[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: We are good to go on the tech side of things.
[Jenny Graham]: We'll give everyone just like another half a minute here to jump on and then we'll get started. Okay. Welcome, everybody. Please be advised that there will be a virtual full committee meeting of the Medford Comprehensive High School Building Committee on Monday, December 22nd at 630, held via remote participation only. The meeting can be viewed live on Medford Public Schools' YouTube channel through Medford Community Media on your local cable channel, which is Comcast 98 or 22. and Verizon Channel 43, 45, or 47. This meeting will be recorded. Participants can log in or call in using the following meeting ID and Zoom, which is 941-0559-9107. Okay, before I call the roll, I did just want to make a quick announcement and welcome Paul Malone to the building committee. Paul has joined us by vote of the school committee in our last school committee meeting. Welcome Paul. And he is replacing Tracy keen, who has stepped down from the committee. So we'll get to learn more about Paul, but he is a theater nerd, much like Tracy and is super excited to be able to lend his theater. and performing arts talents to the group. So welcome. And Paul, I know this will be like a lot for you to take in tonight. I don't expect a lot of voting, but you are voting members. So there are times that we'll call on you and ask you to weigh in on something. And if you're not. And we will keep working to get you on boarded despite the holiday season sort of jump jumping into the middle of this process. So welcome. Um, to you, I am going to call the roll to get started. Um, and I think we have a quorum here that I see. So, um, let's go ahead and give it a shot. Jenny Graham here. Mayor Lungo-Koehn here. Dr. Glucy is absent. Marta Cabral here. Marta here. Am I not coming through? Libby Brown. Oh, there you are. Hi. Can you hear me? Hi. Hi, Libby. Hi. Marissa Desmond.
[SPEAKER_08]: I don't see Marissa yet.
[Jenny Graham]: OK. Brian Hilliard. I'm here. Maria Dorsey.
[Unidentified]: Oh.
[Jenny Graham]: Maria is not here. Emily Lazzaro. Here. Emily. Nicole Morell.
[Unidentified]: Here. Aaron Olapade.
[Jenny Graham]: We have Aaron.
[Paul Ruseau]: I mean, I saw him briefly,
[Jenny Graham]: But okay, Luke prisoner. I think that I am having a lagging issue. So give me just 1 2nd to see if I can. sort that on my end because I think it's me and not all of you now that I'm realizing what's happening. So give me one second.
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: Jenny, I'm not hearing anybody say yes either except I heard Marta and Libby, but I didn't hear anybody else.
[Unidentified]: Must be Zoom's new update.
[Paul Ruseau]: They just pushed to the world for our meeting.
[Jenny Graham]: Will, I'm going to jump on my phone. OK. Hi, everyone. Can you hear me OK? Can you hear me OK? Can you hear me OK? Can you hear me OK?
[SPEAKER_12]: Can you hear me OK? Can you hear me OK? Can you hear me OK? Can you hear me OK? Can you hear me OK?
[Unidentified]: Can you hear me OK? Can you hear me OK? Can you hear me OK? Can you hear me OK?
[SPEAKER_09]: Can you hear me OK?
[Unidentified]: Can you hear me OK?
[SPEAKER_09]: Can you hear me OK? Can you hear me OK?
[Jenny Graham]: Can you hear me OK? Can you hear me OK? Can you hear me OK? Can you hear me OK? Can you hear me OK? Can you hear me OK? Can you hear me OK?
[SPEAKER_09]: Can you hear me OK? Can you hear me
[Jenny Graham]: Okay, so I will, we do have a quorum, and then I'm gonna just take the role of the non-voting members. Bob Dickinson? Fiona Maxwell? Bob and Fiona are not here tonight. Will Pippaselli?
[Unidentified]: Here.
[Jenny Graham]: Chad Fallon? Present. Lori Hodgton? John McLaughlin. Paul Rousseau.
[Paul Ruseau]: Present.
[Jenny Graham]: Phil Santos. Lisa Miller. Here. And Dr. Kim Talbot. Present. Okay, thanks for bearing with me. Apparently my internet has decided enough is enough and the holidays are upon us. So with that said, I'm going to turn it over to Matt Galeno to lead us through the agenda since I'm hoping he has better service than I do.
[Matt Gulino]: Sure, thank you Jenny. Do we have the presentation to pull up? Thank you Matt.
[Matt Rice]: Give me one minute.
[Matt Gulino]: All right, so we have a few quick administrative items to run through. We should be able to get through these fairly quickly. First will be the approval of the November 24th, 2025 SPC meeting minutes. Can you go to the next slide, Matt? Yeah. All righty. Do we have a motion to approve the meeting minutes from November 24th, 2025?
[Paul Ruseau]: Motion to approve. Second. Member Graham has asked that I take the roll, but I just realized that I don't have the list of who to call. Chair Graham, excuse me.
[SPEAKER_09]: Sorry, can I just ask a question? Were the minutes sent out? I don't remember receiving them.
[SPEAKER_14]: They were on the agenda, Ken.
[SPEAKER_09]: Oh, you're on the agenda. Okay, thanks.
[Paul Ruseau]: Let me, oh, there we go. I got the list now. Thank you, Paul. That's good.
[Jenny Graham]: Matt, this is Jenny. Were the minutes sent out? I don't remember receiving them either.
[Matt Gulino]: Yes, they were attached with the agenda.
[SPEAKER_09]: I, I, sorry, I didn't see an agenda either. Unless it was attached to an invite. Anybody else get it?
[Matt Gulino]: Should have gone out last Thursday. If we, if we need to push the approval of the minutes to the next meeting. To give the committee more time to to review.
[SPEAKER_13]: motion to table the minutes until the next meeting.
[Paul Ruseau]: Is there a second?
[SPEAKER_09]: Second.
[Paul Ruseau]: All right. We're on Zoom, so we're going to do a roll call. Jenny Graham. And I don't know if she can even vote. But anyways, I'll move on. Mayor Lungo-Koehn.
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: Yes.
[Paul Ruseau]: Let's see. Marta Cabral? Yes. Libby Brown?
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: Yes.
[Paul Ruseau]: Is Marissa here? Marissa Desmond? Brian Hilliard? Yes. Paul Malone? Yes. Emily Lazzaro?
[SPEAKER_13]: Yes.
[Paul Ruseau]: Nicole Morell?
[SPEAKER_13]: Yes.
[Paul Ruseau]: Aaron, have you joined? Aaron Olapade? Okay, Luke Prisner, I think Luke is not here either. Joan Bowen?
[SPEAKER_16]: Yes.
[Paul Ruseau]: Ken Lord? Ken, you're voting, right?
[SPEAKER_16]: Yes, yes.
[Paul Ruseau]: Okay, good, sorry. And then I'm just scrolling through the folks that are... Okay, that's it, I think. So however many that was, so the minutes are tabled to the next meeting.
[Matt Gulino]: Okay, thank you, Paul. The next agenda item we have is the approval of the November 2025 invoices. We still only have the OPM services for this month, just based on the timing of the designer contract execution and the kickoff with the MSBA. We will see SMMA's first invoice next month. So we just have the agreed upon $25,000 for left field month of November 2025.
[SPEAKER_09]: And will the invoice be approved as submitted?
[Paul Ruseau]: Second. Excellent. I'm glad this is recorded. Any other questions or concerns? All right. I'll take the roll. Jenny Graham. I don't know if Jenny can even, is Jenny here? Yes. Oh, she is, sorry. Mary Lynn Goker.
[SPEAKER_13]: Yes.
[Paul Ruseau]: Marta Cabral. Yes. Libby Brown.
[SPEAKER_13]: Yes.
[Paul Ruseau]: Brian Hillion. Yes. Paul Malone. Yes. Emily Lazzaro.
[Jenny Graham]: Yes.
[Paul Ruseau]: Nicole Morell.
[Jenny Graham]: Yes.
[Paul Ruseau]: here. Let me know when you're here. And so I can remember to call you, um, Joan Bowen? Yes. And Ken Lord? Yes. All right. The ayes have it. The invoice is approved. Next. I wasn't prepared to run a meeting. Sorry.
[Matt Gulino]: You're doing great, Paul. Thank you. And this is just a quick update on the total project budget. So the only updates from last month, we have now inserted the A&E feasibility study schematic design, executed contract values, including the environmental and site in the other category. So we are submitting just a budgetary correction with the MSBA just to make sure that they have the correct contract values. And as we continue to build towards these, we'll update this every month. and obviously we'll see a bit more billing as SMMA starts to send invoices starting in the new year. Any questions on where we stand on total project budget right now? Alrighty. The rest of the meeting that we want to focus on reviewing everything that the project team has been doing over the course of the past month since we met with you last. The team has been working along with the district very quickly, but meeting a lot and really kind of getting through some of the early preliminary investigations, both in the school, around the site, and as well as meeting to talk about the educational program. and how that feeds into the space summary. So tonight, we'll take you through some of the existing conditions investigations that have been ongoing. And then we'll talk about the current space summary based on our meetings with some of the administration, understanding what the existing school is currently sized to and how that relates to the MSBA guidelines. I will just remind everybody that this space summary that will be seen tonight is very much a work in progress. This will be continued to kind of shift and kind of be pushed and pulled and massaged through the PDP and then into the next phase of PSR. So just keep that in mind as we start to review some of these documents. They will continue to change as the project continues. I'll hand it over to Matt Rice from SMMA to take a look at the existing conditions.
[Paul Ruseau]: And just before that happens, I just want to note that Aaron Olapade is present for whoever is lucky enough to transcribe the minutes later.
[Matt Rice]: Thank you, Matt. Thank you, Paul. And thank you for introducing me, Matt. I was just going to make a quick note at the beginning for Paul's benefit. Paul Malone, new here, just asked that our team maybe introduce themselves before they are speaking. And just so that everyone can put a name to a face as we go forward. There are some new faces, I think, as well for the entirety of the building committee. So good to just introduce everybody as we go. I will jump in on the architecture building investigation to start with. And before I do that I will mention here that we have been referencing the SOI submission. So I think if we went back to meetings, I recall a comment that was made asking about sort of what benefit the SOI evaluation was and sort of all the effort that went into that was in terms of this overall process. And I can say that both on the architectural side as well as the engineering disciplines have reviewed that SOI documentation in detail. It was very well done in terms of being comprehensive, in terms of painting the picture of need that exists at Medford High School. and it was very effective in terms of moving the project along at the phase that it was. We have taken it to the next level in terms of evaluation and analysis of those existing conditions, but definitely having a great foundation to build from in terms of that reference information was appreciated and useful in terms of the overall process. So we are going to try and keep things relatively brief here, because we could talk a while about some of the shortcomings in the existing building, but really what we want to do here is just give you an overview of the areas where we have sort of the largest concern, items of note, items that really suggest that the building needs to be addressed in some way, shape, or form. as we move forward. So just starting from the exterior of the building, the fact that the original materials on the exterior, the cast in place concrete, the brick masonry veneer, most of these are original to the building. There are some areas of selective renovations that have occurred on the exterior, such as with the science wing. and some replacement of windows, but the vast majority are existing as they were originally installed in 1970. So as one could expect, there's various challenges there, especially with the thermal performance of those exterior systems, the windows that are non-thermally broken and are transferring a lot of heat out of the building. As well as the cowl wall panels, these are the translucent panels that wrap the exterior of the pool and the gymnasium building. They have yellowed over time. You can see that there are areas where certain panels have actually delaminated off the exterior and you can see the inner construction of those panels. So a lot of challenges there. The exterior wall construction does not have any thermal insulation. There's some interesting sand that is called for in between the exterior brick and the concrete, which is not something we've seen before, and I don't think it's a great thermal insulator. So there's really no restriction of heat moving in and out of those exterior walls other than sort of the thermal mass behavior of them. On the roofs, there are areas, large areas of ponding that are present across the entirety of the roof, both that which was re-roofed back in 2001, which is everything aside from the B wing, and then the B wing itself, even where they have the more recent roof membrane installed. There are some still evidence of areas of ponding there as well as leaks and the leaks are present and something that the maintenance department is really working to address on an ongoing basis throughout. So that's an ongoing maintenance issue. The pool roof membrane and the deck is something that's worth noting in particular because of the interior climate conditions of the pool itself that it generates just from the fact that it is a pool and the fact that there are exhaust challenges in terms of getting that air out of the pool space itself. which has led to some delamination of the roof membrane at the pool. And very recently, there's had to been put in some mechanical fastener bars to keep that roof membrane from actually blowing off. And this is sort of an imminent challenge right now that definitely is being patched together. on sort of an emergency basis until we can renovate or demolish the pool building that's yet to be seen. But there's certainly a challenge on the pool roof deck itself and the roof membrane. And then in terms of the interior of the building, much of that interior construction is, again, original from the 1970s vintage of the building, with the exception of that science lab renovation on the third floor of the B wing, as well as some other smaller scale renovations that have occurred throughout, such as at the Medford Community Media Space, as well as some of the CTE spaces that were renovated over the course of time to adapt to new programs and some of the construction that were done by the actual CTE programs themselves. The condition of the interior finishes is again in sort of a fair to poor condition at the current time just due to the overall wear and tear that occurs on interior finishes in a school environment as well as moisture infiltration on those roof links, pipe leaks as well in terms of various localized areas where mitigation remediation has had to take place.
[Kimberly Talbot]: I think Ellen Swanson is not able to unmute. She is our structural engineer. I don't know if that's something on your end, Will.
[Paul Ruseau]: You should be OK right about now.
[Kimberly Talbot]: OK, thank you.
[SPEAKER_12]: Ellen. Hi, I'm Ellen Swanson. I'm the structural engineer for the project from SMMA. Big things to consider with the project is that there are very limited existing structural drawings. Currently right now, we have only been able to have wing B be available to us. Most of our observations or most of our considerations for the project are interpolating information we have seen from the current drawings that we have in hand to potentially apply them to the rest of the wings. The foundations of the project, they're spread footings on bedrock with conventional slab on grade in the majority of the places and in the majority of the project. We believe there are some isolated locations where there is a framed slab where the bedrock is lower, where there is some original quarry areas that they were infilled. There is a mix of structural systems in the project. Most of the classroom wings you can see in the photo, in the top photo, is a typical concrete framing. It's a one-way concrete slab supported on concrete, exposed concrete beams and concrete columns. There's also steel joist and steel wide flange beams and the gym pool and G&H wings. One big consideration structurally is that there is no conventional lateral force resisting system in the building. The original drawings indicate a very minimal wind loading that would not meet today's current code prescribed wind loads. The existing drawings also do not indicate that earthquake design was considered as well as no drift loads were not considered. Each of the wings are separated by three quarter inch expansion joints. This expansion joint would not meet the required gap between isolated buildings with today's current code. During our walkthrough, we also observed a few structural deficiencies. You can see in the middle photo, There's exposed rebar on the underside of the pool deck. Our understanding is that the majority of the pool deck was redone at some point, but there are still some areas that have significant spalling with exposed rebar. The infill masonry walls in the classrooms, you can kind of see it in the top photo, They do not have any sort of seismic bracing to them at the top of the wall. They're also not positively attached to the concrete beams either. The bottom photo shows one area in wing C where the slab on grade has settled, and there's a pretty significant gap between the slab on grade and the infill wall. There were also multiple areas where there were miscellaneous cracks in the concrete and the masonry walls. And also there was water damage observed in many of the classrooms.
[Matt Rice]: All right, and I will take the accessibility observations. So challenges on the exterior from an accessibility standpoint that there, even in the accessible parking spaces, the slope of the pavement is, in many cases, noncompliant. And then the signage, also noncompliant in terms of identifying those accessible spaces. Accessible routes while on site have areas of noncompliance, both again in terms of slope or cross slope, and the inclusion of stairs in terms of certain paths to doors. Several of the stairs do lack compliant handrails. Again, the majority of the public entrances have some amount of barriers in terms of wheelchair access, either with steps door landings or the doors themselves being too narrow or lacking a proper wheelchair turning radius on the inside or the exterior of the door. And then in terms of the passenger loading zones at drop-off areas being accessible, those are not provided. From the interior of the building from an accessibility standpoint, the stairs all lack currently compliant handrails as well as nosing on the edge of the tread of the stair down to the riser. The majority of the doors on the interior as well are too narrow in terms of wheelchair clearance. They have knob versus lever door hardware, and also that maneuvering clearances to make sure that there's adequate space on the push side and the pull side of the doors. The classroom sinks themselves are inaccessible, so they don't have knee space that would allow wheelchair users to use them. The batting cages, in particular, portions of the auditorium in one of the classrooms do not have any accessible route to them, so they are inaccessible to users that are in a wheelchair. Most of the toilet rooms are inaccessible, which is something we actually heard walking around the building as well. Even the toilet rooms that are marked as being accessible, the turning dimensions within those toilet rooms do not actually provide sufficient space to deem them compliant and accessible. And in terms of the bathing fixtures, showering fixtures within the locker rooms, there are no compliant options for users. And then lastly, the auditorium itself does not have enough of the compliant wheelchair spaces. There's not an assistive listening system within that space for users to make use of. And then the ramp up onto the stage is not compliant.
[SPEAKER_16]: Hi, everyone. My name is Emily Ehlers. I'll be the mechanical engineer on the project. So in terms of the existing HVAC system, overall, it's a hydronic system. It's a low pressure steam to hot water distribution. With exception to select spaces like the TV studio and the recently renovated science wing, there's limited centralized cooling throughout. The overall mechanical control system is all pneumatic, so it's very outdated and it doesn't leave the facilities team with a central control system where they can get access to set points, schedules, and any alerts from the systems. There's unreliable air quality and ventilation from the existing units that are in place. There have been select upgrades over the past 20 years, but most of the major equipment is still original to the 1970 building. In most of the classrooms and the exterior spaces, there are unit ventilators. These units are pretty antiquated in the industry and they are pretty disruptive from an acoustic standpoint. And they can also deliver uneven temperatures and uneven ventilation to the classrooms. So in summary, most of the major equipment and the distribution for the HVAC systems is past its operable lifespan and will not meet current codes.
[SPEAKER_00]: Hi, my name is James Joe from McColl Engineering, the plumbing and fire protection engineers. Regarding plumping, especially the cast iron piping is mostly rusted and in poor condition. Also, the original copper piping is original to the building and it might have the joints where all has lead in it. So that's one thing to look into. Like you heard earlier, the plumbing fissures are mostly outdated and does not meet any accessibility codes. And the other thing we noticed was that the main water supply coming into the building does not have a backflow preventer for cross-contamination protection. Also, the more preceptors and the janitor thinks they lack a by-pro prevention for soap dispensers, which is a core requirement. The kitchen, the gas supply requires an automatic shutdown with manual reset, with CO detectors are needed there too. Also, in the kitchen, Three-part sink has a grease interceptor, but the floor drains and all that, those things are not connected to any internal grease interceptors, and that's a requirement by code nowadays. Then if you go to fire protection, the building is pretty much Unsprinkled, it's up for the 2015 renovation, science room renovation in the third floor of building B, and the 2016 MATV renovation, especially in the culinary kitchen area, that side. There is no standpipes in the building. With the building being so huge, standpipes will be required.
[SPEAKER_10]: Hi, my name is Andrew Barrows. I am the electrical engineer on the project with SOMA. The building is equipped with three electrical substations and the majority of the electrical panels within the building, aside from the 2015 renovation, is beyond their useful life expectancy. They are older Westinghouse substations and subsequent distribution panels are in various manufacturers. The electrical services that are actually entering the building are also not surge protected and GFI protected, which is a requirement for the electrical code. The building is also equipped with two emergency generators that are noted to be non-functional, which is a large code violation with the building, and you will not have any emergency backup power. The building is also not equipped with lightning protection, which is typically a recommendation depending on location and whether it's the highest point, if the building has the highest point in the area. Lighting is a mix of mostly LED and some fluorescent. The light controls also do not meet current codes for energy efficiencies. The fire alarm and smoke detector coverage is also in sparse, especially when the building is mostly unsprinkled, except for in the 2015 renovation. And the fire alarm is not equipped with a voice evacuation system, which is also a requirement. Is Frank here to speak on AV and telecom?
[Kimberly Talbot]: It's not, Andrew, but if you'd like to touch on those briefly.
[SPEAKER_10]: Yeah, I can read them off. The instructional AV systems lack standards, rely on mobile solutions, outdated tech, minimal video conferencing, and does not support collaborative learning. The telecom is also outdated and constrained in the MDF, IDF rooms, and the legacy cabling cannot meet current or future bandwidth for today's tech needs. The Wi-Fi system is also unreliable when used by full student population due to capacity issues.
[Kimberly Talbot]: And I think we'll just, yeah, just note here that security system wise, our consultant, Good Harbor Techmark, did also survey the building along with the architects and engineers on the team and made the observations listed on the right side of the slide. And I will say for those of you who are curious about more existing condition information, the back of the slide deck, we have an appendix section where you can dig into some more detail and see some beautiful photos.
[Rosemary Park]: Okay, hi everyone. My name is Rosemary Park and I am an educational planner and architect with SMMA. So I'll be reviewing the status of the space summary and program with you. So, but just before we go over the status on the space summary, we did want to just review the work and process that we followed to help develop it. So this diagram illustrates that process with each of the steps in green contributing to help shape the overall program and summary of spaces at MSBA template that we reviewed last time. So along with the existing conditions assessment that our team just went over and the programming meetings that we conducted last month, we've also analyzed the curriculum and schedule. We held visioning sessions and school tours over the past few weeks. We have been reviewing the Medford High School educational plan, which is still being worked on and developed And we also held our first set of advisory team meetings. So again, each of those does contribute to the summary of spaces. And I put a little star there, I guess I should have, I could have made it bigger, I guess, because it's a pretty big milestone that we've completed all of our investigative work and analysis. So since we are still developing a space summary, we are continuing to refine it And there are arrows that indicate that it's constantly, this is an iterative process. I've said it before, but it really is not ever, it's not a one and done type process where we just develop the program and just get final sign off. It is a constant discussion and confirmation that cycles through with the district and with the school. Um, but once we do get, uh, that confirmation to, to move on, um, we do develop these, um, program adjacency diagrams, uh, using the input also from the, um, programming meetings and the visioning sessions. Um, and these diagrams will actually, uh, help the design team in, um, with, uh, by informing the building massing and the space planning. So last month, we introduced the MSBA template for the program space summary. As I said, we've just recently completed the visioning on the educational goals, and we're currently working through and coordinating all of the various things that we've heard regarding the educational vision. So what, you know, and also again, parsing through the educational plan. And so as we completed the existing program assessment, we were able to compare the overall existing square footages, net and gross, per space category and how they would compare and line up against what the MSBA and DESE guidelines recommend. And so here and we won't touch on every single category here, but the ones that I really we did want to focus on. So with special education, this is an area that's pretty much always customized to meet the unique needs of the district in the school. So even though the MSBA and DESE guidelines category appears small. We know that. this is going to get larger in the proposed just because we're going to be we're going to be providing whatever it is that those programs are going to need. And so typically MSBA or MSBA doesn't really provide much guidance on that because they do look to the district to explain the needs for special education. Under vocational and technology. So This includes not only the chapter 74 ACT program spaces, but it also includes these non-chapter, non-chapter 74 programs for STEM and tech labs. So these are things like maker spaces or fab labs, fabrication labs. And so that is a separate line item pulled out from this category. And then with the Chapter 74 CTE programs, because DESE assumes the right sizing of the existing shops and the support spaces, like the related classrooms or other types of changing areas, perhaps, and DESE will also assume that the the right sizing of future expansion of not only existing CTE programs, but also the addition and implementation of new CTE programs too. So that's why you can see that category is considerably larger than what is in the existing building today. Under health and PE, so the existing here, We know this, that the existing Medford High School gym and the ALT PE spaces, they're large. And so if you look at that compared to what the MSBA would suggest if you were to build those spaces new, what you have currently today is much larger than what MSBA would would suggest or allow. And then with the auditorium and drama, this is the baseline in the MSB and DESI guidelines. That baseline is for 750 seats in an auditorium. But we know that from our discussions that Medford is looking for a 1,000 seat auditorium. But that is just the baseline that the MSBA provides in their space summary template. Under the dining and food service, so per MSBA's guidelines, we have to size the cafeteria to accommodate three lunch seatings. And we know that today there are two lunch seatings currently. um, at the high school. So you, that does account for, um, the fact that the existing high school's dining, um, square footage is appearing larger than the MSBA one.
[Paul Ruseau]: With the... Rosemary, can I ask a quick question before you move on from that? Sure. Um, so, I mean, we'd have to redo the entire schedule to Add. Yes. Another is that saying is MSBA saying we actually have to change the students schedule and renegotiate every contract to have three seatings?
[Rosemary Park]: Yes. We have to size. We have to size it to three, which makes it smaller and we we know I was I was. I was hesitant to bring it up initially to the staff. I mean, you have to, but to the administration, but yes, the administration is aware and we've been having, I know that, you know, it's, there are just, you know, initial, initial wonderings about how that's going to work. But again, we've got four years to work it out.
[Paul Ruseau]: Another override for another expansion of the school day and renegotiating with the teacher. That just looks great.
[Rosemary Park]: I'm sorry, I don't want to be the bringer of bad news.
[Paul Ruseau]: We just spent the longest year of our lives getting that all done. So, okay, I'm sorry.
[Rosemary Park]: I really, I really, I really sympathize. I do. I was like, I have to be the one to tell them.
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: At least this will be the new, a new contract, you know, because it'll be three years away or more.
[Rosemary Park]: Right. So under administration and guidance, just wanted to note that this is strictly for the high schools administration, not central office. Central office would actually fall under the other category. And that other category, in addition to central office, also does include the pool and the other programs that are not not really associated with the high school. So you've got the Medford Family Network, the Kids Corner, Medford Community Media. And so we know that this will expand a little bit because there's another program, MEAP, that'll eventually be moving into the new school. So that would fall under the other category as well. And so you can see under that other category, we do have the net floor area in totals against the existing, against the MSBA and DESE. This is all based on the proposed enrollment of 1,395 students. And then when we look at the overall gross building areas, Um, we know the existing. And so therefore, we were able to figure out the grossing factor of 1.54. And as we continue, as we continue confirming some of I think there are some some spaces within the existing building that are still being confirmed a little bit because the existing conditions was out doing all the scanning. So that grossing factor might, you know, shift tiny bit, but it's it's pretty much at 1.5 for today. And then MSBA requires us to carry a 1.5 grossing factor for the building. And so if we were to take their net square footage that they are outlining, which we know is not gonna be sufficient for what the school needs, and apply that 1.5 grossing factor, then we will come to that number at the bottom. So smaller, that would be considerably smaller than what you have today. But again, that is, that's just straight out of the box what MSBA calculates solely based on the enrollment.
[Matt Rice]: with the addition of the DESE chapter 74 spaces that out of the box MSBA school does not necessarily account for any chapter 74 programs which is why we've layered on sort of the DESE requirements given the size of the of the programs as well as the new programs that are being planned. Rosemary, I just wanted to take a second and do a little bit of a drum roll with the existing building size, because I know as part of the process, we've heard a wide range in terms of assumptions of what that existing building size was, probably anywhere from 400,000 square feet to 600,000 square feet. So somewhere in the middle, which I guess is a good thing. And just reiterate the fact of what Rosemary mentioned, that our existing building scanning We're expecting the point cloud results from that towards the middle of January. So we may tweak this a little bit, but I would hazard a guess right now that will probably not be more than like a few percentage points off of this at max. But you may see this number evolve slightly moving forward, but it's definitely in this order of magnitude of where we are based on all of sort of the physical survey walking around that we have done with the combination of the existing drawings and sort of recreating things to the best of our ability. So we do have a fair amount of confidence in that number.
[Rosemary Park]: And then this was, you know, I'm a visual person. So this was a way to really visualize the program gross area for the existing and the MSBA guidelines. And so All of the colors that are to the left of the dotted line represent the net square footage, and the gray represents that unoccupied space that is determined by the grossing factor. And so you've got the x-axis representing square footage and the y with the existing versus MSBA. And so upon first glance, you can see already that the special ed in the dark green that appears smaller under the MSBA guidelines. Again, we are anticipating that that will grow bigger than what is existing because we know that we need the right size of spaces, but also we know that the Curtis Tufts program is moving in. If you look at another big thing that jumps out is that dark orange. So that dark orange, those are the CTE chapter 74 spaces. And so again, MSBA slash DESE guidelines are going to put us at that much larger orange bar. And so we can anticipate seeing seeing the CTE programs grow considerably there. And then the blue we've discussed about how your your health and PE spaces today are considerably bigger. But I think that it's, you know, to see that comparison visually, it's quite striking. And then another thing to note is that in the existing, you see that giant pink category, that was that other category. And you'll notice that the MSBA guidelines don't have anything for that category because they just don't provide guidelines on it. Those are the spaces that, as they're not a part of the MSBA guidelines regarding high schools or schools, those are not the square footages that the MSBA will reimburse for. So hopefully this is a helpful visual. I think that it really does give that story very quickly.
[Matt Rice]: From a flow standpoint, do we want to pause here for a second and field any questions, or do we want to run through the rest of the presentation, which does include some site analysis information? Open to either approach.
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: Keep going, please.
[Unidentified]: All right.
[SPEAKER_08]: I think that's my cue to say hello. I'm Laura Swan, the civil engineer from SMMA. And I'll be your guide around the exterior of the school and our site investigations. So this site has an extensive history. And early maps show it as a town farm where residents would work to earn their keep. And my understanding is this continued until the 1950s. In the 1960s, it was identified as the site of the future high school. You can see these plans show where there was a quarry or some sort of pit or dump that is now underneath the school. And the new building opened in 1971.
[Matt Rice]: I'm just going to take a second to do a little bit of color commentary here on sort of the pit quarry dump reference that was in there, because we have heard from various sources that the site was a dump at a certain point in time. And part of the fun of these projects is trying to do a little bit of historical research to understand sort of what is sort of the background to things. And so to the best that we understand it, back as late as the 1920s, there was a lot of excavation of various spots throughout Medford in terms of excavation of clay for sort of the brick manufacturing process. And so there were various spots that were excavated out. So that's that reference to the quarry, most likely a brick quarry, that once they were used up and bricks stopped being manufactured in Medford, again, around the 1920s, these holes were essentially left all over the city in various locations. I think the main one, which was prior sort of the official Medford City dump, which I think was down on River Street. that was sort of the largest one. This one I don't think was as official as a dump, but essentially these holes ended up getting filled either with rainwater or with sort of trash material. And so I think that's more or less what happened here, and that's why we see the varying references. The 1967-68 drawings that we found, one of which is up on screen here, actually referred to this as the quarry and sort of that perimeter that was around there. And you can see that this drawing was actually predates the final layout of the high school. This had like a separate boiler room over here and some tennis courts that were down the other side. But this outline that we see also reflected on those foundation drawings that Ellen mentioned we found for the B wing pretty much aligns. So we do have some level of confidence that this was the area on site that was sort of previously used for that purpose and the reason why they ended up having to put in a structured slab for the foundations of the building over these areas in particular.
[SPEAKER_08]: Thank you, Matt, for all that background. Yes, so currently the site is mostly paved and impermeable with some very noticeable pockets of bedrock. So over 50% of it is impermeable. The stormwater as it currently stands is not being treated for pollutants. In addition, there are very few shade trees or any sort of plantings to offer relief from the heat island effect. Two recent planning initiatives have identified the high school site for special consideration, particularly for the urban heat island effect in this region and some of the need to stabilize the banks from erosion by using plantings. There's also a desire to change the character of this site and use more of the open spaces and facilities and provide for more activities on the site. Now onto the exciting part, which is how people get to and from school. Interestingly enough, recent Safe Roads to School poll found that over half the students that live within a mile do walk to the high school. So there are well-traveled paths, especially through the fells, to the high school. There are also a lot of different transit routes, public transit routes, through different neighborhoods that will take students directly to the high school. And in addition, North Medford has the dedicated school bus route to bring students to the high school as well. So currently, there is a lot of parking on site. And vehicles and getting vehicles around the site are kind of prioritized. There are fences between the neighborhood and the school site to the northwest. which makes it harder for pedestrians to access the school from that direction. There's a two-way driveway as the only vehicle entrance to the site, as you can see off of Winthrop Street. And along the outside of the site, there's one exterior road to provide access to back to the pool, to the service entrances, and to the fields. And this can create a bottleneck for emergency vehicles, even just for delivery trucks and student transport services, both trying to use the same driveway at the same time. Currently, there's also 476 parking spaces, and it seems to be an underutilized number. So there might be opportunity there. So yes, service and circulation have come to sort of dominate the site. So the athletic entrances, the program spaces, those seem to be taking a backseat to sort of allowing the vehicles to enter and get around the site. So there are a lot of opportunities to better integrate these outdoor spaces into the learning spaces to provide amenities like seating, shade, bike racks. And in addition, a lot of these slopes have had significant erosion can see the damage to some of the stairs on the west side of the site and on that hillside. Thank you.
[Kimberly Talbot]: Thanks, Laura. And I had asked team members to introduce themselves and didn't do so before myself. Hello. Good evening. Helen Fantini, project manager with SMMA. And a real brief recap of the fact that the advisory teams, which is a method we're using to gather more community input on the four topic areas in the intersecting circles on the right side of the slide, those teams have been formed. you from the SPC have participated, and meeting number one, which was a listening session for each of the four topics occurred. Was that just last week? That was just last week. On the 16th and 18th, we have meeting number two coming up in the middle of January. On the 13th and the 15th, I believe those invites went out. take in what we heard last week and review and respond. And just to say real briefly that it was really, really engaged conversations on all four topics. And super exciting to be working with a group of people that are so connected to this incredible project.
[Matt Gulino]: Uh, all right, uh, just looking at, uh, next steps, uh, like Helen. Um, mentioned, uh, we'll continue those advisory team meetings, uh, next month. Uh, and those will continue to kind of inform, you know, the design as we start to. Yes.
[Jenny Graham]: Hi, I just wondered if anybody had any questions before we went to the wrap up phase here, because they've just taken in a lot of information.
[Matt Gulino]: Sure. Yeah, so does anybody have any questions on any of the existing conditions or where we currently stand with the space summary that Rosemary reviewed?
[Paul Ruseau]: question. So this is looking at what we have and what's allowed. And if I had the whole project plan in front of me, I might be able to answer it myself. But when do we discuss all the things the MSBA and DESE are interested in? Central administration, that kind of stuff. I don't want that to be an add-on or an afterthought. I know that's not the whole point of this project, but I also want to make sure those areas are as functional and, you know, great places to work as possible. And I'm just worried that they're going to be like, we have a corner over here where you can stuff them in. And I don't want that to happen.
[Matt Gulino]: No, we'll certainly be looking. We're currently looking at everything that we've heard about those spaces, and we will definitely be incorporating those into this phase as we start to look at some high-level massings and ideas on what this project may look like. So it is something that we're actively working on, and we'll be updating the committee before we submit the PDP at the end of February. So in the coming months here, this will continue to evolve and you'll see those categories on that space summary start to change as we start to incorporate some of those kind of lesser known areas at this point in time. But it is something that we're working on and it's something that will continue to evolve even beyond the February submission. that will continue to evolve. As we work, you know, towards a preferred option in the next phase. It will continue to kind of evolve through through that phase as well. Um so we can have.
[Rosemary Park]: And Paul, I just wanted to also add on to that that, um, every single, um, component that fell under the other category, including central office, those programs as well. So we're going through the same process as we are with the educational programs. So I want to assure you that we are taking a close look at all of that as well.
[Paul Ruseau]: One of the conversations I've had with school committee members is that we should have a school committee chamber and a school committee office attached to the central administration so that they're not You know, I mean, these people work ridiculous hours as it is, and we have enormous scheduling challenges by using the same place as the City Council and all the other purposes that City Hall has. So, you know, the user group there is the public and the school committee, and I've not really seen how that's I mean it wasn't part of our SLI because it was never going to be included. So I just want to make sure we don't like after the fact discover that wait the school committee wants to have an office and a chamber so that we can have and maybe even have our chambers attached to the vocational program for all of the stuff they do and you know there's probably opportunities for multi-use for such a place. Right now, like the City Council, like the chambers that we use now at City Hall, like that doesn't make sense as a multi-use for students. Like in the middle of the school day, they're not going to be getting on a bus to go there. But I think there's a lot of opportunities for a multi-use chambers or whatever they would end up being called or look like. So I just want to make sure that stuff is Like there's not going to be a work group for that. I mean, the public doesn't use the chambers the way that the school committee does, for instance. And I don't know what other administrative spaces are. I saw those numbers, but then I realized it was not including central admin. And so I think we're sort of free to do what we want with the stuff that's not covered by MSBA in any way, shape, or form. So I just want to make sure that we're included in that.
[Jenny Graham]: And Paul, I think the other thing that We're not ready to talk about yet, but that this team, like the architects have done a tremendous amount of data collection on is like sort of the difference between how education happens in the building today, and like what. we'll call it everyone's hopes and dreams might be for what a new space could provide. And part of them meeting, having hundreds of meetings and doing all these all day sessions is to start to unfold like how all those things fit together. So I think the team has a tremendous amount of that like information already, maybe an exception for the example you just provided. And we'll get there and be able to share that, but I think it was to the visioning sessions and like how that ties to the educational plan. has to happen before we can start talking about some of those spaces that are new and interesting and innovative and all of those things. So I think we're on our way there really quickly, just not there today. But the team has, as Rosemary said, done tons and tons and tons of data collection to understand what the needs and wishes and hopes and dreams are of the people who spend their time in the building, including students.
[SPEAKER_14]: Hi, this is Lisa Miller. I have a quick question. Could you just explain what grossing factor means briefly?
[Rosemary Park]: Yeah, so the grossing factor is basically any space that is unoccupied space. So you're always your toilets, your mechanical rooms, vertical circulation, so stairs, you know, elevators, closets, all of those things that are not programmed space but are still required for the building. But we're not going to, you know, I'm not going to list like every single janitor's closet that's going to be in the building because those are things that are required, but we don't put them as program space.
[SPEAKER_14]: Thank you.
[Matt Gulino]: Any other questions? All right, uh, Matt, do you want to go back down to the kind of upcoming? Uh, so just looking ahead here at, at some of the critical dates, um, for, for this committee to be prepared for, um, you know, many of you are a part of those advisory team meetings. Uh, so a reminder, we'll be meeting again with them on the 13th and the 15th of January. We will be meeting with this committee right between those two meetings on January 14th, and we'll continue to kind of keep updating a lot of the existing conditions that we reviewed tonight. There's still a lot of work for us to continue with there. And the review of alternatives will be really the team's first attempt at looking at the overall square footage of the school and how that may, you know, work out in an actual building. We are required by the MSBA to look at different alternatives, an addition renovation, a code upgrade, and a new build. So these alternatives will cover a wide range of those options. We've been on, and I'm sure SMMA can speak to this as well, but we've been on projects where we may start out with 20 different options, and you'll start to wheel down those options depending on a range of different factors. It could be the building's too tall. It could be it's too sprawling. There's just a lot of different options that we need to get in front of this committee. So we'll start to review those alternatives at the next meeting. From there, we'll be taking those alternatives and providing them to the cost estimators. SMMA and Leftfield both have two independent cost estimators that we'll provide the documentation to. They will both price them and provide estimates independently. And then we'll go through a reconciliation to see kind of how those two estimators came to their numbers. These first alternatives are a very high level cost per square foot estimate. We're not getting down into the nitty gritty on finishes and mechanical systems. It's a very high level estimate at this point of the project, just to get a sense of where the market is. And then from there, we'll be meeting twice in February. This is when we'll really start to get some more robust information in front of you. We will have the PDP estimates in early February. So we'll start to present some numbers, like I said, very high level, but give us a sense of how, not just where the market is, but also how the different alternatives compare to each other. It's really a cost. a comparative cost analysis between the options, not necessarily, you know, this is what the project is absolutely going to cost. We are quite a ways from understanding that, but we will start to get a sense of it with some of these alternatives. And then at the end of the month in February on the 23rd, we will be looking for an approval of the first submission to the MSBA, which is the preliminary design program or PDP. Um, so we'll be, you know, preparing everybody from now until then, uh, with all of the information that we'll be looking for approval on at the end of February. So, um, and I think with that, uh, Matt, I don't know if you had any other slides or was that the last one? No, we were, that's a thank you slide. So, uh, does anybody have any final, any final questions, SMA? Uh, I don't know if you have any final comments. Or Jenny, I'm happy to stick on if anybody has any other, any thoughts.
[Jenny Graham]: Matt, this is Jenny. I know we have sort of a light group here and Matt and I will work to get an email update out to everybody so that people know what is coming. And in particular that, like, these next meetings are the ones everyone's been waiting for and. I think people will be really excited to participate. So I just want people to have a bit of a heads up and a reconfirmation of the schedule, which I think has shifted slightly. So we'll owe you all an email about that in the coming weeks. So while you are hopefully enjoying some rest and relaxation, you can get out your calendar and put us in pen on those days so that you can plan to participate. coming attraction for everybody. I think if there aren't any other questions, there might be a motion to adjourn somewhere.
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: So moved. Seconded. Motion to adjourn by Ken. Seconded.
[Jenny Graham]: I will call the roll real quick. Jenny Graham, yes. Mayor Lungo-Koehn. Yes. Dr. Gluski is absent. Marta Cabral. Yes. Joan Bowen. Yes. Ken Lord.
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: Yes. Libby Brown.
[Jenny Graham]: Did we lose Libby? Marissa Desmond? Absent. Maria Dorsey is absent. Brian Hilliard?
[Paul Ruseau]: Yes. Libby Brown was a yes.
[Jenny Graham]: Emily Lazzaro? Yes. Oh, Libby's a yes. OK.
[SPEAKER_12]: Did you hear me?
[Jenny Graham]: Paul Malone? I did.
[SPEAKER_12]: Yes.
[Jenny Graham]: Nicole Morell? Yes. Erin Olapade? Yes. Luke Prisner is absent, so 11 in the affirmative for absent. The meeting is adjourned. Thank you everyone for bearing with me. Have a wonderful holiday and we will see you all in January.
|
total time: 0.5 minutes total words: 43 |
total time: 9.36 minutes total words: 709 |
total time: 5.83 minutes total words: 585 |
|