[Unidentified]: Yeah, that's why we're here.
[Jenny Graham]: Before we get started, I wanted to introduce three folks who have joined us to help with translation services for this meeting for any of our residents who join us in person and need translation services. So I'm going to turn it over to you all to introduce yourself and let people know where to find you in the library if they need translation services.
[SPEAKER_08]: Hi, good evening. My name is Genevieve Young. I'm the interpreter of Ledford High School. and I will be interpreting for Portuguese. And I will be sitting among the other fellow people that are sitting here.
[MCM00001615_SPEAKER_08]: Hi, my name is Natasha Barth, and I work for the health department at City Hall. And I will be interpreting for the Haitian Creole community. And I will be sitting anywhere around there.
[Libby Brown]: My name is Jennifer Alvarez. I'm a Hispanic.
[SPEAKER_00]: There are interpreters in that area as well.
[Jenny Graham]: And what language are you interpreting for? Thank you. Thank you. So we can go ahead and get started. I'm going to read the meeting notice and take the roll so we can get moving because I know everyone's really excited to be here. Please be advised that there'll be a full meeting of the Medford Conference of High School Building Committee in person at the Medford High School Library at 489 Midwinthrop Street and also held via remote participation. This meeting will be interactive and physical drawings of the design options will be available at the in-person meeting. We encourage participants to join us in person so they can participate as we collect input and reactions. The meeting can be viewed live on Medford Public Schools YouTube channel, through Medford Community Media on your local cable channel, which is TomCast 9, 8, or 22, and Verizon 43, 45, or 47. This meeting will be recorded. Participants can log in or call in using the following information. The Zoom meeting ID is 991-645-87300. I will start by calling the roll. Jenny Graham here. Mayor Lungo-Koehn. Absent. Dr. Galusi here. Verdi Cabral here. Joan Bowen here. Ken Lord here. Libby Brown here. Marissa Desmond. Marie Dorsey here. Brian Hillier here. Emily Lazzaro here. Paul Malone here. Welcome. Nicole Morell here. Arnold Pate here. Luke Preissner here. Bob Dickinson. Fiona Maxwell. Chad Fallon here. Kim Talbot, here. Will Pippistelli, here. Lori Hodgson, here. John McLaughlin, here. Paul Rousseau, here. Philip Santos, here. And Lisa Miller, here. OK. Fiona is here online. OK. Fiona is here online. OK. Great. So we have 13 present and two absent. So we have a quorum. We'll move through. some of the regular business here before we get to the exciting stuff, because I'm saving plenty of time for that. For this group, for this committee to know, the communications subcommittee is going to be meeting in about a week. And I think we could use one or two more members to join us. So thank you, Luke, for your service on the communications subcommittee. So we're looking to fill with choose and maybe one more who can help flesh out some of the broader communication plan in terms of interest for city residents, both who are connected to the school or are not. Is there anybody else willing to join us from this team? Well, I'll entice somebody later. All right. All right. If you're interested, please just reach out. I think the next thing on our agenda is approval of the meeting minutes. So we have meeting minutes from 1124 and from 1222, which you should have received yesterday. Is there a motion to approve the minutes?
[Luke Preisner]: Move the minutes to be approved as amended.
[Jenny Graham]: Second motion to approve by, sorry.
[Luke Preisner]: Oh, did you make the motion? So I second it.
[Jenny Graham]: Ken and seconded by Luke.
[Libby Brown]: I have one quick thing. I just noticed on the meeting for 22nd, the date was not there. It said December 2025. So a motion to approve as amended. Yeah.
[Jenny Graham]: OK, we'll make sure we fix the date. OK, so I will call the roll. Jenny Graham. Yes. Mayor Wendell Kern is absent. Dr. Glusi. Yes. Marta Cabral. Yes. Joan Bowen. Yes. Ken Lord. Yes. Libby Brown. Yes. Marissa Desmond is absent. Maria Dorsey? Yes. Brian Hilliard? Yes. Emily Lazzaro?
[Unidentified]: Yes.
[Jenny Graham]: Paul Malone? Yes. Nicole Morell? Yes. Erin Olapade? Yes. Ruth Kreisner? Yes. 13 in the affirmative, zero in the negative, two absent, the minutes are approved. Moving on to approval of invoices, I'm going to turn it over to Leftfield to give us an explainer of the invoices, and then we'll take a vote.
[Matt Gulino]: All right. So good evening, everyone. We have our first meeting with two invoices. So we have our typical left field invoice for the month of December 2025 for the agreed upon value of $25,000. And this is the first invoice from SMMA. Uh, this does date back until, uh, November when they initially were, um, starting work, uh, their contract wasn't approved until November 22nd. Uh, so this catches them up to the, to the start of 2026. Um, with their, uh, first invoice of 135,000, uh, for a total of 160,000, uh, that were against current, uh, through December of 25.
[Jenny Graham]: Okay, any questions about the invoices from the committee? Is there a motion to approve?
[Luke Preisner]: So moved.
[Jenny Graham]: Seconded by Ken, seconded by Libby. Can I call the roll? Jenny Graham? Yes. Mayor Lungo-Koehn? Still absent. Dr. Galissi? Yes. Marta Cabral? Yes. General Bowen? Yes. Ken Lord? Yes. Libby Brown? Yes. Marissa Desmond? Rhea Dorsey? Yes. Brian Hilliard? Yes. Emily Lazzaro?
[Unidentified]: Yes.
[Jenny Graham]: Paul Malone? Yes. Nicole Morell? Yes. Eric Lapate? Yes. Ruth Presner? Yes. 13 in the affirmative, zero in the negative, two absent. The invoices are approved. Go ahead. I'm going to keep turning it over to left field. They're going to talk to us about a contract amendment that they are recommending for our approval this evening.
[Luke Preisner]: Yeah, actually, can you go to the amendment slide and show me right after the announcement?
[Michael Pardek]: Wherever it was, right?
[Matt Gulino]: Yeah. Oh, this is a little difficult to read here. This is just a latest budget update. You know, we're obviously still well within budget. Trying to apologize. I cannot read it from here, but it was distributed uh, to everybody, uh, in the, in the latest packet. Um, but all, all things said, everything is still within budget and tracking exactly where we anticipated. Next slide. Yeah. Um, so just before I hand it over to SMMA, I just, I did want to note when I had initially sent this amendment out, I had noted it was for geotechnical work. It is actually geo environmental work. Um, so I just wanted to clarify that. Um, also just to note, this does not increase the feasibility study budget. This is simply transferring funds, uh, from our other category up into SMMAs, uh, contract. Uh, and then it's also, um, we're also seeking approval to submit a budget revision request to the MSBA. Uh, this is simply an accounting exercise with the MSBA showing them where we're, we're moving money, uh, that's been approved for, for any amendment. So, um, I'll let SOMA kind of get into a little bit more of the detail on what the amendment is for.
[Kimberly Talbot]: Sure. So our geoenvironmental engineer was contracted to do a phase one assessment on the site, which is mostly research and speaking to people who have knowledge. And based on that information, it was determined that there's enough concern to need a phase two. Fortunately, we have the ability to piggyback on, and this is maybe why Matt thought this was a geotechnical. Our geotechnical engineers have started work on the site with some test pits and test pourings. And so we have the ability for our geoenvironmental engineer to be out there witnessing the soils, being able to do sampling at the same time. So originally, this number was about twice in our other reimbursables budget. But again, because we're able to piggyback on the other work, this is the total request for phase two services. Questions about that?
[Luke Preisner]: So just to clarify, it's not an upper to the total value, but it's an allocation from, is it a reserve budget or is it something else? What's it called? PB, David Ensign — He's being reallocated.
[Jenny Graham]: PB, David Ensign — Yeah, the other category. PB, David Ensign — Yeah, this category is called... Yeah.
[Matt Gulino]: And it's built into the feasibility budget for these items. If we need additional geotechnical, if we need additional estimating services, it's just essentially a contingency within the feasibility that we can pull from if needed.
[Luke Preisner]: PB, David Ensign — Okay. Is there a ceiling in the other category?
[Matt Gulino]: PB, David Ensign — Yes. I don't need to know what it is. OK, but yes, there is. It's all within the total $3 million of the feasibility study.
[Libby Brown]: Any other questions? Is there a motion to approve the amendment?
[Aaron Olapade]: Motion to approve.
[Jenny Graham]: By Aaron. Is there a second? Second. Second by Joan. Call the roll. Jenny Graham, yes. Mayor Lungo-Koehn. Dr. Galussi? Yes. Marta Cabral, yes. Joan Bowen, yes. Ken Lord, yes. Libby Brown, yes. Marissa Desmond, yes. Brea Dorsey, yes. Brian Hilliard, yes. Emily Lazzaro, yes. Paul Malone, yes. Nicole Morell, yes. Karen Olapade, yes. Ruth Preissner, yes. 13 in the affirmative, zero in the negative, two absent. The amendment is approved. Okay. So we're finally to the exciting stuff. And I'm going to turn it over to the SMB team because they have been working really tirelessly. But before I do that, I just wanted to mention that what we're going to see tonight are sort of like a jumping off point. So we'll actually see quite a number of options. I was frankly shocked at how many options that you all came up with. But the goal for tonight is, to help us get an understanding of what is possible on this site. Whatever advances out of this meeting this evening is what will be sent to the cost estimators for their very initial estimate, which is required to be submitted with our PDP submission at the end of February. The SMMA team will talk a little bit about context, but just to set the framing, should take a vote on something at the end of the evening. And it could be that we take a vote to advance all these options forward, unless there's something really problematic happening. But we'll get there sort of towards the end. I'm going to turn it over to SMMA. And then for those who are on Zoom, there will be an interactive way for you to all provide your thoughts in this process. And in the room, we're going to welcome you to do the same on the phone. So you might just want to get hooked up to the guest network because that'll be the easiest way to do it while we get started and listen to some of the context we're bringing. And I'm going to turn it over to the team.
[Matt Rice]: So I might start just with that sort of logistical point. For folks that are in the room, there are to our codes that are sitting in front of you. We're actually presenting using a tool called Mentimeter today, which is a digital interactive platform. And that's the reason why we have some fun little icons floating around our screen that you'll see as we move forward. For folks that are online, we're going to get to the point in the presentation just before we jump into the different cost alternatives that we're going to present. And we'll give you an opportunity to log in then as well. We're just giving folks a little bit more time online to get ready for it, but there's really no need for interaction until we get to the actual cost alternative portion.
[Kimberly Talbot]: You mean don't give you a thumbs down right now?
[Matt Rice]: You can give me a thumbs down. I can take it right now. Probably for the internet connection is unstable. You can give a thumbs down. And not saying that personally to Ken. This is the portion of the agenda that we're going to run through. There's a small predecessor to this as well that we're going to start with, which is just giving everyone a quick update on the status of the programming work that we've been doing, which drives the overall size of the building, which in turn drives these cost alternatives. We'll get into why that's important as we move forward. But really what we're going to run through is a fair number of options, which you'll see. They're all going to fall into 1 of these 3 categories of either a code upgrade option. In addition, renovation option, or a new building option. Those are the 3 baseline options that need to be submitted to the as part of our report. We've gone way above sort of that minimum of 3, but that is sort of the baseline that we're going to be look at. And that's going to be the lens through which we're going to start looking at all the different options. It's 1 of those 3 different categories. Um, we're then going to sort of integrate in this interactive session. Um, and we're also going to be able to feel comments, um, on the options after we get through them. We do want to try to get through all of them as opposed to stopping and fielding questions as we go, um, just to maintain the continuity. So you can understand, um, each alternative, um, with respect to the other ones as we're moving through them. Um, All right. Somebody gave a thumbs up, which I appreciate. All right. So we're going to move. Okay, so the program area update. What we've been doing over the course of the past couple of months is really been building up into this point and really allowing us to determine what the target size of the building is going to be. This is a slide that we've shown at various visioning processes at the programming meetings that we've had. And it really sort of outlines the process of how we start from not knowing anything to knowing what the building size is going to be. Right so we're running a couple of concurrent activities initially. One in sort of the visioning track educational visioning where we bring together both educational leadership which was probably about 20 members of school leadership district leadership all coming together. We also had educational forums which pulled in larger diverse cross-section of the population within Medford both from the school side including students including families. Again the district and school leadership as well but sort of larger community input. So all of that is getting pulled together into an educational plan which is sort of the heart of the design of the project. So this is really outlining the goals of the education that is envisioned to happen for the school moving forward. And it's something that is being written by the district which is again a requirement of the MSBA. This is not the design team telling the district or the community. what the vision for education is going to be here within the city at the high school. It is the community the school community really developing that plan with some frameworks in terms of visioning and activities. So while that is all ongoing we're also doing space programming. This is where we went out and we met we had those 49 different meetings with all the current and potential future users of the building. So there were probably over like 250 people that we were meeting with individually. throughout the course of those 49 meetings. So that was a lot of conversations, a lot of energy to try to find out, okay, what does everyone need in this building as we move forward from an individual program standpoint? That generated an educational program. And you can see in terms of the percentages that are complete down below, we're not done with either of those activities yet, but we're also at the point where we need to start to move forward on these cost alternatives. So that we can start to get an idea of the cost overall of the project of all these different options as we go forward. So we're sort of moving these things concurrently as we go. We do have enough confidence in terms of where each one of those things is to be able to lead us to the next stages of the process. And so the educational plan and the educational program really combine to form this overall building size. which is going to be a gross square footage. It's every inch, every square foot of the building that we're going to be in moving forward, again, whether it's an added on to and renovated building or whether it's a completely new building. The other thing that we're doing while we're doing all those other activities in terms of programming and visioning, we're doing this existing building analysis and existing site analysis. What we talked about in terms of doing the phase two of geoenvironmental study, we're doing geotechnical studies, we're doing laser scanning, hazardous materials. I'm not going to try to read off the entire list, but essentially doing that deep dive into the existing building to understand what's here. Really, those two things, understanding what's on the site and what's in the building, as well as having that overall size of the building, allows us to then start projecting these very high-level cost alternatives. As we go forward in the process, we're going to talk a little bit about what those are, but I just want to try to give a sense of what the building is looking like right now and what's driving all the cost alternatives as we get into it. On the left is really a statement of what the educational plan is that Dr. Galusi shared at the staff meeting and at the community forum most recently, talking about sort of the process that everyone has been going through in terms of developing that educational plan. But in terms of the other pieces that are composed in the existing building, again, we're not assuming anything about this existing building. We're crawling through every inch. We're finding every locked door to understand who is using every space. We've been bugging Ken and John to let us in everywhere as we've been going through. And that is both ourselves as well as the crew that's been doing the laser scanning. So we're getting programmatic understanding as well as the physical understanding of what is here at a very detailed level. The educational plan that I talked about is really understanding sort of the educational needs and sort of what that develops into for new programs that are coming here or the existing programs that are here and evolving as we move forward. It's not a static model of education that we're looking at. There are some spaces that are subject to additional guidelines that we have to follow on the special education front. DESE provides a lot of guidance in terms of the sizes of spaces and types of spaces. And we combine that with a very close conversation with Joan and her team to understand from a district perspective and a school perspective what is the vision for special education moving forward. And then in terms of the Chapter 74 programs again DESE provides specific guidance on the sizing of the shop spaces from a safety perspective. Understanding how many students may be in each shop and program moving forward. Again we're looking at shops that are here currently as well as the four new shops that are projected to be added to the school moving forward. So these are all the numbers in terms of where we stand right now in terms of net square footage. So I'll take a second to explain this a little bit. We're not going to dive into every square footage here at the moment. Partly because we're still evolving. We're still having discussions that refine the proposed net area. And we're also still waiting for the results of our laser scan which we're expecting at the beginning of next week which will tune those existing numbers probably like within a percentile or two in terms of what you're seeing here. Really what we're going to focus on though are sort of where we have big changes. On the right hand side we have some percentages of increase or decrease from the existing to the proposed net area. And just to take a second and talk about that that term net square footage or net area. That is the usable area for every space that's got in program that's going to be within the building. So it does not include things like hallways. It does not include things like toilet rooms or mechanical rooms. We take the net area the total sum total of the net floor area and we multiply that by one and a half to get the overall building size and refer to that as the gross floor area. But for right now we're just looking at the comparison on a percentage basis of where we were or where we are now really and where we're looking to go in the future. So I'm going to move forward. We have a little this is sort of the cheat sheet in terms of where those big swings are just so we can run through and understand why we have those big variations either up or down as we're thinking about the proposed building. The first is on the special education side. We are doing a lot of right-sizing for the programs that are here currently and that includes both the sub-separate programs which are dedicated programs where students are in all day long but also the resource rooms where services are provided on a more intermittent basis where students are coming and going from different spaces. So we're right-sizing those. We're also thinking about the future. We're understanding the trends again based on discussions with Joan. where we're looking to address student need in the future as we go forward. So that in some cases that's increasing room capacity. In some cases it's just thinking about different programs and sort of how they come in. Additionally there is the relocation of the Curtis Tufts program the therapeutic day program from a remote site to this building and so that's going to add a certain amount of square footage. So that's partly the reason why you see a fairly significant increase in the special education space that we have here today versus where we're going in the future. The second one is the addition of technology labs. So the the MSBA refers to these as vocational spaces and it's a little bit confusing because it is not the same as the Chapter 74 vocational spaces. They refer to these as really hands-on learning labs and they're spaces that as we've been talking with the educational leadership team as well as the educational forum there's a need here at the school for additional hands-on learning activities. Whether that takes the form of electives that are added to the curriculum and offerings for students or whether that is providing resources for existing curriculum to go and use specialized spaces those those technology labs really will provide a tremendous amount of additional opportunity for project-based for hands-on learning as we go forward whether it's electives or whether it's modification of existing curriculum. I think there's probably only one or two of those types of spaces in the building right now, like a maker space fits into that category. So there's a considerable amount of those spaces that are being thought about being added to the overall building program. The CTE spaces are almost doubling in size in terms of the square footage that we have for Chapter 74 programs here today. And again, that's a combination of adding four new programs, right, that don't exist today. So we need all that square footage. But also when we look at the enrollment for the CT Chapter 74 programs to make sure that we have that DESE required amount of space for the number of students that are planned to be enrolled. Right. And we have a tremendous amount of very successful programs here that are growing in enrollment. Chad has been able to get some grants to be able to add staff moving forward. And so when we increase the size of the existing program, we have to do two things. We have to provide enough space and we have to provide enough staff from a DESE perspective. And so we're doing both of those things as we're thinking about moving forward. And that's the reason for the Chapter 74 programs increasing in space. Under the drama category, the auditorium itself, we've heard many times that the existing auditorium is extremely limiting in terms of the number of seats that are in there currently. So planning for a thousand seat auditorium just results in a very linear sort of increase in terms of the amount of square footage that's associated with it. And then lastly early education in the building right now we have currently Medford Family Network. We have Kids Corner and we have the preschool program that's associated with the Chapter 74 early ed program. What we're going to be doing is adding to that dramatically by the consolidation of the preschool classrooms throughout the district here. This is the MEEP program the Bedford Ed Early Educational Program that will be coming here. I think currently we're targeting 11 classrooms I believe as the count of integrated preschool classrooms 15 students per classroom. And so that's going to relieve stress on the elementary schools where those preschool classrooms are located right now. and provide really purpose-built facilities moving forward. So there's a big increase in square footage, but the benefit to the city, to the students, the youngest students within the district is really tremendous there as well. This is just a quick graphic that lets you sort of see the increase based on sort of color coding. It's another way of looking at that same information that we were just going through anecdotally and from the actual numerical listing of things. So I won't spend too much time here other than pointing out the fact that you can see overall, we are looking at an increase in terms of net square footage, program square footage based on the sum total of all the changes that are happening. I will point out there's a couple of reductions as well in terms of overall categories. The health and PE category is reducing, not because we're suggesting that we're going to be reducing the size of the gym, just because there is a tremendous amount of locker room space underneath your gymnasium. It is far and above beyond anything that we have seen in terms of the sizing of it. And quite frankly, a lot of it is completely unusable, right? And so what we're going to be doing is building purposeful locker room space that is at the size that the MSBA will allow us to build on the same level as the gymnasium. And so that overall square footage is shrinking down, just as one example. But overall, we're looking at a net increase of the net square footage. All right.
[Jenny Graham]: Matt, before you continue, can you just flash up the Ventimeter link real quick? There's a bunch of people who have joined us, and I just want them to be able to connect.
[Matt Rice]: Let me see if I can get to it. It's a couple of slides in here. OK. So I'll leave it here for just a second so folks can snap it with their phone to get the QR code. Or you can also go to, on the left-hand side here, worldwideweb.menti.com, and you can enter that code. That's another way of getting to it if you need to. And Ken has just dropped it in the chat as well. Or somebody dropped it. Maybe it was Will. OK. Somebody can give Ken a thumbs up for that. We'll come back to this slide again. So you have another opportunity. If you can't catch it right now, again, no need to put the thumbs up on things until we get into the alternatives, but we'll take thumbs up, we'll take thumbs down as we get there. All right, so cost alternatives. This is sort of the tricky part of the meeting in terms of calibrating how we're all thinking and looking at these alternatives as we go forward. These are going to look and feel like design options. We make a specific distinction between design options and cost alternatives because there is so much in terms of design that we just don't know yet about the building and we can't get into with the number of schemes that we're going to be looking at right now. The important thing for us at this stage in the process is to really understand how big the building is how much of the building we want to build new or make it as an addition, and how much we want to renovate in terms of existing square footage. And so we're just not at the point where the term design is really appropriate to evaluate these. There's going to be a lot of fluctuations. This diagram that is up on the screen right now is our attempt to try to explain that a bit. In terms of the different cost models that we're going to be establishing from these alternatives, they are exclusively based for the building on square footage, square footage of the building. It actually does not matter from an estimating standpoint what shape the building is in. All three of these diagrams at this point, if they were considered designs, would be costed at the same square footage. Even though they have different surface areas, they have different roof areas, if you think about them as buildings, right? We're just at the point where we need to focus on the square footage. And that's why the size of the building is so important right now, because it is our one sort of metric that we're following along as we go. So as Michael runs through the different alternatives as we come up, you may see forms, shapes of the building that you like, you don't like. You can still react to them. We're not saying you can't. It's really a tough thing to separate. It's tough for us as designers to separate ourselves from Form and looking at that because we're just trained to do this by nature and sometimes we can't help ourselves. So we completely understand if people have that lens when they're seeing these. I just want to point it out as we go through. We're going to point out again as we go. And there may be questions that get asked later on. They're going to tie back to this concept that we're looking at square footage. And we're looking at high-level cost models and alternatives as opposed to design options. So I just wanted to take a second and sort of frame that. And we have a couple of other sort of framing slides as well before we jump in, just so that people can sort of, again, calibrate the thinking. You will see masses in terms of buildings that are going to fall into sort of one of two general categories, right? Buildings that go a little bit taller, buildings that sprawl out a little bit wider in terms of the usage of the site. For our purposes today and sort of moving forward with the cost estimates, the taller buildings allow you to have more site area to work with, whether that's for parking, whether that's for fields, whether it's for other types of outdoor programs associated with any of the programs that are going to be on site, right. So we have that balance between building footprint area and site area that the tall buildings have some sort of better equation of in terms of more site area. At the same time, as we get to a certain point in terms of the height of the building, we get into something called the high-rise structure, which has some additional construction premiums associated with it. So we will put a slightly higher dollar value associated with once we get to those taller buildings. Really anything five stories and above starts to drive that high-rise or premium to the construction. All right. Another important piece of this and I'm sure this is a it's a tough one for people to wrap their minds around in terms of the phasing of these buildings. We're going to look at a lot of options that are building on parts of the existing building as new additions or they're renovating parts of the existing building and trying to think about how that happens while teaching and learning are going on here as well as all the other community uses that happen in this building and on the site. It's it's sort of mind bending when you start to get into the details of it. And what we don't want to be right now is sort of hamstrung or constrained by trying to figure out, well, how are we going to phase that? How are we going to do it? It's really going to be our job at this point for each of the options as the sort of design professionals to give the cost estimators a number of phases that may be required in terms of duration, in terms of quantity to actually achieve any of the options that we're going to be looking at. Certainly if people have thoughts and they want to talk about it, that's fine. We welcome the comments. We're not going to get into the phasing in terms of the alternatives. We're going to run through sort of what the end product is. In terms of making those things actually happen though in terms of how it drives the cost we do have a couple different options of how we treat it. We can potentially have to bring in temporary modular classroom buildings to operate on site. So for instance if we were going to take away the library that's here we might have to create a library space temporarily outside somewhere else on the site. That is an additional cost. It's a non-reimbursable cost as well from the MSBA. They don't help fund any temporary measures. We will look for ways to avoid that whenever we can. But for some of these options that we're going to look at when we're building right on top of the existing building, there may be no way of avoiding it as well. It just may be a necessary part of the process. Just be aware that phasing is going to have to happen for a lot of these options. We're going to be accounting for the cost of those as we move forward through them. All right, and then just a little bit about the structure organization of the different options. I'm not going to try and tell you what the colors are there, but the largest piece of mass that you see there, right, we've collected together four academic classrooms, CTE classrooms, special education space, It's not about what programs are where at this point in time. It's really about the volume the quantity of square footage that we have. We have gone ahead a little bit contradictory to that. We have gone ahead and shown where some of the bigger spaces are so you can see the scale of them and the fact that they're double height or sometimes triple height spaces just for relative purposes. But again I wouldn't hinge or thumbs up or thumbs down upon where you see any of those parts and pieces because they can move around they will move around. They're just put in there for reference purposes to illustrate that we're capturing that square footage and to help give a little bit of scale to the overall mass. In all cases, whether we're looking at addition renovation options, whether we're looking at all new construction options, that proposed net area is going to be the same. in terms of what we're looking at. Sometimes it's going to be taller. Sometimes it's going to be wider. Sometimes it's going to be mixed into existing construction versus new construction in different ways. Probably the one exception to that will be when we get to new construction options because the gymnasium that we're going to be showing you in those new construction options cannot be as big as the existing gymnasium here. So that existing gym is about 30,000 square feet. A new gymnasium that we can build will be a maximum of 18,000 square feet. So that's like 12,000 square foot delta in between. But generally, it's sort of apples to apples in terms of square footage. I don't know, Kate, I just want to talk real quickly about the site.
[Erin Prestileo]: Matt just explained how the buildings are color coded, and you're going to see some options for the site that are similarly color coded. The goal here is not to show you a fixed location for any items, but just to give you a sense at a squint of what parts of the site are dedicated to green, so fields and planting, what parts of the site are dedicated to pavement and circulation of vehicles and parking in gray, and what parts of the site are more actively programmed with gathering spaces, hangout spaces, entry spaces, CTE yard, outdoor spaces, and the required outdoor play areas for the preschool component. So you'll see those color coded and just like the building, don't get too fixated on where they are. What we're trying to do is just show you what couldn't fit in some of these different scenarios. On the next slide, you'll see just a couple of cost assumptions as it relates to site. Primarily the big drivers here are how much surface parking we want to accommodate. Each of the schemes that you're going to see, just like the building is fixed in size, each of the schemes that you're going to see is showing a fixed quantity of parking, which more or less matches what you have today. We're still fine tuning whether that number needs to grow or whether it could possibly shrink in terms of number of cars that need to park on site every day. But for now, we've assumed it's roughly the same. And so you're going to see a balance of some schemes that illustrate all that parking in a surface condition like you have today. Some schemes that deck over that parking to provide an additional space for fields or program and some schemes that actually go as far as building a parking garage to conserve more of the landscape for fields and other high school and community programming. As just as Matt said, there is a cost implication to that. And so that's what some of the schemes we'll be exploring from a cost perspective. But again, there's a lot of flexibility about where things go. And it's really that proportion of parking and where it sits relative to grade that will determine what you can fit in terms of other programs.
[Matt Rice]: All right. So I'm probably going to turn it over to Michael in a second. I just want to reiterate sort of the goal of what we're doing as we look through these options. We're not going to come out of this meeting today picking one of these options, right? Really what we want to know is whether or not we have missed any option that like potentially anyone out there is dreaming of and maybe doesn't see in the series of options that we present. Or if there's something that people see that says, geez, there's no way that Medford will accept this type of option moving forward. Um, and we just want to take it off the table and not even get it cost estimated. That's the other thing that we want to try to achieve here. So we're going to probably be working with the general balance, the number of options that we have, but it's really whether or not we're sort of missing anything, um, or whether or not something that we're showing is just sort of like a bridge too far in terms of the concepts of what we're showing. So try to keep that, um, mindset as we go through, in addition to using the Mentimeter, um, tool to sort of, um, just voice support or displeasure with any of the options that we're showing.
[Kimberly Talbot]: Do you want me to take that one for you?
[Michael Pardek]: Yeah, and I could just go through A will be the code upgrade. We've grouped B and C. Those are all renovation and mission. The only difference with C is it's primarily focuses on saving the gymnasium athletics piece, but pretty much the rest of the school is demolished in that scheme. That's why those two are, you know, we show for there's only the MSBA three pre-reg and pre-submitted, and D is the new construction.
[Matt Rice]: I think this next slide is our little quick pause here from Endymeter again. Just make sure you speak up or it'll be gone soon. Sure. So if anyone, as we get through a certain point, if people don't see the link in the chat as well, in terms of the code, just feel free to, I guess, ping Will. I can flash it up on screen again, the QR code, if that's helpful, if necessary, as we're going along, just so that people have additional access to it. But we'll leave that there for a second, and we're going to jump in.
[Michael Pardek]: All right, we'll jump right in. Well, there's 57 studies here. You can imagine between the, you know, the kind of four different rows here, there's a lot of variations that you can create with buildings. But again, with that cost lens, what we tried to do was consolidate like-minded approaches. So, you know, we go back to that one slide that showed the different shape of the square footage, you know, He said, well, these three are very similar. They're all going to come out with the same cost. Let's consolidate those ideas into a single one for a cost estimate. So we're going to go through 29 different variations here. The easiest one to understand with the simplest graphic is code upgrade and just flashing up what that means. It's all the systems, whether they be electrical or structural or plumbing, bringing those up to code. And then things like ADA, electrical, fire safety, bring all those up the code. What's excluded is changing your spaces. So you can't turn your library into classrooms or cafeterias. Every space that's in this building today stays the same, but the same function. So that's what's excluded. And this is what you're going to be seeing for all the options here. kind of a large aerial axon diagram of a floor plan of the site. And then some stats here in the lower left corner that talk about the height, maybe something about the linear square feet of wall. And starting to get into thinking about horizontal travel distances.
[Luke Preisner]: So quick question, when we see that red boundary, can we trust that that boundary has been confirmed by your survey team? or is that still a notional property value?
[Matt Rice]: So it's a notional property value. Yeah, we're still waiting for the final land survey, the professional land survey to get back to us. It's just been a very big site, as everybody knows, and there's a lot to it. I think that's expected probably within a month or so, but this is a very good approximation. This is from GIS, so it's bold. It just doesn't have the level of sort of inch specificity that we'll eventually get from the professional.
[Michael Pardek]: So nothing really much to talk about on this slide, just that the whole building is upgraded. It's not just a light upgrade, like we're talking about. meeting energy code, so it's probably removing much, if not all, of the facades and putting new facades on the buildings. So it's not just coming in and cleaning things up. It's a big, heavy lift. And the MSBA does, in some circumstances, the code upgrade sometimes works for school districts, but based on what we're learning in the educational plan and the statement of interest, it's unlikely that school today is going to meet all those goals. So we'll jump into the B options. The B series is really where the options proliferate. This school is made up of many different buildings. So you can imagine the different combinations of let's renovate this wing, let's demolish this wing. There's hundreds of those variations that you can come up with. And we've really tried to throw out the ones that just don't make sense. and stick to the ones that are a little bit more logical and that play out. So we'll go through the B series and I'll try to explain exactly what's going on in them. So for the first, the B1 series, this is saying that every square foot of this building is renovated. But remember that diagram that showed existing square footage versus proposed square footage. It essentially means that we're adding square footage to this building to meet the program. So that could be a whole other floor. I see the colors aren't great in the room, but when you see it on the screen later, it's adding one entire floor to the building. And additionally, kind of padding out some of the CTE shops with additional 20 feet of space all the way around to help that. So B1.1, B1.2 is just saying, let's try to go vertically. So adding two more floors on top of a science wing, up on a cafeteria and athletics corridor there. So it's a lot of square footage that you're adding to this place already. So those are the B1 and B1.2 options. So B2, this is demolishing the auditorium arts wing. And you can start to see, we start doing things like that, that we're able to take advantage of more of the site area for new construction. So a lot of these focus on the front parking lot. There's a lot of space there that you could build a lot of a new school, well, the existing school stays in function. And then we'd still have to go through a phase renovation to bring this whole building on par with other code requirements. And these are just different flavors as I flip back. One, some of these are a little bit more spread out, taking up a little bit more site area. Some are saying, can we be a little bit more compact in our footprint, build up a few more stories? And that's kind of a theme that runs through a lot of these. B2.1, B2.2 is somewhere spread out. And some are some are a little bit taller.
[Jenny Graham]: Hey, hey, Luke. We're going to try to hold questions until he gets to like roll through all of these because It's going to break up his ability to enact one to the next to the next. So everyone can just hold their questions until I girls done or if you have a stopping point where you want to pause. It's fine, but When we did this, it was very, very useful to just keep going and let us ask questions at the end.
[Luke Preisner]: For what it's worth, I'm not asking about content. I just want to know how to interpret some things that I see. But I can say pretty good.
[Matt Rice]: I just wanted to add here, Michael. So people will recall that the high-rise consideration and why B1, B2.1, and 2.2 are different from one another. This gets into that above five stories, right? So that construction will have a higher premium to it. So even though it looks very similar in terms of where it is, because it's a taller approach versus a sprawl approach, that's why it's sort of discrete cost model, if you will. I have a very basic question. Does pool services mean like pooled services or aquatics? The pool and the associated locker room that are around it. We can probably find a better term than that.
[Michael Pardek]: All right, let's shrug along here. You'll see a theme. We're pulling more of the existing building down, so it's opening up more opportunity for new construction in those areas. So these are the B.3 options. And you'll see a lot of these are focusing on that front parking lot. And even as we've been doing these early studies, we're finding, if you think about like the center of gravity of the school, and if so much remains, we're trying to find places for new construction that doesn't doesn't try to spread out even further than it is. So those are the things that are those interesting findings that will help when we eventually get to design and we're evaluating options, we'll be able to say, well, this one is just too far apart. Why would we put a building here when other options might be a little bit more compact? In some cases, dipping a little bit into, you know, things that we're noticing about the building. We know the science wing, the roof was not great and the daylight to those spaces is not great. So in some of these schemes, you will see, you know, carving out some of this existing space to bring in daylight. So this is just a taller version of that. So B.4 is demolish A, B, and C, leaving the vocational wing, leaving cafeteria, the athletics corridor, and the gymnasium. So here you can see there's a little bit more freedom of where you can put stuff eventually, but still, as a reminder, these are all phased construction. new footprint is overlapping that you're going to build what you can on the first day one. You're going to move students, hopefully, into that new facility, demolish a part of the school, build a little bit more. So it's an arduous process to go through that. But it's been done before. So again, just focusing on getting that amount of square footage onto the site. And B.5 saves the science wing, athletics, and demolishes the rest of the wings. So you can see five-story school that's tying into those existing pieces. And that too will become you know, the design challenges. If we decide some pieces are worth saving for whatever reason, you know, it starts to set the tone for what it attaches to them eventually. So it does start to develop a, you know, kind of see this as a very similar character to what's here today. It's just taller. Different ways to achieve that. This one is a little bit more spread out on the site for story building. B6 demolishes everything besides the C wing, which is the main academic, like 36 classrooms in the C wing. So here you can see that, again, building on that, taking advantage of the parking lot a little bit, and then figuring out a way to tie back to the gymnasium and the renovated program. little bit different flavor of that. This is kind of taking out the southern part, leaving one of the CTE shop spaces. So again, these are all kind of all very similar, but it just, for cost purposes, it's gonna tell us a lot, you know, what it takes that portion add on to it. Again, spreading art to school. Even thinking about things like the three-minute passing sign. How fast can stations walk from one end to the other will eventually come into consideration on these. And B.8, rebuilding where all the shop spaces are, still saving the science wing, saving the core academic wing. different variations, maybe starting to break out of that orthogonal grid there. So all very challenging, but it's a good exercise. It's good to get, you may hate some of those, but you may want the price for some of those just to maybe support that and to and so maybe eventually toss that one off to the side. So that's the other aspect. Some of these may not care for it, but it may be good to build up the knowledge of what these things cost. So this next series, we're going to look at just saving the gym, some of these, the pool, and this liner with some of the cafe kitchen, and then the gymnastics. So it's saving that piece. And really, when you think about saving that piece, it kind of opens up the site a little bit. There's really three or four, there's really three primary locations, which is the parking lot, which will be this first series for building new. So that's a code upgrade to the gym, and then Again, this is kind of familiar to some of the earlier schemes, but again, this would be trying to build substantial piece on the parking lot, demolishing parts of the existing school, and a future base, stitching the two together with new construction. So you kind of see what it's doing, right? Trying to build on that front parking lot, the school's getting really long. This is trying to be a little bit more compact. This one is probably a real challenge to do, as most of it is right on top of existing school. So this phase-in would be really intense. But good to get a cost understanding for this model. And then we were thinking about, well, we have the gymnasium. We have the front parking lot in these schemes. thinking about trying to develop maybe an option that just, it may not be ideal, but treating the gymnasium as a separate building so that you could build a lot more square footage up front while the school still functions in the middle and then stitch it back together with fields. So it's just a lot of them were saying, we have to connect to the gym and have to make it so people can travel for an interior environment. But I think it's a good cost option to think about separating two. And this is the first one that introduces demolishing the pool building, which we know has challenges and has maintenance that will need to happen probably for the life of that building to keep it up and running. But this is the first one that breaks that out, such as that as a separate project for the district, for the city.
[Matt Rice]: And just from a costing perspective, we will be looking at the pool, either renovating the existing pool or building a new pool, as sort of an a la carte item so we can understand what the costs of those are. But in a lot of these options, we can be thinking about either a renovation or a new pool building as something that we can take or leave in terms of different options. And so you don't need to necessarily like an option or dislike it based on the pool that was there in that whatever version it is, whether standalone or even the location of it on-site, like we're showing in a particular location here, that may move around in the future as we go. We're just trying to understand what are the options that we have to work with if we think about the pool as being a new building.
[Michael Pardek]: Yeah. It does do some interesting things on-site. We know that back corner where you're coming around the pool up to the field is pretty tough. of vehicular drive back through there. So site two is kind of, it's like the side saddle, it's the western side of the site. It has its own, every site has its own challenges. This one has a lot of topography as you see in the photo, but it's suggesting a school building that's a little bit building behind the gym and a little bit maybe in front of the gym, maybe taking advantage of that upper practice field as well to find some program that can fit up there. So the challenges with this one, you see it's a seven-story building, and that's really just based on entering kind of at this level that we're sitting at and having the floors that are terracing up to Eggerly Field. So that's the challenge with all these that are entertaining sighting here or in the back. And here's a different variation on this. This one does take advantage of that upper practice field, which is a bit isolated. This one's trying to do its best to avoid the existing footprint altogether so that school could remain in use during construction, building gets built, And then the last phase would be to mend the site and recreate the front yard with playing fields and parking. There's a few options that we'll price. Here we show playing fields over a single parking deck. So we have a few different pricing options. That could be service parking, a smaller field, there's a few different variations that we'll submit. with this one to figure out how to creatively take advantage of. It's a lot of area. And this would also remove one of the fields from the upper fields. And then site three. Again, it's got probably all the same challenges as site two. And it's got a, I'm just going to say like the presence of a school, You're not going to tuck that much square footage behind a gym. You're still going to see it, but there is an access challenge to getting up the back of the site. So this is contemplating a very large school in the back, and then a little bit of work to line the front of the gymnasium bar in with some probably public-facing programs. So, but again, this would be a phase construction. You'd be able to build the school in the back and along the side, demolish those pieces that are attached to the gymnasium, and then build those in a separate phase, and then continue on bringing down the schools toward the front of the site. There's a few different variations. Again, it's the same kind of square footage Some of these are, you know, this one is suggesting maybe try not to, again, connect to the gymnasium while we treat that as a separate building. Take the pool, you know, out of the equation. That can go in a separate structure pretty much anywhere on the site. And to figure out, you know, you'll have your hands full with this one trying to figure out how we get 1300 students and families up to the gracious front door. And there's a few of these that didn't quite fit those categories, but this one is trying to just really try to make a compact facility. This one wraps the gymnasium volume. So it's the same amount of square feet for everyone. It, again, is a, phase construction since there's a little bit on the south side of the gymnasium that would come into play. And then moving to school. This one also shows a football stadium track in the foreground. So there's a few different options for what that surface would be. And some technical challenges of putting a track over a parking structure as well that would need to be dealt with. And then D, these are completely new. So it's nothing that we're sitting in today remains. So there's the D1.1 is building school on the parking lot. And you'll see that it overlaps the existing school. So there is some phasing that happens to allow that to occur. This is a really tall, this is six stories. So we're trying to like try to figure out, you know, we have the site, how can we not overlap as much of new schools that we can build majority of it on day one and be able to go back later with smaller beds. There's a few different options. This one is a little bit more spread out. That previous one was six stories. This is fours and see what that does to how much it approaches On the school, it's almost connecting back to where the chimneys are. So it's kind of essentially what we have here today. It's a four-story school, but you see how much site area that it takes up. And then we have just a few brand new schools on the upper fields. So this includes demolishing the gymnasium, and as Matt mentioned before, you won't be able to rebuild that same amount of square feet. It'll be capped at 18,000 square feet for a new gymnasium facility. All right, I think that's the run of them. So I think we can open it up to conversation. Are you ready for questions? Observations, questions. I can go back to anything. Okay.
[Jenny Graham]: For folks, we're going to take questions from the building committee, and then we'll take questions from anybody who is here in person and online, and we'll kind of swap off. If you're online, please raise your hand so we know who we need to get to. But first, for the committee, are there questions that people have?
[Luke Preisner]: Luke? So our existing school, which was designed for 3,600 students under different guidelines, but almost 4,000 students, has an existing net area of 341,000 square feet. The proposed structure, driven by the factors described at the outset, has a proposed net area almost 100,000 square feet larger. And so I wanted to ask, for a lot of these, I'll assume the gross square footage is about the same. In fact, it might be exactly the same for all these different shapes. There are different shapes, but is it safe to assume that the gross square footage is the same, A? And then B, what is that gross square footage?
[Matt Rice]: So yes, with the exception of, again, the gymnasium, right, for those new options, the net square footage will be dropped by the 12,000 square foot or so. But then you have the concept correct. In terms of the gross square footage, it's a 1.5 multiplier on whatever the net square footage is. We didn't share it here, again, because we're still both refining the existing square footage. net square footage through the laser scanning process. And we're also still having those programming conversations with the educational leadership and refining educational plans. So that's not final. So we're not trying to be evasive in terms of the number. It's still going to move around. And once that number sort of appears, everyone sort of locks in on that number. So we want to try for this conversation today to focus on really the organization of the options. And again, what people think are either missing or ones that don't want to be showing up here. There will be a time moving forward at a subsequent building committee meeting, which we're going to get into sort of the scrutinizing of the actual square footage itself. And then we'll talk about the gross square footage at that point in time.
[Libby Brown]: Any questions? Aaron?
[Aaron Olapade]: I had a question about the parking garages. So I know that the idea right now is for 425, I think, spots or so. And you said that that was the current number or is that the projection number?
[Erin Prestileo]: The current number is around 425 dedicated spots, but there are about 476 spots if you include a lot of the extra spaces that are used on the side of the areas. Sure.
[Aaron Olapade]: Then for the actual underground possibility, I know you mentioned you had a scale, so just having flats off like we currently have is usually on the cheaper end while building standard structure new, it's more expensive with the in-between option where we're building under with a field on top like logistically speaking with like a track for example are there any major difficulties with that other than what we may assume that just come with like you know pre-planning that you know that may come up about like long-term success of it or you know like maintenance costs and things like that that might not exist with a more expensive original new construction or just what we have. Those are long questions.
[Erin Prestileo]: Short answer there are some construction logistic and long-term kind of detailing logistics that would need to work through, things like expansion joints and where exactly those fall on your track and your field and whether you can accommodate structures like goalposts, things like that, with the underlying structure of the parking underneath. Those are design considerations that we're going to work through. But for now, we believe that those solutions are feasible and worth costing for you all to make a decision about whether that's worth the cost to gain that added program space. On top of parking.
[John Falco]: Thank you. Paul? In the ad reno auctions, when the reno of whatever is left over happens, the school committee and hopefully this committee will agree that we want to leave Platinum. What does that mean? Like, how do you convert any existing part of this building to leave Platinum? Is that literally even possible without taking all the walls out and pretending it's not?
[Matt Rice]: So I think with the renovation, I'm actually going to separate out the question into like, how do you deal with the existing building? And then the lead button question, because I think there's sort of a district. Any of those renovations that we're looking at in that rental option is going to involve ripping this building apart down to the structure. And I say that primarily because. This building is not laterally supported to meet modern structural code. So we have to do things like adding in giant cross braces still cross spaces to help make the building laterally stable. And we just can't do that with maintaining really any level of this. That being said also the like the interior spaces there's very few if any of the existing interior spaces that meet the spatial requirements. So there's significant reconfiguration of the existing space. So I don't think anyone should be thinking that in any of those renovation option, it's like, we'll place the ceiling and paint the walls and the flooring, and then we're like good to go and we're done. It's going to be significant. It's going to be invasive in terms of renovations. There's still value to that from a carbon management standpoint, right? When all this concrete and steel was built back in 1970, Like there's a tremendous amount of energy that was put in, there was a tremendous amount of carbon that was expended to sort of build all those things, and we can still leverage all that in the building. That will contribute positively to the sustainability model of the building moving forward, but the LEED Platinum designation is going to be contingent on a whole host of other things. the exterior insulation of the building, the treatment that we take to the site as well. This is really like a holistic sustainability lens. And so, yes, it's going to definitely incorporate the renovated area and it will make that part of it a little bit easier. But it's not to say that we can't do a LEED Platinum building with or without renovation.
[Luke Preisner]: Luke? So any considerations? So we have sustainability goals. I wanted to ask what considerations were given to square footage dedicated to solar panels. I went to the Arlington High School in Adelman. They have a larger enrollment than we do. I think their overall structure is 410,000 square feet. And they managed to get enough panels up there to, I think, produce close to 1,000 kilowatts or kilowatt hours, which represented maybe 30 to 40% of their electrical need. So looking at all these different options, they vary in roof surface area. And so do you have a sense of, you know, for the smallest option that you showed, what the panel capacity would be? And then for the largest, what it would be? And then other sort of places to put panels, I guess, to hit some of our sustainability goals.
[Matt Rice]: Yeah, so I think the way that we're trying to think about PV at the moment is through, again, that costing lens in terms of thinking about what it will take in terms of whether it's a net zero goal, whether it's a net positive goal, trying to target there in terms of the amount of square footage of panels that it would take to achieve that goal. And then either deploy them as roof-mounted PV panels or parking canopy-mounted panels as well, or even site-mounted in theory, if we could sort of find any area of the site where it doesn't want to be a field or parking or anything along those lines. And so it's going to be one of those things where I think we're going to have cost alternatives as well, sort of a la carte items to say, if we wanted to try and just put enough PV that would fit on a roof, we'll have maybe three different sizes, like a small, medium, large volume of that. And then associated with it, certain volumes areas of PV panels that would probably be canopy mounted over parking areas to produce like an overall capacity. We are looking at sort of a very baseline UI understanding of what the building is going to be targeting. So energy use intensity for the building. And that will tell us, okay, how much electricity generally is it going to be required for this amount of square footage? Because again, we can make that very high level sort of calculation to see, but it is going to be contingent on roof areas. These all, as you were saying, do have different roof areas associated with them. The sprawling ones are going to have more, the taller ones will have less. So we're going to have to look at sort of generally how much roof area we have and how many panels we can fit on the roof and then on the parking canopies as a mix. So it's probably not going to be like a clean one number for every single different option, but we're going to have sort of like an umbrella a la carte set of options that are dealing with PV panels and trying to, at the best level of our understanding right now, do some estimating to understand what the cost of those would be. And we'll probably be able to say that some of them are not net zero. Some of them are meeting net zero. Maybe some will be positive at the end of the day. Does that answer the question?
[Libby Brown]: Oh, hi.
[Jenny Graham]: Sorry. I couldn't see your face at all.
[Gg7MfqcnomU_SPEAKER_19]: My question is on the next step, which is the costing stuff. So there's a lot of options here. Have these been evaluated enough to confirm that they are feasible, or are we possibly doing a cost estimate on something that turns out isn't even actually achievable, whether it's a phasing constraint or, you know, it sprawled out too much. So just curious on that.
[Matt Rice]: So I think the phasing would be the only thing that would maybe drive feasibility one way or the other. And I don't know that we would say right now that it's not feasible. What may happen is that we just have to think about it being too many phases, right, in terms of just moving slowly in sort of smallish areas where it's not going to be desirable from an overall building committee perspective and community perspective in terms of getting the project done. I think that's mainly where that's going to come in. I don't think we'll know that upfront. It's tough to go into it and just say, you know, right away, like every one of these options, exactly where it's going to be, but we'll make our best judgment in terms of how we could possibly do this. We'll feed that through the cost estimator. We'll get feedback. And that may be one of the drivers on the cost side of things or the time side of things that says, we're just going to put that aside. We're not going to actually move that forward in terms of consideration.
[Gg7MfqcnomU_SPEAKER_19]: But what if you came across something that did become, you know, as you're going through, you're going to be that they're going to have, they're going to need that, or they estimate it, right?
[Matt Rice]: Would you maybe knock one of these out as you're further evaluating the, you know, the... If we found a deal breaker, I think, yes, we wouldn't want to do it without the input from this group. So as we're doing, as we're preparing the information that's going to get to the cost estimators, which is going to happen next week. If there's something that comes up to that process that we see, it doesn't seem like it's viable at all. We'd probably come back at the next building committee meeting and just explain that as part of the process. I think it's a fair point.
[Kimberly Talbot]: Yeah, I just want to add to that. Some of the site explorations, a lot of them are well underway, but a big one that is not complete yet is the geotechnical, which will inform foundation design. also say everything is feasible, it's just a matter of practicality and cost at a certain moment. So I think that will certainly be a big factor that will potentially influence what makes sense, but that is still underway.
[Gg7MfqcnomU_SPEAKER_19]: Well, again, that's what I was thinking, maybe taking it further and understanding practicality of each of these alternatives before getting a cost estimator, but maybe we need it because there's a deliverable that needs to be submitted or something.
[Kimberly Talbot]: Bingo. Yes, that is correct. Yeah, and this is so early and remember we're not, you all don't choose an option until the end of PSR, so in June.
[Michael Pardek]: Oh. I have a quick question about parking again. I just happened to notice by like zooming in that although all the program spaces are volumetric, that some of them have a parking area that
[Aaron Olapade]: So I'm really trying not to envision buildings that are not at that point yet. But if any of these plans would force a multi-story parking garage, I think that would be very, I would really like to know what that would do for a whole host of reasons.
[Michael Pardek]: So I don't know if it's appropriate. I don't want to necessarily go back through all of these now, but if any of these decisions come to a forcing point, where that's the only way to achieve that. I would love to see and let everyone see the true voluntary work that we're doing.
[Jenny Graham]: Can you talk a little bit about the criteria work we're going to do in March? Because I think to your point, we will all have criteria. And once we get through PVP, there will be a whole exercise for us to go through around decision criteria. So can you just explain that process a little bit for us?
[Matt Rice]: Yeah, for those of you that love Excel spreadsheets and charts and graphs, that's something that we're going to be creating. So essentially what we need is a rubric, right, to be able to create a lens to look at and evaluate all these options. Cost is obviously a huge driver, right, but it's not the only driver. There's community perspectives that need to be brought, there's educational perspectives that need to be brought in. So what we're actually going to do is first design the tool, the lens, the rubric that we're going to be using to evaluate things. And that's going to sort of list all of the options across the top. We'll have cost at that point to do that with. And then we're going to list all the qualitative pieces. And so parking garage and sort of the viability of a parking garage, the desirability of a parking garage, that may be in the column as we go down in terms of site considerations as we do. everyone's going to have different thoughts about sort of what should be driving. And that's what we want to do is sort of take a consensus understanding from the committee, from everyone's particular areas of concern and areas of expertise, and develop something that is really a great lens for the Medford community to evaluate all these different options on. Cost, again, just being one, an important one, but lots of other things are going to plug in there. We have some great examples from other projects that maybe have even too many considerations in them, and it may be sort of just a calling process to get down there, but there may be others that are very specific to the Medford community that we want to put in there, like the pool building and sort of the considerations that are associated with that. So that will be coming, I think, is that our next building committee meeting that we're going to actually be doing that? No, in March. Okay, so two ahead.
[Libby Brown]: Yeah, yeah.
[Aaron Olapade]: Aaron? Designs of where the pool building or the gymnasium are separated. Is there any consideration about having this topic, what I said. Designs. Designs. Designs, sorry. For models. Yep. Are there any, was there consideration about having cover ways for students to be walking to just think with the weather and things like that. I know a lot of students probably might not want to be walking in the four weather that's happening. So I just want to know.
[Matt Rice]: So I think that would make sense. And it's certainly something that we could get cost modeling for in terms of something that runs along. One of them that was shown, again, not designs. Sorry. No, but it goes down that path pretty quickly. If there's a plinth of single deck parking and there's a field, you could also imagine that there could be an area of that that you could walk sort of below the field from one building to the next. So there's a couple of different ways to go at it. I think right now, what we want to do is just make sure that we have like a cost placeholder there to anticipate something like that. So we may just get some cost for some additional structure on top of the parking, not to just over inflate that, but to try and address those types of observations. Did you have a question?
[John Falco]: Sorry, I didn't see you over there.
[Libby Brown]: I don't remember at what point it was discussed, but we did talk about the potential for the fells around us. It looks like everything is staying within the current borders. Is there any conversation or possibility of extending out into the fells with any of these designs? I didn't see.
[Matt Rice]: So there's no, it's a great point. There's no options that show extension beyond the property lines that were constrained within right now. We have been having advisory team meetings and one of them was site safety and security, the second of which happened actually last night. And we talked a little bit about like the Mustang loop and sort of how that was created, but also the fact that it's not Denver's property, right? It's DCR property. And so there's some discussions that have to happen with any of those neighbors, whether it's a DCR or anyone else, before we would show anything or propose anything going on anyone else's property. And right now we're not holding those costs. That's something that we can decide as a committee though, as to whether or not there's things that we want to account for in terms of pricing, not because we think we can do that yet, but just because we want to have a cost understanding of what it might be to, I don't know, put another, like a boardwalk along the entirety of the Mustang loop or something to improve the accessibility of it. And just, that's an example that sort of came out of the discussions last night. So those may be some things that that we want to look at.
[Erin Prestileo]: Several of the options do look at locating the trailheads in slightly new locations. So it's just a slight shift of where those trails are welcomed into the property or are accessed from the property so that there can be just a better link between parking and school gathering spaces and trailheads. But that's at an early stage. And I think we'll be looking for you all to guide us on how much of that gets included in the design phases.
[Matt Rice]: And we'd have to have those conversations. I'll just reiterate that again, that it's not something that we can decide and do of our own.
[Luke Preisner]: So I was a little disappointed in seeing a lot of concepts that tried to utilize the athletic fields. And the athletic fields are highly utilized by communities. The school sports teams, there are the town recreational leagues. Um, there's a number of club teams. Uh, every weekend I actually run to my house, uh, for the high school. I'm up here pretty frequently, but I have a pretty good sense of how highly utilized these fields are. So, um, I was disappointed in, but I also sort of acknowledge, uh, that it's a nice flat area to work on. Right. So it's appealing. I think it would be very disruptive. So my disappointment comes from seeing more concepts that utilize that space versus, say, what you marked as site two, which is a football practice field and a hill and parking lot. And so I wanted to ask, is there like a limiting factor or something that just makes that property undesirable? a board, or was it just an arbitrary choice because the fields in the back are nice and flat?
[Michael Pardek]: Yeah, I think we, I mean, for a cost standpoint, the two options we show on site two, the matter of what arrangement of that square footage should cover that kind of project there. So there are like more variations when we're getting to design. you know, site two is, you know, coming out ahead, you know, we'll certainly need to investigate all the possibilities there, but from a cost standpoint, you know, two options we show, let's show the square footage. You know, some of them do reach back, so perhaps there's another one we could develop, perhaps, that locates more of the square footage and preserves both of the fields up there.
[Matt Rice]: I just don't think there was any indication of preference by quantity, like those two things are not correlated here. It's the fact that we're just looking for discrete cost models, right? I think as Michael said, we have between those two, like a little one, one that's a little bit taller, one that's a little bit wider. Those will sort of add to those two variables that would impact site two. And then beyond that, we're just looking for different combinations on the higher site, on the parking lot down below. So there's really no preference in R&D. It's great to hear that you have a strong preference against that. And I think that's sort of what we're hearing, we'd like to hear from everybody if there's considerations about building here and there. I think it's a conversation, right? It's not something that any one of us can probably decide, even at this point.
[Libby Brown]: Let me just clarify for me. So it's your concern that during construction, there would be disruption. I assume the field would be replicated in the end. Like we would be losing them just temporary shuttles, is that what you're saying?
[Luke Preisner]: Yeah, of course. There's a period of time that they would be unusable during construction. And then if they're being relocated, they'll be unusable, or their equipment won't be unusable until that's included. So I am working with a finite timeline. I'm also working with real timelines for kids that are attending high school today, or that are entering high school in the next, say, three years. that will have a big impact on their athletic lives. And it'll have a very large effect on the travel leagues that utilize it or leagues that utilize it. It's going to touch thousands of people.
[Libby Brown]: Paul?
[John Falco]: I think this is a really important conversation for the whole community to have, because one of the things I struggle with is you know, construction is what, three, four years? Or is it two years? Three years.
[Matt Rice]: Schedule is important. I think we've been on record saying that the target opening date for the school is in the fall of 2030, right? So there's some aggressiveness to that timeline. And we're not going to throw out dates or options right now that are going to exceed that. that will be one sort of valuation criteria as we put together this matrix to say if we can't get it open by fall 2030, what does that mean for the option, right? And we may not know that 100% until we get a construction manager on board that can tell us with a very fine level of detail exactly what, but we're going to get in the right ballpark and we're going to know it's feasible based on sort of what the industry tells us.
[John Falco]: So what I struggle with is this, and I don't have any answer of my own at this point, is how much do we essentially take away from three years of students so that 40, 50, 60 years of students can have a better option? Because that's really part of the conversation we talk about. We might like this option way more, but it's going to make life really bad for those kids in three years. And I think The community's loss of the fields, to me, is not even in the column. I mean, it runs somewhere else. But the students that are going to be here for those three years are my concern. But also, my bigger concern, frankly, is the next 40, 50 years of students. So how bad are the students? Just how bad? before I feel like there's a breaking point. Okay, maybe the next several generations don't get what we really wish they could get, because it's just too bad. I actually went to school in some of those temporary, whatever the classroom, they were the best classroom in the building. They weren't fighting all of them. They had work from heat, work from air conditioning. So I think in our minds, They're oral, but if you've walked around here.
[Jenny Graham]: Or if you're currently sharing.
[John Falco]: My daughter goes to one class, she's freezing. She goes to the next class, she wishes she could wear a bikini. It doesn't matter what temperature it's at. So I do think as a committee, we kind of have to at some point, and not just tonight, today, we have to really think about that. We're probably going to have options that we agree are better options that are going to make it harder for those three years. It's a hard conversation.
[Jenny Graham]: So I just want to pause. It's 8.07. I didn't know if any of our community members had questions or comments that they'd like to provide. And if you could just say your name and your address for the record. Andrew Osborne.
[Luke Preisner]: I live on First Street.
[Aaron Olapade]: I guess I was wondering, I guess one of my questions or design consideration, have you, given that this has been being serviced for 40, 50 years, are you adding the option, except we're using that word a lot, the ability to easily expand if we find a size
[Michael Pardek]: or do you think that you need child support?
[Luke Preisner]: Yeah.
[Matt Rice]: So we are required through the MFBA program to plan for a certain amount of physical expansion on the site. And that will be part of the considerations as we move forward. We haven't necessarily cooked that into every one of these 29 options just yet, because it's just, again, a little bit too much in terms of bringing that in. So it's the physical expansion that we have in California. I forget, Matt, exactly what the percentage.
[Kimberly Talbot]: It's a percentage.
[Matt Rice]: In terms of the enrollment so it's either 10 or 20% increased enrollment is sort of what the MSB prescribes. Doesn't mean that we can't plan for more but again it will impact sort of the overall planning but the other site components depending on it. Sometimes we plan to go up and there's ways of designing the building to allow for future vertical expansion as an option. The other thing in terms of capacity on enrollment is just to note that we designed the school for an 85% utilization of the spaces. You can operate a high school at a slightly higher efficiency, say like 90, 92%. Once you get above that, it becomes difficult, if not impossible, to actually schedule classes and make sure that students can get the electives and the courses that they need to to meet their graduation requirements. But with that increased efficiency, you can get additional students into the same amount of space We also designed classrooms for 23 students which is during the MSBA policy. At the end of the day you may be able to fit additional students into a class. There's a lot of things tied to that in terms of class policy school policy district policy teacher contracts a whole bunch of things that sort of quite but there's various areas that will allow for some additional growth in terms of enrollment. in addition to our planning for physical expansion beyond that.
[Gaston Fiore]: I have two somewhat related questions. So the first one is, there are some designs in particular on the new buildings. There was like a four-story one and a six-story one. The six-story one, obviously, more compact, takes a lot of extra space outside of the building. Given that the network footage of both options is the same, what is the plan to do with the extra space of the six-story building that's going to be built outside of the school? I think there might be maybe an opportunity to get some revenue out of that to fund the extra cost of the exerted floors. Might give you more flexibility with expansion. And then the second sort of somewhat related question is that, so our city is going through a zoning overhaul right now. that is going to increase density substantially in some areas of the city. So I know that the estimate for the school went from 1,200 to 1,395, but I wanted to know whether you could inculcate the extra density that very likely will come up to the city in that 1,395 number, and also whether the zoning overhauls would be used to consider you know, in a better fashion, the designs that are higher and leaving more space for 3D expansion.
[Jenny Graham]: Do you want me to answer that, Matt? Thank you for the question. So when the MSBA did the initial enrollment study, they certified, they tried to certify our enrollment at 1200, which is about what happens today. So their 15 year look forward, knowing about permitted projects, The MBTA Communities Act and a variety of things that we provided still held us very flat in terms of what the enrollment would be here at high school. And that's because the vast majority of the kinds of development that come out of the MBTA Communities Act, rezoning, upselling, all those things don't actually net additional students. That's the sort of history in Massachusetts. And I think the Globe just published an article on Sunday talking about Student enrollment overall declining in Massachusetts and not rebounding really in any sort of way. Here, we have rebounded since COVID by and large. We went back to them because we said, well, wait a minute. Our analysis, if you start to look at some of the increased growth that we're seeing at the elementary levels, if you bring that out past 15 years, that's where you see this expansion. We've also worked with them to say some of our development that we know is coming is such that it would actually bring more students. So if you're talking about affordable housing with multiple bedrooms, those are places where you can actually see increased enrollment. And we had to provide them comparable spaces in Medford to use for those estimated purposes. So that's how we went from 1,200 to 1,395. Donating doesn't actually build anything, right? It just makes it possible. So it's somewhat impossible to say yes, it did or no, it didn't. But there was like a lot of thoughtful work by their planning and development department, as well as our schools, our school budget director, to look at the history. And we looked out like 30 years, and we're still are not. We're just about getting better, sometimes about 30 years out. Is that like the perfect answer or is it like perfectly scientific? No, but that is some of the work that we have already been doing. And to your point, we'll invite the council to the school committee meeting so they can hear an update and learn about the educational plan. And we'll be asking them to sort of engage with us and all of you as we have this conversation, because obviously there is a tie, right? If we start building skyscrapers of affordable housings, we will have increased enrollment that is beyond what we're expecting. So I don't think I've heard anything in the zoning conversation, although I know it's very much still in progress, that says to me that there's something way out of alignment, but that process is so far from done that we don't know yet. But just to give you a couple of for instances, the data that we use with MSPA included a significant air rights project over Wellington. It also included Medford Square redevelopment, I think like 100 units. So there was a whole bunch of pretty big developments, like big new developments that were considered. On the project website, there is a PowerPoint that talks about enrollment and how we like went through that process with the NSBA that you might find interesting or useful. And it's actually showing the primitive projects and the ones we use as pumps and all that stuff. Yes and no is the answer.
[Luke Preisner]: Rick? I'm Rick Orlando. I'm waiting for the mic. My original question, and then a second one related to the expansion, but if any of the selected design requires a movement of the athletic fields to some post bottom site, is the SBAB going to fund that kind of movement or use new athletic field? Sure. With all the discussion on the lower grade levels of the middle schools, could there be any possibility of, if not building it, but allowing the expansion capability for yet another middle school somewhere up on the site down the road? It's just a long range option. The middle schools are being squeezed, as you know, in terms of enrollment coming up to the element.
[Libby Brown]: Yeah, so one of the things that we
[Jenny Graham]: sort of talked briefly about pre-K here tonight, but that whole location of pre-K is good for students for a lot of reasons, because it allows us to centralize services and provide more access to services than what we're able to do with those preschool programs sort of all over the district. It also allows us some capacity that we don't have today, because preschool is a crying need in the district. And it pulls classrooms out of the elementary schools to create space there. Part of this, and I can't quantify it, but part of the vision here is by doing that, we're also creating space in our own new school. To your point, the question then becomes, if you needed capacity at the middle school, what would you do? We certainly could look at whether there, like the expansion options here could certainly include grade reconfiguration, but where the two middle schools are currently located also is a pretty substantial site. And that could potentially be a project down the road if necessary. Yeah. I don't think we're thinking that that is like limited or new. Like my personal goal is that we do this one project and we're good. Right. For a long time. And you know, how, whether we are able to achieve that or not, it depends on a lot of things, but the expansion here would not be necessarily one way or the other.
[Matt Rice]: Yeah. I want to put Matt on the spot actually. You had a nice entry there to talk a little bit about reimbursement of site work and how the MSBA views that. I think it would just be helpful. It takes a little while to wrap our minds around what it is, but to just give a quick overview of that and then we can maybe answer some other questions.
[Matt Gulino]: Sure, and this is going to be a larger presentation that we'll be having as we start to get through some of these options and head into the next phase, the preferred schematic report. But the MSBA has a series of guidelines and cost caps throughout the grant program. One of them is the site cap. So yes, they will reimburse for site work and fields, but it is also capped. So once you meet a certain funding limit, everything above that is considered not reimbursable. So it's a yes and a no. And it's going to be up to this committee to really kind of decide, you know, weigh those, you know, pros and cons of going above MSBA reimbursement or not.
[Luke Preisner]: Yes. I look forward to a new school, renovated school, whatever it turns out to be. I would say living in the neighborhood or finding the high school and following the project of the six or nine homes that we built, you may want to consider as part of your geotechnical work, right? It's a worldly estimate, but I think there's a lot of topography back there, especially in the third site. That certainly would be a deal breaker right out in the gate. So I hate to see us spending extra money process to make it more designed for that matter. Again, I don't caution you to be a driver, but it is. Another question, I did recognize in the proximity of the Temple of Shalom and their kind of collaboration with the city, are we exploring any options to enhance that kind of gateway? opportunities to maybe share parking, other arrangements. Living in a great neighborhood, that means there's a lot of opportunities for us.
[Libby Brown]: Do you want me to answer the temple question? What do you want to answer?
[Matt Rice]: Why don't you answer the temple question and I'll answer the rock question.
[Jenny Graham]: So yes, we have been in touch with the temple. And as you both know, as you know, because you're in a butter, the survey work sort of extended sort of beyond, I think, even where I was personally surprised to see it extend as far as it was. And some of that is because it doesn't about fell. So now you have to tie into the things that are a little bit further away. So we've been in touch with them during the process of all the survey work that's been going on. So they're very aware. I actually talked to Rabbi Jessica last week or so and did sort of highlight for her that This project obviously has potential to impact them in a whole variety of ways, not just construction. And in the same way that I have my eye on the skate park that is not ours, and that's PCR land, there's all kinds of things that surround us that once the surveying is complete, we probably do have conversations to have and to collaborate with the temple to say, you know, what is possible, like, you know, we talk about, like, emergency access and all those things. So we've had some very, very preliminary conversations. She did note that they enjoy being able to listen to the marching band when the marching band is practicing. So, yes, there are benefits in both directions, and hopefully we'll be able to have some more of those conversations as we get into this next, like, three, four-month phase.
[Luke Preisner]: Yeah, and one other question. So I'm raising a concern about LEED Platinum. And I guess I question if this is just a rolling on LEED Platinum or whether there's a specialized entity that's in place that gets us to an energy-compliant, say, model that we want to be at. Sustainability and the site design, I'm sure SMA will develop a beautiful site for walkability, connectivity. And so I wouldn't let it be platinum if we're trying to get an energy goal. Because a specialized energy goal is going to get us pretty much that frontal. And I'd be interested about the rocks.
[Matt Rice]: So I'll just say we're acutely aware of the geology of this particular site. I think that adjacent site where the residential development is going on is definitely like a case study to be observed and precedent to be understood. We do have borings, geotechnical borings, that are happening at Edgeley Field as well as at the practice field. So we have to understand what's there. We're also doing, and Laura will probably give me the better term for it here in terms of what is the geophysical. Essentially what we're going to get from our geotechnical engineer is a topographic model of the rock below the surface. That's the best they can approximate it without digging it all up. That will allow us to even think about whether we're positioning a building to try and mitigate or take advantage of rock removal if we have to do that. So we were also the designers for the Waltham High School. And as part of that project, we removed a ridiculous amount of stone as part of it. And there's a couple of considerations. One is schedule, right? There's a lot of, we've spent almost nine months there just removing rock before we got to actually build a building. The economics of it are interesting, though, because with rock removal at that scale and volume, the subcontractors that are doing it can actually sell that rock out to gravel and other projects. We had gravel show up from Waltham High School at our Andover Elementary School as material. We got submittals for it, and this was the source for it. So it's definitely a cost. It's a cost premium to take that approach, whether or not it completely invalidates what something is being unfeasible. We don't know that yet. So I think we just have to get through our studies to have a better understanding of it. And then we'll go through all those various thought processes with everybody here.
[Libby Brown]: Great. Not everyone's able to stand up. So last question for you.
[Luke Preisner]: Any project like this, especially when you've got all these alternatives, as you move towards selection, there's going to be criteria that you're all going to look at. And my approach for the program is select those criteria beforehand, whether it's, you know, a couple I mentioned, obviously, cost, meeting the educational needs, instruction timing, length. Finding those before you get to the heat of the battle. Document them, spell them out so it's clear on what they are, are there rating factors, things like that. looking into the heat of the discussion, everybody's working their favorite factor. It's very difficult to have an objective discussion.
[Jenny Graham]: Thank you. I don't see any hands on Zoom. But I did want everyone to be able to get up and move around for a couple of minutes. And the team did bring some like bigger versions of what you see here. So maybe we can bring them into the middle and let everybody get up and move around for 10 minutes and look at them. And Helen has little stickers for us. So if you're here, you get to use stickers. And if you're online, you can continue to use the Mentimeter to tell us your thumbs ups and your thumbs downs.
[Matt Rice]: Right. Just really quick with the stickers. So I think we're going to give everybody six stickers so that you can put those down on areas where you actually have a preference for. Some, again, not design options, cost alternatives, but it's just a way of us generating sort of a heat map of interest on particular areas as we move forward. We're still going to be considering all of them as we go, unless, again, anyone voices an opinion that, and then their consensus that, no, we want to take that away. But I didn't hear any of that necessarily as we were going through the conversation, but that's the goal of this sort of sticker and you can get up and walk around activation. But the stickers on black and the stickers on things like you'll have different colors. So we don't have like one color for everything.
[Jenny Graham]: So we're a little bit regular And then for those of you are like 10 or so minutes and we'll be back.
[Unidentified]: Can they hear us again on Zoom, Will? Yeah, they're on mute. OK, great.
[Jenny Graham]: Thanks, everyone, for your input. We'll take a picture and post it online somewhere so we can see what was happening here in the room. But we'll also figure out how to share some of this information so that people can either watch the video with the presentation It's obviously on our YouTube channel. So we'll figure all of that out coming out of the meetings. I know there's a lot of, there are people online who are interested. We'll figure out a way for you to give us some input. All of those things are to come. The thing that the building committee needs to do tonight is provide some guidance to SNMA about the things that we are interested in cost estimation for. So big to Matt's point, I didn't hear anything tonight that said we should not get this high level cost estimate for the options that were presented, but we do need to take a vote of some kind to make sure that we're giving clear direction about what's happening next. So are there any, is there anyone who would like to make a motion?
[Matt Gulino]: Yeah. I move we move forward with costing all the options presented tonight.
[Jenny Graham]: Okay. Lots of stuff. Okay. So motion. to move them all forward for initial cost estimating by Ken, seconded by Nicole. Questions before we take that vote.
[Luke Preisner]: But one question, are we limited to this batch of 57 concepts? If in the course of our dialogues and our meetings, another concept that hasn't been presented becomes undesirable.
[Matt Rice]: I think if something becomes apparent or evolves from sort of our study and review of the cost information that comes back, it doesn't preclude us from investigating an alternative path as we go forward. I don't know what that one would be just yet, because I think we've tried to turn over every stone in terms of just high level options, but no, we're not going to be precluded from looking at something else as we go forward.
[Libby Brown]: Other questions?
[Jenny Graham]: OK, I'm going to call the roll. Jenny Graham, on the motion to move forward all the options presented tonight for initial cost estimating. Jenny Graham, yes. Mayor Lungo-Koehn? Yes. Dr. Galussi? Yes. Marta Cabral? Yes. Joan Bowen? Yes. Ken Lord? Yes. Libby Brown? Yes. Marissa Desmond? Absent. Maria Dorsey? Yes. Brian Hilliard? Yes. Emily Lazzaro?
[Unidentified]: Yes.
[Jenny Graham]: Paul Malone? Yes. Nicole Morell? Yes. Erin Olapade?
[Unidentified]: Yes.
[Jenny Graham]: Luke Prisner? Yes. 14 in the affirmative, zero in the negative, one absent. The motion to explore all of these for initial cost estimating is approved. Thank you. Is there a motion to adjourn? I know we have run over. So moved. By Dr. Gillespie. I will call the roll real quick. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes.
[Unidentified]: Yes.
[Jenny Graham]: 13 in the affirmative, zero in the negative, two absent, and the meeting is adjourned. Thank you, everybody.
|
total time: 19.44 minutes total words: 1528 |
total time: 1.99 minutes total words: 207 |
total time: 3.1 minutes total words: 258 |
|