm to manage the deployment so that it's successful. I have a number on that if you so desire.
[Jenny Graham]: So number so are there three parts, keyless locks, intercom.
[Paul Ruseau]: And the doors. Right, Peter? Yes, one of them was very expensive.
[Peter Cushing]: And that's is that the doors that are the well, no, it's it's it's the camera is the camera upgrading the cameras across the district. was going to be the more expensive. To do key fob access at the schools, which is between three and five, between three and five doors at each school, a few more at Medford High School, and the integrated, like the cameras on the doorbells is, you know, approximately $260,000.
[Jenny Graham]: I'm sorry, it's $260,000 for three to five doors and employee fobs, or it's $260,000 for all of that plus the camera intercom buzzer system.
[Peter Cushing]: All of that at every school, by the way, just so you know, at every school, I apologize, I'm breaking up. At every school, three to five doors, a few more at Medford High School, key fobs and the integrated camera doorbells at the schools, yes, 260.
[Paul Ruseau]: Total for all of them.
[Peter Cushing]: Total for all of them.
[Jenny Graham]: Let me make sure I have this right. Keyless locks and employee bobs, three to five doors at most schools. And then the camera intercom system.
[Peter Cushing]: Included in that for the neighborhood.
[Jenny Graham]: For select entry points. including three at the Brooks, three at the Roberts, three at the Missituk, three at the McGlynn, two at the Andrews.
[Peter Cushing]: Two at the McGlynn, two at the McGlynn.
[Jenny Graham]: Oh, three at Andrews, two at McGlynn?
[Peter Cushing]: Two at Andrews, two at McGlynn, three at Brooks, Roberts, Missituk, and three at Medford High School. Loading dock, main door, door 31. And member Graham, if it were a new school, I would do more there, but I am trying to be responsible fiscally.
[Jenny Graham]: Got it. And so all of that is 260.
[Peter Cushing]: Yeah, which is electrification of doors, network, wiring, cabling, hardware, and all on the same system that we have field tested with our vape sensors. So we're starting to move towards an integrated approach.
[Jenny Graham]: And so what is the remainder of the 1.9?
[Peter Cushing]: That is either upgrading or adding cameras so that essentially every square inch of the Medford Public Schools is covered. I'm not gonna go into the details publicly right now, but so that every square inch is covered. And also that vape sensors are deployed in all middle school bathrooms. as well as some added, I'll term them added security enhancements at points of entry.
[Jenny Graham]: And that's the one, really 1.7.
[Peter Cushing]: In that, well, let's call that 1.9, the high first quote. I did get a quote in the neighborhood of 1.3, 1.4 for all that was just mentioned.
[Jenny Graham]: And the other thing that was in this before was network phone availability in Medford High classrooms.
[SPEAKER_07]: Yep. We can definitely.
[Peter Cushing]: Where does that fall? I believe we can move forward with that in the coming months with existing resources and infrastructure.
[Erika Reinfeld]: So that goes into in progress?
[SPEAKER_07]: I would say yes.
[Jenny Graham]: And there's no capital dollars needed?
[Peter Cushing]: I believe we can do it with existing infrastructure and resources.
[Jenny Graham]: That's amazing. OK.
[Peter Cushing]: Well, hold on. When it's done, it'll be amazing.
[Jenny Graham]: Fair, okay. But the district security updates, if I leave that at 1.7 and then the key lock, the locks and the fobs and the camera buzzer systems as a separate line item for 260, does that sound right?
[Peter Cushing]: Yeah, it does. I mean, though, I'd say the 1.7, you could pull that down more in the 1.4 range. I'd have to get those quotes updated, but. You know, I think more in the 1.4 range. By separating out that 260 ish.
[Jenny Graham]: Okay, and so. Oh, remember, so thank you.
[Paul Ruseau]: So the. I mean, it is already just about December, but the, and I always have to remember July one is the new fiscal year. We don't really do anything in June. Well, we do a lot, but. So do we want the Keyless Bob stuff to be next year or is this year, is it just too late for that?
[Peter Cushing]: So I think my recommendation would be that uh this might be a good use of available now i should say now available funding um but again um yeah i defer to the group but i i believe this is something we might be able to do this year i do want to say though um it's one of those things that i would need assistance with recognizing my own limitations and the amount of projects that I'm currently managing. So we just need to look at that piece of the deployment.
[Paul Ruseau]: Got it. It does seem like a good summer project. I just from a spending money kind of question, I wasn't sure if I should do it sooner.
[Peter Cushing]: But well, and I think that's I think that's like I would agree it is a great summer project. However, in order to spend down perhaps resources and get high value, I think this is a high value project that allows us to very visibly show security enhancements.
[Jenny Graham]: So, I, I guess what I'm thinking about when I say recommend proceeding and 25. Is that what I am thinking about as we are talking is that. In December, when we take a vote, the vote is really for. The administration to consider these projects as part of the budget for the supplemental budget request they're going to bring forward in January. And then, if. there is something that can't be funded that we said due in 25 and it can't be funded through the supplemental budget, then that has to go before the council for additional funding. But I think the first step is like this should give some clarity to our budget director to say these are the projects that we are thinking are very important and we want to see you weigh in on when you bring the supplemental budget forward. Does that make sense to everybody? It makes sense to me.
[Paul Ruseau]: And I do think that's a very high value project, the FOB stuff. We are also going into negotiations. And frankly, I don't want to talk about keys in our negotiations. So I think that it would be good to just get this over with. Again, from a what's the supplemental going to look like, this can wait. I mean, if there ends up being room in the supplemental, then, you know, this number here is already too big, isn't it?
[Jenny Graham]: So. OK. So, the things that we still have as not committed are the district wide security updates for 1.5. We did have those, like, in FY, 26, but that's. saying anything more than that just yet about that. And maybe that's a good conversation for the school committee. The other question I had was around playground renovation. So we are mostly done with the playground renovation at the McGlynn. And it's stunning and spectacular and gorgeous. And it was a very long process. to do the design work to make it such a special project in the end. So I guess I'm curious, like we sort of have on the radar that all of our playgrounds are going to need to be replaced at some point in time. Is there a timing of like when we might seek CPC funding for another playground? And I believe that Part of the reason we are having this conversation right now is because the CPC window opens. After this, so if we were going to recommend that we put forward a project. For this upcoming cycle, it would have to. We would have to identify which project that would be.
[Peter Cushing]: Yeah, and the 2 that I would say in. The two that are probably most pressing equally are the Misatuck and the Roberts. And, you know, after discussing with Shanine, our playground specialist, we actually came to the conclusion that based on population served, That the miss attack might be the better option. However, we also know that the Roberts is a very full school and could use playground options as well. But. Funding really won't allow and I don't believe that these projects would be anywhere near the cost that the McGlynn was in the neighborhood of 2.9Million, including the about 140 or 150,000 we spent on the design study with the design work with Copley Wolf. Um, so I don't believe that it would cost that much. I do believe the design would cost that much. And, um, our community member donated time previously. Um, so we need to really think about that. So, um, I'm definitely willing and able to apply for, um, CPC funds. Um, I think that window is more in the summer, but it would give us time to make sure that we're ready to go. Or the committee could say, we want to fund the design, not go to CPC for funding the design, which would mean that we start the design process as part of the supplemental budget in February instead of waiting until, say, September or October.
[Marice Edouard-Vincent]: So I just wanted to weigh in between the two schools. I would definitely advocate more strongly for the Roberts because the Roberts is our only elementary school that is really landlocked. And the one major distinction between the Missituk and the Roberts is that the Missituk does have the benefit of the Columbus Field Park that is, you know, it's, they use both spaces. So the students actually, although the playgrounds do need to be renovated, the students at the Missituk are able to go up the stairs and use the additional field space. at the mistletoe location whereas the Roberts they really you know it's so crammed over there their landlocked the students don't have that same option to have a park a green space which abuts their campus immediately abuts their campus that they could use on a daily basis and so that that That would be one of the things that I would just say if a decision had to be made between the two schools, I do feel the Roberts has gotten the short end of the stick. They're using practically part of the parking lot for space because it's just so crammed and they have slightly over 600 students. So being the largest elementary school with the smallest footprint, I would prioritize the Roberts that that that's all I wanted to share. If it came down to those two schools.
[Paul Ruseau]: I know. Thank you. I agree. And I do think that, you know, there's There's an uncomfortable conversation that has to be had about the Roberts playground and the situation there, whether that conversation involves finding an alternative space to park, whether that involves taking of land, you're having a domain, there is no solution to that area. Whether we do their park, whether we do their playground first, and then we do the others. In the end, when all of these are beautiful playgrounds, one is going to be very distinct. And that's going to be the Roberts for being utterly incomparable to the others. And I mean, I, I think it's important, you know, I don't think that the staff should have to park a half a mile away. But, you know, if a piece of property comes available, a street over by it and turn it into a parking lot. And then make the whole parking lot into an actual playground that's the appropriate size for that size student population. And I'm just spitballing. I don't, I don't even know that area very well other than having, you know, been to the school a number of times, but my point is just, I don't. I don't want to go small on the Roberts playground, and we can always get fancier, but the truth is there's just, as everybody literally here knows, there isn't enough room. There's an understatement. It's just such an understatement. You know, my, my, my children went to the mistook and I have like all these fantasies about, you know, how we can make all that area dramatically better and I'm sure design study would come up with some great ways to change that area. But of course, the truth is, as, as Dr Robinson said, like. There's the field. I mean, it's really kind of an ideal situation, very similar to the McGlynn situation in that there's a lot more space. So I'm OK with us putting the Roberts first, but I also want us to not put it first and not have the hard conversation about we can't make it work if the footprint is the same. that it's just not one of our options. And I don't want to spend a million and a half dollars to make a playground where the kids can't even all be out at recess at the same time because there isn't physically the space. That's absurd. So if it's not, if the Roberts ends up being a dramatically more expensive endeavor because we have to buy another piece of land or whatever, I'm all in. That's just my thoughts on that.
[Erika Reinfeld]: I'll just jump in and say, I do spend a lot of time at the Roberts, given that, well, I only have one kid there now, but there have been residential properties that have now been converted. The available land, whether that was even an option to take for the schools, to purchase for the schools is a question to me. There aren't a lot of properties it's it's very residential it's houses and we put up the, there's a new, there are new condos and then there's an ambiguous construction going on on Park Street and Hickey Park is the closest park and that ends up being. It shouldn't be a 10-minute walk, but it is, and it's a 15-minute walk with kindergartners, and they have to do field trip forms to go to the park. They do field day there. It would be nice to get some kind of connection with Hickey, but it is a few blocks away. So I do think space is at a premium.
[Jenny Graham]: Alicia, since you're here, have there been discussions about this that this group is not privy to or aware of on the city side? Every time I go there, I'm like, what is that building across the street? I don't know. I actually don't know what it is, but I wonder about it all the time. Um, for many reasons, I dream about an after school center and a parking lot mostly. I don't I have no, I have no sense of what happens in that building or. Or who owns it, but I just didn't know if there had been any conversations about what a space problem we do have at at that building. That building is busting at the seams and, like, we cannot go on like, we, we have so that's. a separate but related problem. But the signs are that there's continued high demand for elementary school students in that space. So I would agree that I think the Roberts does need to be first on the list. But we need a double-decker playground or something. Something has to give there. And I'm not exactly sure what it is or where to put that in the conversation.
[Alicia Hunt]: Yeah, I assume you mean the existing building across the street, which it I've looked it up before and it is this. a construction company, component assembly systems, but we don't really, we've never really had any contact with them or what they do in that facility. They're very, really fly under the radar, but it's, I mean, if you look at it from Google, they even got solar on the roof. Like it's an active, it's well-maintained, it's not abandoned.
[Paul Ruseau]: Wow, I just looked at their website and it looks like they were involved in the Apple project, you know, the giant round thing and National Museum of African American history and culture. So they're. It seems to me that they do some serious stuff reach out.
[Alicia Hunt]: I did just I hadn't looked before, but I just found a contact for that location off of their website. It seems to me that it wouldn't be inappropriate for somebody from the school system school committee. I don't know to contact them. and just have a conversation about like, we're here, what do you do? We're really curious across the street. That said, I don't know that it'll pan out the way you want. I assume you meant that as opposed to the hole in the ground, which I can tell you has gone through the city's Permissions process, they don't have a building permit yet. No, actually they do they've been through the full building permit process to do a building that would have ground floor commercial probably a coffee shop. And I can't remember if it's seven or nine units of housing above. That property is actually on the market with all its permits. So the person who permitted it and owns it is looking to now sell all those permits and everything. But it's very expensive because it's a whole permitted project. Um, I think the city would be the. I myself have dreamed of, like, could we purchase or put how would we indicate that there are properties the city would be interested in buying. In terms of houses and stuff for various. Locations, I think it's something we should look into. I'm happy to. Actually, I'm gonna ask the economic development director, like how would we make a list of properties the city would like to acquire and then keep an eye on them because we would like to expand some of our footprints? And this isn't the only one, but.
[Paul Ruseau]: Alicia, you said it's for sale. Is there an easy way to, I mean, it's not gonna be on Zillow, I'm sure, but is there an easy way to find out what that actually sale price is?
[Alicia Hunt]: I'll ask Sal, our economic development director. He has access to a commercial listing system, which is where I have confirmed. We had heard that it was for sale because people were confirming its permit status. And so we looked it up, but I'll ask him for the pricing.
[Unidentified]: Thank you.
[Erika Reinfeld]: Right. So the question on the table is, are we prioritizing any of these schools for a CPC application this year? Right.
[Paul Ruseau]: I yeah, that is the question, since I. If it's an age thing or just too much going in, but when we do the application, How much do we have to say? I guess is my question, because to say we want to do the playground over is one thing. To say we want to do the playground over and we plan to buy a property and we are going to move to like those aren't even things we can say at this point because we I mean we're just spitballing in this meeting not that many of us haven't already thought about these things a number of times but that's not a plan so how much do we have to tell the cpc to actually do an application we have to ask for a specific amount of money what's the limit well so
[SPEAKER_07]: I would say the limit is contingent on a couple of things.
[Peter Cushing]: What other projects do they have in the pipeline? What are their projects? We've received a significant amount of funding with that way into their decision as to trying to spread the money around. But I think we've shown with the McLeod playground that we provide
[SPEAKER_07]: we've been able to provide significant value to the overall community, as well as the metropolitan schools.
[Peter Cushing]: And so if we can replicate that, and I guess I would consider the Roberts and Alicia, you know, better than better than I do. I would consider the Roberts to be a significantly more landlocked area, um, and more dense, um, even though he is down the street, but it is a significantly dense area. So, um, you know, I mean, I think we would need to understand the long term plans of both the school committee and the municipality on what we can do to expand the footprint of that school, because there is there's no other way around. Okay, that footprint for the number of students there is not adequate. And the hard conversations that have been initiated here tonight need to be had for the greater benefit of those 605 or 600 plus students. And if we are gonna have those conversations, that'll help inform what type of a playground or what type of parking or what is done to make it a better environment for our students. There really is no limit to the funding except annually how much they bring in. They funded us $900,000 in one fiscal year. They funded us $900,000 in another fiscal year for a total of $1.8 million in that ask. And then they had given us a memogram. I think it ended up being like an initial $40,000 for the design study. And then we found out that that was pretty inadequate. And I think it went up to in the neighborhood of $150,000, $160,000. I'm just forgetting those numbers as they've kind of blurred together.
[Erika Reinfeld]: The other hard conversation, which is not the scope of this meeting, but is how are we managing the unevenness in population in schools across the district, whether that's looking at reorganizing the grade levels, whether it's just redistricting, whether it's somebody come up to me and say, say, we should just open a new school, which I suppose that's on the table too. So that's another hard conversation that informs what type of playground we need. Because if we move to a different model, we may have a different student population in that building.
[Jenny Graham]: So I think what I'm hearing is what we would recommend is that we prioritize a solution at the Roberts. we're not ready necessarily to ask the CPC for money because we don't actually know the solution could possibly be at this moment. But that what we do recommend is that there are some continuing conversations about what those possibilities are. I mean, I don't know, do we like, every time I go there, I'm shocked that the staff park each other in. They don't have a choice, but they park each other and it's super unsafe, right? It's a necessity. There's nothing else to do. But there's not enough parking for the number of staff that have to work in that building. And there's not enough playground space. Do we need literally a parking deck or something that would double the parking capacity and create some space? I don't know. But I think that's a question we'd need to talk to some people about in terms of what even the options are and maybe have a conversation with the folks across the street. before we could proceed with the CPC application, but perhaps the recommendation from this group to the committee is that is our short range priority is like figuring something out for that building that leads to our ability to address the playground.
[Paul Ruseau]: I would agree with that recommendation. And, you know, I also was remembering it when we were visiting high schools, Watertown, at least Suffolk University, and I can't remember where else, has done something that I would never have thought made any sense until I saw it, but they put the well, they're not playgrounds, they're fields there, but they put fields above parking so that there's so much parking, they don't even need to assign spots or care, because essentially the entire ground level becomes parking, and then elevated above it is what would become a very large amount of playground space. The difference, of course, for those places and this is that this is in a neighborhood. But while it ends up sort of becoming two stories, it's barely higher than a roof on a one story. So I don't know. I mean, this isn't the time for the solutions. But if it's $2 million to buy a lot that would, in many regards, not be enough to fully solve the problem, do we have to consider something much, I mean, no concept of what those elevated fields actually cost. So yeah, I think we should definitely make this a priority though.
[Erika Reinfeld]: One of the elementary schools in my hometown did that, but they actually had the whole school underground as well. It was very cool. They had it elevated. It was very cool. But that was the 60s and 70s that that happened. Weird architectural world.
[Jenny Graham]: OK. So apparently, I lied about how long this meeting was going to take. So I'm sorry for that.
[Erika Reinfeld]: We ended the last one early. So this was due.
[Jenny Graham]: Shoot. This is where we've landed. For recommendations in 25, The mini reconditioning assessment, the network closets, the freight elevator, the drainage at the Brooksfield, the key fobs, the dumpster mitigation potentially in 26, and getting this grant addressed for the ADA issue at McGlynn and Andrews. We're saying district-wide security updates of 1.5, are not committed at this time, but from a planning perspective, we should be looking at it for FY 26. The Roberts is our priority playground or recommended priority playground. Parking lot paving also not committed. Then these items are all contingent on the mini-commissioning study and what might come from there.
[Erika Reinfeld]: You might want to picky details flip miss a tuck in Brooks, because it sounds like that's the priority order.
[Jenny Graham]: There is many students at the Brooks, but. I think that's the conversation for after we've solved all the rest.
[Erika Reinfeld]: Yeah, I was just going off the conversation that happened before, but you're right. We didn't have that conversation.
[Jenny Graham]: Yeah, I'm fine. I think there's lots of change to this before we get to that place on the list. So is there anything else that you think we should change?
[Erika Reinfeld]: Have we identified all of the, right, this meeting was timed so that we could say this is, I see the potential open space CPC. I don't see any of that for the current projects. Actually, some things had been committed up at the top.
[Jenny Graham]: Yeah, and then we have an application pending for Curtis Tufts, yep. And we're recommending this one, so.
[Erika Reinfeld]: Yes, I see that. Yeah, I think the question is, is what we're asking school committee to, I guess, is this the work of the district to say what if this is going into a supplemental budget request, what is coming out of funds that have already been allocated and what is a new request to city council or from capital stabilization, right? Some of the mitigation is potentially a stabilization fund. I'm also trying to do the math on what the grand total here is, but I don't know that a grand total is what's important so much as the total for each of these buckets.
[Jenny Graham]: Okay, so I'm just going to put a little legend at the top. This is what it means. This is what we're saying if we say recommend proceeding in FY26. If we say recommend CPC funding request, MPS directs the administration to apply for CPC funding. Not committed. No immediate action required. we've got this one.
[Erika Reinfeld]: And then the other element of this process was net school spending, but that's covered under the recommend proceeding in fiscal year 25.
[Jenny Graham]: Yes, I did talk to to Jerry about that and he gave me the dollar thresholds. And so I've been filling that in as we've been talking hit. I'm going to jail somewhere.
[Paul Ruseau]: I thought it was $150,000.
[Jenny Graham]: I think it's $150,000. And so if it's under $150,000, it can be included in that school spending. If it's over, it cannot be.
[Erika Reinfeld]: And what does that mean for something like LED lighting replacement, which ends up being $180,000 across the three schools? Each school, $150,000 per each school.
[Jenny Graham]: All right. Or per project, not. It's per year. It's per project, I believe. Yeah, I think so. I think these would be a no.
[Paul Ruseau]: Oh, because it's one project.
[Erika Reinfeld]: Oh, yep, there's that column. Sorry, I've zoomed in and I'm scrolling back and forth.
[Jenny Graham]: So apologies for that. So it's the other we had that we need to describe and then Um. So that's like a little key for us for like what those project status. Do we have that we need to. I think that covers all of our. I think we're done. Any other questions, thoughts, things we missed.
[Paul Ruseau]: Do you want to put it in progress for the bike rack modernization line 28? Yes.
[Peter Cushing]: And we don't have to answer that question, which will come up.
[Paul Ruseau]: That's great. First year is the hardest doing this.
[Jenny Graham]: So I think we have a couple of costs to include between now and the meeting. But I will probably put together a slide that says, here's what we did, and here's how we did it, and this is the result.
[Erika Reinfeld]: Do we need a deadline? I know a couple people took action items to confirm quotes or points of contact. Is there, do you, in preparing that slide, do you need, is there a deadline you want that information by? Obviously, we want it as soon as we can get it, but reasonable demands on people's time.
[Jenny Graham]: Yeah, by December 6th would be great.
[Erika Reinfeld]: Till end of next week.
[Jenny Graham]: In my mind, it's two weeks away, but it's not.
[Erika Reinfeld]: Yeah, nobody's working Thursday, Friday.
[Jenny Graham]: Yeah. So I think what we need tonight is just a recommendation to send this to the full committee for their review. And then the other thing that we will need to do as a full committee is. Like, make a recommendation to approve this or prove it as amended, which will happen at the special meeting. Okay, so we have a motion to. Approve approve this recommendation to send to the entire school committee by members so seconded by member Reinfeld. So, I'll do a roll call member. So, yes. And Brian felled as member Graham. Yes, 3 affirmatives here on the negative. Um, is there a motion to adjourn? I'll do that 1, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2. Member Ruseau? Yes. Member Graham? Yes. Three in the affirmative, zero in the negative. Thank you, Director Hunt. Thank you, Paul Riggi, for joining us. Paul, I don't know your title, or I would have called you by your proper title. But thank you both. Paul is fine. Thank you both for joining us. It was super helpful. And I will follow up with you all if there are action items for you or questions that we have in the meantime, but really appreciate your support.
[Paul Ruseau]: Thank you. The meeting is adjourned.
[Jenny Graham]: Oh, and meeting is now adjourned.
|
total time: 43.17 minutes total words: 2283 |
total time: 8.54 minutes total words: 789 |
total time: 9.01 minutes total words: 522 |
total time: 2.32 minutes total words: 177 |