[Matt Rice]: Let's do a quick video check and make sure that that's showing up okay for everybody. Yes.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Any I'm all set on my end. So whenever you're good to go, we can we're good to go.
[Jenny Graham]: Okay, I will read the meeting invite the meeting notice and we'll get started. Please be advised that there'll be a full committee meeting of the Medford Comprehensive High School Building Committee in person at the Bedford High School Library at 489 Winthrop Street and via remote participation. In the event that Medford Public Schools is closed due to inclement weather, this meeting will proceed via remote participation only. Please visit mpso2155.org for more information. The meeting can be viewed live on Medford Public Schools' YouTube channel through Medford Community Media on your local cable channel, which is Comcast. 9, 8, or 22, and Verizon 43, 45, or 47. The meeting will be recorded. Participants can log in by using the following Zoom meeting ID, which is 982-7422-6338. And I will call the roll. Jenny Graham, here. Mayor Lungo-Koehn. Present. Dr. Galussi. Present. Marta Cabral.
[Libby Brown]: Here.
[Jenny Graham]: Joan Bowen.
[Libby Brown]: Here.
[Jenny Graham]: Ken Lord. Libby Brown. Here. Marissa Desmond. Here. Maria Dorsey.
[Brian Hilliard]: Here.
[Jenny Graham]: Ryan Hilliard.
[Brian Hilliard]: I'm here.
[Jenny Graham]: Emily Lazzaro. Here. Paul Malone.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Here.
[Jenny Graham]: Nicole Morell. Here. Erin Olapade. And Luke Prisner. Okay. So we have, um, and then, uh, Bob Dickinson.
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: Bob's out on leave.
[Jenny Graham]: Fiona Maxwell. Here. Good morning or good afternoon. Good evening. Hi, Fiona. Chad Fallon.
[Paul Ruseau]: Here.
[Jenny Graham]: Dr. Talbot. Present. Will Pipicelli.
[SPEAKER_07]: Here.
[Jenny Graham]: Lori Hodgson here. John McLaughlin. Paul Rousseau here. Bill Santos here. And Lisa Miller here. Okay, so we have 13 present, two absent. The meeting will be called to order. The first item on our agenda for tonight is approval of the meeting minutes from our last meeting. A motion to approve. Motion to approve. Dr. Galusi, is there a second? Second. I can. Roll call. Jenny Graham. Yes. Mayor Lungo-Koehn. Yes. Dr. Galusi. Yes. Marta Cabral. Yes. Joan Bowen. Yes. Ken Lord? Yes. Libby Brown? Yes. Marissa Desmond? Marissa?
[SPEAKER_07]: I don't know if she was here originally. I don't hear on the participant list.
[Jenny Graham]: Oh, OK. I thought I heard her say she was here, so I will adjust that. Maria Dorsey?
[Jenny Graham]: Brian Hilliard? Ryan.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Yes. Sorry. Okay.
[Jenny Graham]: Emily Lazzaro. Yes. Paul Malone.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Yes.
[Jenny Graham]: Nicole Morell. Yes. Erin Olapade. And Luke Preissner. So 12 in the affirmative, zero in the negative, three absent. The minutes are approved. Thanks everyone. Item number three, I'm going to turn it over to Matt and team. The next item on our agenda is to review the alternatives evaluation criteria and answer any questions you may have had since we got talking at the last meeting and also to revisit our comparative cost estimates as well. So I'm going to turn it over to Matt.
[Matt Rice]: All right, I'm assuming that's me, Matt, versus Matt Galeno, but I don't want to step on Matt's toes. So just to give a quick update, I know we presented at the last building committee meeting the comparative cost analysis relative to each other. As we were reviewing those numbers and preparing the submission that is going to be going hopefully to the MSBA in a couple of days, we just came across a couple of estimate anomalies that actually will reduce what we're reporting as the overall cost. for all the different alternatives aside from one of them by a decent amount. So we thought it was worth noting it, making the correction so that the numbers are a little bit more accurate. and the overall total is a little bit less. The explanation of what those corrections are are included here on this slide, and we'll go through them in a second. But essentially what was happening was that the Early Childhood Center, just by virtue of an Excel formula that was not pulling in the areas for those three spaces that made up the Early Childhood Center, being the Medford Early Education Program, the preschool, as well as Medford Family Network, as well as Kid's Corner. Those costs had just been taken twice in terms of the overall estimating. So there was a reduction for any of the options that had any bit of new addition construction or was assuming those program spaces within them. um, there was a reduction of about 30 to 44 million, um, in terms of total project cost. Um, so that's the bottom line number that we were looking at in terms of reduction. Um, and then in terms of the new construction D alternatives, um, those were double counting the area, um, for a new standalone pool building in terms of the gross square footage. So we made a correction there as well, which was about $16 million or so for total project cost for those 3D alternatives that are under consideration. So what we have done here is produced another of these illegible slides at this scale for everyone's reference. But similar to what we had done previously, there's a QR code that's in the upper right-hand corner that will allow you to download this updated table. The way to read this table is exactly the same as we previously went through on the 11th. with the only difference being that any of the numbers that have changed from that previous iteration are going to be colored in blue so that they jump out to you in terms of revision. Up top you'll see in terms of the addition new construction are really the only sort of baseline area numbers that are changing through this and that's again as a result of just some double counting of the square footages that have been done for the Early Education Center program elements. So if we were going to be in person this evening, we would have brought along a hard copy that's updated to sort of show this to everyone because we understand it's a dense document. It's difficult to read, especially if you don't have something tangible in your hand to look at. The PDF should be something that you can zoom in on and be able to digest all this information more definitively. But from a big picture takeaway standpoint, These bottom line numbers revised total project costs have been reduced per the figures that I just went through on the prior slide in general. And not that there is anything really substantive here, but again, because there's a change in terms of what we showed you last time. We just wanted to highlight those changes just for record purposes moving forward. The program alternates in their totality did have a slight increase in terms of them and I am not a cost estimator and so understanding sort of the the mechanics of how all the estimates work in terms of when they change their numbers and get them back to us I don't have the finite understanding of but what I can tell you is that Overall, this is a very small percentage change in terms of the increase. And I think really what was happening is that the unit prices, a cost per square foot for each one of these spaces, which is what they're driven off of in terms of the program elements, essentially went up a little bit in terms of the premium of it, just because there were some costs that were staying the same in terms of general conditions, overhead and durations. while the square footage came down a little bit. So that increased dollar per square foot cost ended up driving these up a little bit. Again, not consequential in terms of where we are right now, just from a comparative cost standpoint, but we did want to mention this in terms of the program comparison pieces, just having a slight increase there. Similarly, for the life cycle cost alternates that we ran out, There was no change to the photovoltaic alternates that we listed because it was really just driven on the the area of the photovoltaic panels, both on the roof and on the ground. The HVAC numbers did change slightly again because there was a change in the overall gross square footage that was being estimated. So in this case, these were all credits, so the credit became a little bit less for each of the HVAC options because the overall gross square footage came down a little bit and as well, the overall construction cost for each one of these as well have reduced slightly. And then the last set of alternates that had some cost modification because of those corrections where there's those mass timber alternates. Again, in this case, the overall square footage came down a little bit. So the overall construction costs. Um, for each of those alternates came down, um, a little bit as well. So it, there's nothing, um, again, consequential about, um, these numbers, um, in the overall sense of things. We just wanted to correct them, um, indicate what we're submitting to the MSBA, which would be aligned with these numbers overall. I think that was the last slide. I'm not sure if there's any questions we want to go through there on the cost estimate update, other on the alternates on the overall.
[Jenny Graham]: Are there any questions from the group? If we can just maybe use Ray's hand, it'll help me see who's out there. OK, seeing none, Matt, take it away.
[Matt Rice]: We'll move into the PDP report review. I'm not sure if, Jen, do you want to flip to this one or Helen? You want me to take it?
[Kimberly Talbot]: Well, I can I can just say that we did share the link to the report and we did warn you about its size. So yes, you have had in your hands. I would say pretty solid draft since Thursday. We do not expect that you have read all 2000. 400 some odd pages. But again, just know that most of the germane information costs on space summary, the ed plan. we've been talking about along the way, as well as a lot of the existing conditions information. And know that there are still some existing conditions investigations ongoing, and those will get folded into the next submission, the PSR preferred schematic report. So you can flip to the next slide. This again is the table of contents, a reminder of all that is included in the report. wondering if any of the members had any questions on anything in the report.
[Jenny Graham]: Any questions about anything you saw in all of your happy reading of many, many thousands of pages?
[Libby Brown]: I see a hand, Libby. I don't have a specific question, although it was a lot. I did try to get through a lot of it. Because it's so dense. I know this is going to the MSBA. This isn't necessarily like the way we give information to the rest of the city of Medford, because that's not exactly the point. But is there any way we could take like the high points, the headlines, the most important parts of this, and distill it into something we can share. Like, I don't think we expect anybody to read 2,000 pages, but people in Medford might really want to understand, like, what the takeaways are. Things like, I don't know, we learned that building on site two is easier than site three. I'm making things up right now. You know, this version is, it'll be fastest to build over here or do this type of reno addition, but it'll cost more. like just some big pieces and certainly clarifying things like the space summary. You know, we anticipate the program will be 600 something thousand square feet. MSBA recommends 415. That doesn't mean they think it's too big. It means they don't have guidelines. Just those big things that I think is starting to get out there and it's confusing to people and is leading to like a lot of, I don't know, misinformation, but I think just confusion and frustration.
[Jenny Graham]: Yeah, I think that's a great call, Libby. A couple of notes for everybody who's listening. First is that we have done three videos about different components of the school. Those are all on the project website as well as on the Facebook page for Medford Public Schools. So please share those. And those cover the overall size. They cover specifically questions around Um, the science labs, because the science labs were part of a renovation a little over a decade ago. So we talked a little bit about the science labs. And then the 3rd, 1 was really about. our gym and pool, so our field house spaces, and what some of those considerations are. So there's a couple of more that are in production right now that'll keep coming out. So I would definitely encourage people to go watch those if you haven't, and share those with people who have questions about those specific things. And as well, to encourage people to sign up for the mail list. The sign up is also available on our site And we'll put that in the superintendent's Friday updates. There's a robocall that will go out from the city later this week to point people to the website and some of the important meetings that are coming up. And again, encourage people to sign up for the mailing list. And then Libby, I think to your point, we can work on what some of those highlights are and provide a link to this in the superintendent's weekly update, which is where there's like a dedicated space for the high school project in her update on a go forward basis. So we can definitely do that. And then we're also preparing to provide probably a very similar update so that it can go in the mayor's newsletter next month. all of those things can happen. And I think the hard part is there is just, in fact, a lot of information here. And I think the average person in the public doesn't need or want to know about structures and fences. No offense to structures and fences, but there are some big things. I think for those of you who are listening, This is a process, and this is the beginning of the process. This is like, tell us what all the choices might be so that we can then say, OK, as a community, here are the choices that we want to pursue further or investigate further and go from there. So this is sort of the casting the widest net of possibilities so that as the project takes twists and turns, We have all the information available to us to be able to answer questions like, did you ever think of this? Or did you ever think of making the pool smaller? Or did you ever think of making it its own building? So the biggest part of what's going on right now is just really data collection so that we can start as we go forward to make some decisions. And I think that's the biggest thing to impress upon people, that these numbers are intended to help us compare option A to option B to option C. They are really not yet numbers that we should think about as project costs, because they really aren't that just yet, because there's too many variables still. Um, you know, however, this committee can help make sure there's no confusion out there. I think that would be great. Um, but also we'll try to get that all sort of boiled into a concise update, um, to go out later this week.
[Libby Brown]: Thanks. And those videos are great. So thanks to you and Matt for sitting through those.
[Matt Rice]: Yeah, I know I was going to also just add in the fact that I think Rosemary put together a really nice, um, summary of the, the space summary, um, content from the PDP report. That got distributed around to the building committee I think we can also make sure that that's available in a prominent way on the website because that does a really good job of sort of providing the highlights to the overall space summary and sort of how we're implementing the educational plan. And then I think the other piece that is maybe buried in section 3.1.6, but we know it is buried, is really the pros and cons list of each of the grouping of alternatives, because those are some pretty high-level takeaways that I think would be good for the community to understand through what lens we're looking at the different options. And they're in a couple of different places in 3.1.6 because they're at the end of each grouping of sections. But we can find a way to, again, sort of pull those together maybe and make those digestible, more easily digestible in sort of one location, to your point.
[Maria D'Orsi]: Great.
[Jenny Graham]: Are there additional questions? I don't see any other hands.
[SPEAKER_16]: I actually have a, I have a question, but I can't find the raised hand on my zoom right now. I'm sorry.
[Jenny Graham]: It's in the react section at the bottom of your screen. Okay. Sorry.
[SPEAKER_16]: I'm also cooking dinner in my kitchen. So I'm on a very small screen. Hi. Um, I have a very, just a very quick question. Um, uh, since I joined this committee late, uh, I've been trying to review all the materials somewhat in order and the, question I have, which again, it could be answered by email if it's too much of a discussion for this meeting, has to do with when the estimates for things like hallway space, toilet space, passing areas that so far I've seen estimated as a rough estimate based on the other square footage. In the educational plan, I noticed There was a lot of very thoughtful coverage of passing time between spaces, grouping similar educational activities within pods or contiguous areas, and a very astute but tricky balance between spaces with privacy, but also supervision of the students. I was impressed with all that and thought that all that was really great from my experience working in high school spaces, but also just hearing how much a bummer it is to get from one class to the other in the current space. At what point does the rough estimate of hallway and passing space combined with the various volumes of tall versus wide really start to force decisions about how we can actually group these educational spaces, because it seems like at some point, if that amount of hallway or passing space is not enough to create these pods or areas that have privacy, but supervision and contiguous space, it I have a worry that we would get some further down this process and be unable to revise or incorporate that into the square footage. So I'm just wondering, is that a concern that you all have? And if so, how would we address that?
[Jenny Graham]: That's a great question. I'm going to let Matt talk about adjacency and what happens next in this process that will start to address some of that.
[Matt Rice]: Yeah, Paul, it's a very good question and it's a good reading of the educational plans for the understanding of what needs to happen as part of the next steps. It really is going to be something that we tackle naturally as part of the PSR, the preferred schematic report phase, which is this next phase of the feasibility study that we get into. And it really becomes something that we can start to study once we get down into that three to five option range. where we can look at, say, like the number of wings that there are, the proximity of wings or pods to each other to help talk to these topics of passing time between spaces, of how far you can get from, or how long it takes to get from one end of the building to the other. You may recall that we had, even in our 29 different options, some metrics that we had included in terms of horizontal distance, say, from one end of each massing scheme to the other, which is a very high-level understanding of what that passing time metric is going to be. But really, to fully understand it, we need to dig a little bit further and lay out some hallways and start to understand exactly how some of the spaces can come together. In terms of understanding that balance between oversight and privacy and transparency that might exist within the building, That will probably come a little bit later in terms of the schematic design phase, once we can actually sort of understand the porosity of walls and sort of connections between spaces. So we will definitely get there. Those are critical things that we need to design in to respond to the educational plan. But I think they're going to be coming to us in sort of the subsequent stages of the design process as we move forward.
[SPEAKER_16]: OK, thanks, Matt. And just the one further clarification I'd love is that we are going to vote on submitting something to the MSBA. And is there any concern that the square footage or the ratio for passing space is going to lock us into a situation that we can't design ourselves out of without sacrificing the educational plan?
[Matt Rice]: Personally, I don't really have any fear about that, only because what we're using is a fairly Industry standard, industry being sort of the MSBA process of what we're doing of using that 1.5 multiplier of looking at the usable square footage to that grossing factor square footage, the hallways, the toilet rooms, mechanical spaces, et cetera. We have both SOMA as well as every other designer that is working through the MSBA grant program. has a pretty common practice of working with that 1.5 multiplier. And we know that we can come up with a facility that will satisfy the educational plan using that sort of balance and that multiplier. So we have a high level of confidence there.
[SPEAKER_16]: Okay, great. Thanks, Matt.
[Jenny Graham]: I think the other thing, Paul, worth mentioning is that The vote that we'll take tonight is to submit this to the MSBA for their input and feedback. So this is not by, this does not by any means like lock us to any specific part of this submission. Like we should all fully expect this is gonna keep changing as we go through the next phases of the project.
[Maria D'Orsi]: Any other questions?
[Jenny Graham]: Um, I expected you all to have some more questions, but, um, I think, um, Matt, are you, are you done with your slides about the PDP report? Yes. Is there a motion, um, to submit this preliminary design report, um, to the MSBA?
[Luke Preisner]: So moved.
[Jenny Graham]: I can. Second. Seconded by Libby. OK. I'm going to call the roll. Jenny Graham. Yes. Mayor Lungo-Koehn. Yes. Dr. Galusi.
[Suzanne Galusi]: Yes.
[Jenny Graham]: Marta Cabral. Yes. Joan Bowen.
[Suzanne Galusi]: Yes.
[Jenny Graham]: Ken Lord.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Yes.
[Jenny Graham]: Libby Brown. Yes. Marissa Desmond. Yes. Maria Dorsey. Maria? I see you lighting up, Maria. Is that a yes?
[Jenny Graham]: Thanks. Just give me a thumbs up. How's that?
[Maria D'Orsi]: Yes.
[Jenny Graham]: Brian Hilliard?
[Brian Hilliard]: Yes.
[Jenny Graham]: Emily Lazzaro. Yes. Paul Malone.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Yes.
[Jenny Graham]: Nicole Morell. Yes. Erin Olapade. And Luke Preissner.
[Luke Preisner]: Abstain.
[Jenny Graham]: 13 in the affirmative, 0 in the negative, 1 abstention, 1 absent. The submission has been approved to go to the MSBA. I just wanted to say thank you to the project team for all of their incredible hard work. There is just a ton of information here, and I know that the surveyors have been out, you know, trucking through snow and all the other conditions that they've had in front of them since November and it's been, you know, a really like full tilt effort to get all of this information pulled together. So I just wanted to express my appreciation for the team that's worked so hard to put that together. And I'm thrilled to submit this to the MSBA for their input and feedback because that's the next important step. Okay. Matt Galino, did you want to take it away about our evaluation criteria?
[Suzanne Galusi]: Jenny, is he on? I know he was having power issues earlier today.
[Jenny Graham]: Oh, let's see.
[Suzanne Galusi]: Did we lose him? I don't know if I saw him originally.
[Jenny Graham]: I thought we did. Matt Rice or Jen, do you want, or Helen, do you want to talk about this evaluation criteria matrix? Sure. Yeah, I'm happy to speak to it. Okay. Thanks, Ellen.
[Kimberly Talbot]: Once again, we're all just muddling through here. We'll get there. We will get there. So certainly submission of PDP is a milestone, but we are not stopping. We have to keep pushing forward. And so At the March meeting, we're really going to start to dig in to think about the 29 options and how we can get from 29 down to, let's say, a handful. three to five. And so I know this has been in some of the materials that Matt G had sent out to you previously. And again, we recognize we are bombarding you with a lot of information, but we'll keep bringing this up because this will really be an important topic for March, our March meeting. So essentially it is all of the 29 options spread out across the top and down the left hand column are evaluative criteria which we have used on other projects but also have updated to respond to this particular project in Medford. And we'll continue to look to you. Did we miss anything in terms of criteria? You can go to the next. And just to talk, I do see Luke's hand up, but I'll just get to the next slide. And I think we can sit there for a little bit. How this matrix will work is essentially three to us. And this is a snip from the base code repair option, applying the criteria to that option, right? So we know for a fact that it will not meet the educational plan for all students. So that would get the zero points. The matrix will automatically turn red in that cell. Similarly, applying the criteria as we move down by option or by alternative. If it's neutral, it doesn't have adverse or incredibly positive effect. You just give it two points, it turns yellow, and then Here's something that really strikes the bell. It's perfect. It's great. We see this option is really meeting that particular criteria. For instance, we know that the base code repair is the least expensive across the 29. So that one would get the points and the green. So what happens? Am I freezing for other people? I'm happy to go off camera if that helps.
[Adam Hurtubise]: You were, Helen, just like here and there.
[Kimberly Talbot]: Okay, okay. Is that any better? And if it isn't, I will have Matt Rice take over.
[Jenny Graham]: I think we're good. I think we can hear you fine now, Helen. Go ahead.
[Kimberly Talbot]: OK, OK, great. Thanks, Luke. I see your message. So what this will do once it's all filled out, if you call it the squint test, you can easily see where the reds and the greens and the yellows really pop up and start to help you focus in on which of the options are really meeting the criteria. If you go to the next slide. And that's where the criteria really are very important. Do we have the right lenses through which to run each of these options? And so over the course of the next three slides, we literally just took each criteria and laid them out here. We don't have to dwell on each bunch, but it's a reminder if you could take a look at this and let us know if you think something's missing or something is not applicable. Again, in March, we really would like to begin the process of applying said criteria to each option. Under category one, it's literally just the facts for each one, so those don't get the red, yellow, green treatment, but the criteria two to 10 we would use to evaluate. Any questions on the matrix and how we hope to be using it in the coming weeks?
[Luke Preisner]: Yeah, so Helen, I've got a question.
[Jenny Graham]: Luke, hold on. Can you just hold on one second? Helen, I just had one more comment about this so that I'm clear what question you're asking. Um, so as you look at these, there's, there's 10 categories and there's some sub categories. It's, is your question, um, whether we want to remove any of these sub sub bullets or add to, is that the question that you're asking us to weigh in on tonight? Yes, that's correct. Got it. And, um, then. Is there also another question for us to talk about in our next meeting around the weighting of the 10 bigger categories? Or how does weighting of these many pieces and parts get done typically?
[Kimberly Talbot]: Yeah, generally speaking, the points have served us well. But if there are categories that are more important, then certainly we could look at assigning additional points to various subtopics.
[Jenny Graham]: Thank you. I just wanted to make sure we all were clear on what the ask was for us tonight. Luke, did you have a question?
[Luke Preisner]: Yeah, I did. So like these stoplight sort of design space matrices, they're always interesting, always prompt a lot of conversation, but super important if we want to treat them with any credibility is to understand how they're constructed. So Helen, could you flip back to where we saw the, it was after the very big matrix. Yeah. So you had this one here. Yeah. So we've got a zero, a two, and a five. Unfavorable, neutral, favorable. What's the benchmark? And is it always the same benchmark? I can imagine situations where like your ed plan is the thing you're comparing to, but I don't think that's in all cases, right? So could you clarify for us what the benchmark that you're measuring against happens to be for the different categories? Um, and there was one that caught my eye. You can't see it on this one, but it's on the, uh, the giant one and it had to do with like embodied carbon. And I was really surprised that the, uh, the code, uh, upgrade wasn't a five, but there's other instances of that. Um, can you explain what the benchmark is? Like, what are you measuring against?
[Kimberly Talbot]: Really? Really? The measurement is, is, um, one option or one alternative to another. And the criteria really have to be based in the ed plan and all the programming work that's come into play to date. So it's really a tool, much in the way that the numbers, the costs, it's really meant to compare one to another.
[Luke Preisner]: OK, if we go back one more slide, if you don't mind. No, maybe one more. There's the very big one. So I heard what you said, but in this presentation, there's only one thing that's scored. And so because there's only one thing that's scored, I just want to know what that one thing is being compared against. What's it worse than, equal to, or better than?
[Kimberly Talbot]: Right, so what needs to happen next is using the same process for each and every option. So we can do this a number of ways. SMMA and left field could take a first pass at it and have the SBC review. Or we could painstakingly do this together. It's something we really do want to talk to you all about, is what is the most effective way to move this forward?
[Luke Preisner]: Okay, I don't know if anyone else in the committee still has the same question I do. I don't feel like my question was answered. I see a red. I mean, if we took any of these just arbitrarily, pick a red one. Like for this one and loan scored concept, we assigned a red for category XYZ. What is what is that benchmark against? Like, why are we saying this is unfavorable? Unfavorable in the context of what else? Is it the current school? Is it the ed plan? I feel like the answer could change for different questions, but we should be clear on what we're benchmarking against. Otherwise it's arbitrary.
[Jenny Graham]: I hear you. I think we're like going a couple of steps maybe ahead of like, the start of this. So in my mind, what we're seeing on that like big chart is just an example of what it will look like when it's completed. I think the first thing that we should probably do is make sure that we're in agreement with the sub bullets that are listed out on these pages. Once that happens, then we can talk about how we want to evaluate them and based on what. And to your point, I think the question of what is the point of comparison is going to be different for different bullets. Like, for example, Helen, if you can flip back to number one. Like some things are, you know, more cut and dry than other, like 2.1, either the space allowed will meet the educational plan or it won't. So that is like, that is the point of comparison. Like if you look at this design, can the educational plan be met? Yes or no. Versus some others where you're going to be comparing to each other, like project costs, for example, like you can objectively compare those things. So I do think the point of comparison is maybe a little bit different on each one. But perhaps what we could do is ask for, once we agree on what the sub-bullets are, what we might, I think, want to do is ask for just a table of all of these choices and a key of what that point of comparison is so that we're all anchored in the same understanding. So if we disagree with what the anchor is of a particular thing, we can make those adjustments when we meet on the 23rd. help answer your question, Luke?
[Luke Preisner]: It does. So we'll address it in the future. And the 23rd, is that March 23rd, or? Yes. OK. Yeah.
[Jenny Graham]: I do think to your point, though, Luke, what we should do tonight is hear from the committee. If anyone is looking at these criteria and says, I don't think we should worry about this. I don't know what that thing would be, but maybe there's somebody something out there or this thing that I think is really important is missing. I think I want to get those surfaced tonight so that then. We can ask the project team to take a stab at this so that when we meet, we can talk about where we might have a different opinion about something versus having to, like. Individually go through each of these things, because I don't think as a committee. Like, we have that level of information and my new shit to be able to do this like, efficiently. So we can do, we can talk about all of that on the 23rd.
[Luke Preisner]: So Jenny, I think the earlier slide, the one that's hard to read, I think it actually has more categories than we see here.
[Jenny Graham]: Helen, is that true? Or the categories are just listed on several slides, right?
[Luke Preisner]: So I see 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9. I see nine sort of things under a blue heading. actually, potentially 10.
[Kimberly Talbot]: There are 10. Yeah, the ensuing slides broke them out in groups of three or so. Yeah. And then the one little snippet was just illustrating the base code repair, the one column that we had populated. Got it.
[Jenny Graham]: Paul, did you have a question?
[Paul Ruseau]: I did, and just to sort of jump off of what Luke was saying, I think that, and I don't know if we, I'm not a voting member, so I obviously can't make a motion or anything, but some of these things feel like they don't require a deliberation. Like the impact to taxpayers, it's like the one that costs the most has the most impact. The one that costs the least has the least impact. That's math. that doesn't require us to deliberate or agree or disagree or anything, right? I mean, that's just math. And so some of these feel like things for which that is true of a number of these items. So, I mean, I would hope that we could, there's so many that I think that if we had, you know, left field or whoever, go through the list and say, OK, well, these are like the district's annual operating expenses, like the one that has the highest. You know, is the highest and when that's the lowest, we don't have to talk about it. I mean, my my feeling is that we could have a list of these things once we get to that meeting on the 23rd and say, here are the ones we've already gone through. here's why we did them that way. We don't have to sit around and talk about these things. I mean, that's my feeling on those things, because there are going to be some that are going to require a lot of actual deliberation and discussion. And I don't want us to waste our time on things that are straight up math that we might, I mean, whether or not the highest cost or the one that is $1 million less is Are they both fives or zeros or whatever? Or is one a zero and one a one? I guess that's a conversation point. But I just feel like the project team could sort of pre-do a bunch of these items that are very quantitative.
[Jenny Graham]: Sure. Thank you for that, Paul. Yeah, I think so too. And I think that was the project team's plan unless we, as a group feel like there's some other. Um, you know, there's some other, you know. Approach that we would like to take, um. And I'm wondering if it makes sense for us to go through and just each of these slides and make sure that we don't have additions or subtractions from these categories so that we can agree on that before we talk about like what the ask is of the team in anticipation of the next meeting. Does that sound like a plan to everybody, Dr. Galussi?
[Suzanne Galusi]: Yes, I was actually just going to suggest something like that because I do think And having not gone through something like this myself, a lot of these categories and subcategories also really get to some core values. And I think, I don't know if it's helpful to have people, I think it's helpful to talk through this, but then I wonder if there's a way we can gather some information to Paul's point before we come to the meeting.
[Jenny Graham]: Okay, so why don't we go ahead and do that? Let's just make our way through these slides and talk about whether there are things either that should be added or subtracted. And then from there, we can talk about next steps for the next meeting. So for the folks who are here with us tonight, as we look at the evaluation criteria category 1, 2, and 3, so alternative information, space optimization, and cost and schedule, are there things that you were expecting to see in these categories that are not here? Or are there items on here that you believe should not be part of the criteria by which we evaluate? Seeing no hands.
[Luke Preisner]: Actually, so I just want to question.
[Libby Brown]: You can go.
[Luke Preisner]: No, no, go ahead. You got your hand up.
[Libby Brown]: I don't have anything specific to take out or or add, except there's so many. that I feel like aren't going to be that different once we get to the new schemes like or I guess I could take a stab at what I think for full orientation or some of these but um like flexibility for future growth I would imagine once we get to like new construction renovation it's going to be kind of I imagine greens across the board so I don't know if there's a way to think about are there categories missing that could help really identify the differences between some of the new options unless I, maybe I haven't thought it through yet and you guys expect those will be different. But there's just so many that I imagine are going to be greens, you know, as soon as we start doing a major project. So it might not be that much of a differentiator.
[Jenny Graham]: Libby, I think that's a fair question. I don't know, Matt, Rice, if you have any thoughts about that. I guess my take is given how many options we have that are substantially Like, renovating parts of the building, like, that there actually might be a lot of variability in there in a way that is not typical, but Matt, maybe you can. Shed some light on that for us.
[Matt Rice]: Sorry, I just had to close the door and get some background noise out of here. So it's interesting to think about this as sort of the rubric that it is in terms of helping us to identify the priorities. And if we just take the space optimization as educational items under category two right now, A lot of these were taken directly out of the ed plan and sort of the priority goals that were developed through the visioning. And so if we think about how it's going to sort of weight the overall number that we're going to come up with at the bottom, because in addition to sort of the coloring of it, we do produce a number for each one of the alternatives that we can use to compare against each other. The idea here is because we have eight different criteria that we've assigned for space optimization educational, is that the combined number here as well as the weighting of the negative, the neutral, and the positive with the green five receiving the highest value, It'll place additional emphasis intentionally on the educational drivers that are here. That's one of the goals that we have in terms of the overall organization of the tool to help provide some guidance in terms of which options are going to be positive overall. I do completely agree that when we get into doing new construction options, and maybe to some extent the addition renovation as well, a lot of these are going to be green because we would be designing to those goals regardless. One could potentially argue that depending on the percentage of addition versus renovation that the renovated space might be a little bit more challenging but those are the kind of conversations I think we can have as we're sort of reviewing the detail of this and get into it and talk about whether or not every one of them should be green all the way through or if we do think that there are some constraints going all the way using sort of renovated space at a higher proportion to new construction space as we go through it. So there is some logic that's built into it, just from a weighting and prioritization standpoint, as we have sort of just used this tool in the past in sort of a successful way. But we're certainly open to any additional thoughts about sort of adding or subtracting or modifying also the weighting system as we go through it, depending on what makes sense to folks. Did that answer the question, Libby?
[Libby Brown]: Yeah, I think so. I mean, I haven't gone through this yet, so it's possible I'm wrong, and there'll be a lot of differentiation.
[Matt Rice]: I think in other categories, yeah, there definitely will be. But I think for space optimization, I think you're probably hitting the nail on the head with sort of the understanding of it. Luke, do you want to go ahead?
[Luke Preisner]: Yeah, so to Jenny's motion earlier, some feedback for these evaluation criteria. And I wrote a little bit about it in the chat, and I think I can give some examples. There's some redundancy in your groupings. So let's start with alternatives information. It talks about the site. We see athletic fields. We see GSF, things like that. Then there's this totally separate category called site. Is there a way to combine, remove the redundancies and have maybe one category for those two? There's other examples, but yeah, if you could just take a look at that.
[Matt Rice]: Sure, happy to do that moving forward. I think just one thing to keep in mind, and something that sort of trips me up, because like when I go down to project costs, I think, oh, there's project costs elsewhere as well as number three. Under category one, so these are really just intended to be more metrics, and maybe we shouldn't put it in the criteria, because that's maybe mixing up the definitions of it, maybe is a clearer way of identifying it. But these are really just intended to be sort of comparative metrics across the range of them. just to sort of establish a baseline and not have people have to go off and look at different documents to be able to sort of see those metrics and compare them one against each other. So I think that's really the alternatives if we're looking at, say, the site pieces specifically. And then we jump to evaluation criteria seven, the grouping of site. These are more sort of the qualitative evaluations. Going back to your benchmark topic as well, looking at sort of the relative site components qualitatively, I guess. So that's the intent and we can certainly clarify that moving forward just to make sure that there is not redundancy because I agree that's not the goal here.
[Luke Preisner]: Yeah, I appreciate that because there's many examples. You hit on a couple. There's others. There's this one with educational or space optimization. Half of them are like EdPlan related. You've got a whole EdPlan category. I think if we want to use this as an actual tool for making decisions, we should simplify it because otherwise, you know, we'll sort of be baffled by the complexity of it. We'll just see all these like, you know, red, orange, and greens that make us go blind, and then we just give up and be like, yeah, pick that one. If we want to use it as a real tool for conversation and understanding, I think we should probably tighten it up and eliminate redundancy in cases where, you know, it appears like there's redundancy because maybe the wording that was selected for the sub bullet, maybe we reword the sub bullet so that it's clearly two different categories with different evaluation criteria. That's my general sort of feedback. We could pick this apart and find many instances, but I don't know if that's productive. I do ask though that the team kind of go back and like I said, try to remove the redundancy, maybe have fewer bullets and have something that's tighter that will be effective as a tool because we have like 29 different things to look at. And if we don't really need, say, 30 criteria, if it's only 15 or 16, I'm being sort of just arbitrary and hypothetical, it would make it a more manageable and useful activity. That's my feedback.
[Matt Rice]: Paul, I see you have your hand up as well. Sorry, I'm just calling you out, folks.
[Paul Ruseau]: Thank you. Have you used this tool before in this format and how has it gone with other school building committees if you have?
[Matt Rice]: So yes, we have used this tool as sort of the evaluation rubric on multiple past projects. Believe it or not, this one is actually pared down from the last project we did that maybe had twice as many different criteria on there. So it is a valuable tool in terms of producing some evaluation. I think there's some objectivity and there is some subjectivity as well in terms of what it's eventual output is going to be or what the takeaways are going to be from it. At the same time, we understand that every community is different and there's different priorities or a project is different. And so that's why we wanted to go through this process with the committee this evening just to get feedback as to what was here. But it is a baseline that we have worked with previously and have found it to be successful. Ken.
[Kenneth Lord]: I was just going to support that, that all the projects I've done have done this exact, not the exact same layout, but the same process. You've got a big spreadsheet, it's got categories down the side, and that list of categories is what's important to that project. So like in the last project I did, it was all about merging, multiple merge options to school. So it was about parking and space and traffic was a major concern. So there were a lot more of those categories than you might see in this one because it's one school, one site, there's not a different traffic comparison and things like that. So this list has to be kind of what we want to value, compare each option to each other.
[Jenny Graham]: That as I was listening to what folks were saying. 1 thing that 1 thing that I'm thinking of is that I feel like this category 1. Is not ranked information. And that instead it is like. Descriptive information so that in 1 place, you sort of know, like, okay, option 27 is these things, right? Because I think there are still a lot of options on the table. So. If there is somebody who perhaps agrees with that and would like to make a motion that category 1 be informational only and not used for evaluative purposes, that might be an effective thing to do.
[Matt Rice]: Jenny, you're looking for someone to make a motion for that?
[Jenny Graham]: If there is agreement on that, I think I've It was feeling like Luke and I were in agreement on that, but if there's anybody who would like to make a motion, we could entertain that now.
[Libby Brown]: I thought category 1 already was information only.
[Kimberly Talbot]: Oh, it it is maybe flip back 1 slide. And yeah, Matt is right, it's misnamed in this description. That top, under the top purplish blue bar, that is the alternatives information. Okay, so it already is not- It is correct, correct. And we should have made that more clear. I apologize.
[Jenny Graham]: Okay, great. So on items number two and three, are there any specific additions or subtractions that people would like to propose?
[Luke Preisner]: So for two, I would ask whether say the first four overlap with any of the six that are in the category called educational plan.
[Jenny Graham]: I don't personally think that there is overlap there. But Luke, if you would like to make a motion specifically for us to consider.
[Suzanne Galusi]: Can I just make a point of clarification before maybe that happens? Is that okay? Dr. Galusi. I think like for me, and I would appreciate if Matt or Helen, you know, tells me I'm looking at this incorrectly, but for me, everything that's listed 4.1 to 4.6 is the work that came out of all of the visioning sessions and all of the feedback that we heard from the community in what they want to see in educational spaces. And this talks a little bit more about how those spaces can meet the teaching that we're doing. And in the other spaces, it's just a little bit more concrete. The other one that says educational plan is a direct reflection of the work that we did to make sure our spaces do reflect that. And in number, is it two?
[Matt Rice]: Sorry, I'm jumping back and forth. There's a little bit of lag, but yes.
[Suzanne Galusi]: That's okay. This, these are pieces that are more global and may encompass things that were outside of some of that visioning work. There is some overlap, but am I wrong in that?
[Matt Rice]: No, I think you're correct, Suzanne, in terms of understanding. It certainly is more granular and more connected to the specific outcomes from the visioning process and the goals that were identified right at the beginning of the educational plan in the group four criteria. And then group two is higher level in terms of just the ability for a particular alternative to meet some larger goals. And I think they are discrete. I know it's tough to jump back and forth looking at the two of them when they're on two different screens.
[Jenny Graham]: Thanks, Matt.
[Luke Preisner]: Luke? So to Dr. Galussi's point, right, you've got the category that is educational plan and equity. It is a highly valued category. Each of those sub-bullets are components of the overall educational plan. So perhaps we don't need a bullet in space optimization that says meets the educational plan because it's covered. in section four sort of more granularly and the reason and it kind of pains me because i'm not seeing that in number two luke what's that i'm not seeing the bullet that which but which two are you talking about two two dot one meets educational plan for all students that's like the global statement that captures all the stuff that's under category four So I think it's important to have the granularity. And I think if we allow it to exist in space optimization and then exist as its own category, we're like double counting. And the way this matrix works, it's not that complicated. Like you just basically give it a 0, 2, 5, and then you add them up at the bottom. If you have categories that are like sort of represented more than once, then it's essentially weighting something much more, potentially a lot more than something else. So I think if you have section four, maybe you don't need 2.1.
[Jenny Graham]: Are you making a motion?
[Luke Preisner]: Oh, do we have to make a motion for every change? I'm happy to. Yes.
[Jenny Graham]: Yes, there's 15 people who have to agree on these changes. This is really important.
[Luke Preisner]: Okay, make a motion to strike 2.1.
[Jenny Graham]: Is there a second?
[Brian Hilliard]: I think I could second that. It makes sense to me as well.
[Jenny Graham]: Okay, so the motion to strike 2.1 by Luke seconded by Brian. I will call the roll. Jenny Graham. No. Mayor Lungo-Koehn. Yes. Dr. Galusi. No. Marta Cabral. No. Joan Bowen. No. Ken Lord. No. Libby Brown. No. Marissa Desmond. No. Maria Dorsey.
[Suzanne Galusi]: She's a yes. Right, Maria. She gave a thumbs up. I don't know if she can hear. Maria, you are yes.
[Jenny Graham]: Okay, we'll mark Maria a yes for now. Maria, if you want to pop in the chat. Yes. Okay. Brian Hilliard.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Yes.
[Jenny Graham]: Emily Lazzaro. No. Paul Malone.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Yes.
[Jenny Graham]: Nicole Morell. No. Erin Olapade is absent. Luke Preissner.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Yes.
[Jenny Graham]: Five in the affirmative. Nine in the negative, one absent, motion does not pass. Are there other changes to items two or three before we move to the next slide? Ken?
[Kenneth Lord]: I just wanted to add in that there's really no harm in having some extra categories in there. These categories are not going to add up to a number that makes us do something. It's comparative to other options. So individual people may put more interest or weight on an individual. Like somebody may want, I want to maximize PV, and that's the most important thing to me in that scenario. So you could, you know, one person may want to strike certain alternatives. because that's more important than to the other. It's not that a total number is a, you know, we can't choose an option if it has the lowest total number or the highest total number. It's just a number that adds up what those options are. And different sections are gonna mean different things to different people. You know, so you may, parking is the most important thing to you, or the football field practices, and you're gonna personally, look at those when you compare the options and choose different options that you feel should stay in for the PSR based on that compared to other people.
[Jenny Graham]: Thanks, Ken. Are there any other motions about category two or three?
[Maria D'Orsi]: Okay. Jenny? Maria? Yes, it's just a word change, I guess. At 2.2 where it says adequately sized spaces, The other categories say that it meets, it optimizes, it provides, but for the size, it's just saying adequately sized. Wouldn't it be better to say optimally sized or maximize spaces as opposed to just adequate?
[Jenny Graham]: That's a great question. Matt, do you have any thoughts about that topic and how you would rate or evaluate that?
[Matt Rice]: I think optimally might be a good replacement word in terms of adequately that's listed in there. It does have a more positive connotation to it and I think it's sort of aspiring to something as opposed to just sort of saying it's at a baseline. potentially we get into discussion of sort of what adequate versus optimal means. But I think in this case, optimal does sound like a better and maybe more consistent word usage here.
[Jenny Graham]: Paul Malone, did you have a related question or should I wrap this one up before we move to you?
[SPEAKER_16]: It's a comment about the current question.
[Jenny Graham]: Okay, go ahead.
[SPEAKER_16]: Um, I, I think adequately does seem a little bit out of place because the words are so dynamic for the rest of these. I would just caution against using maximize because I think an appropriate space size for some of these uses would be actually smaller rather than larger. It could be too big. Um, I would support optimize, um, as an alternative and more powerful piece of language.
[Jenny Graham]: And Paul Rousseau, are you, do you have a comment related to this question?
[Paul Ruseau]: I do, and I think I'm a little bit of an outlier here on the opinions on this, but adequately to me is another word for minimal. You know, a bathroom could be adequately sized to meet ADA standards, which to me means minimal. We can't go smaller. And when I see the word adequately, I think That's what is meant by that. Is it the best option? Does it give us the most options for how we might want to change education in the future or flexibility? No, adequate to me means, will people be able to be in the place and get an education? So optimized to me doesn't, I certainly understand, I like the word optimized in other places here, but optimized implies, an enormous amount of knowledge to know whether something's optimized and the many different uses. You know, I mean, I'm not a teacher, but if an English class is, you know, everybody's sitting in rows staring at the whiteboard or in a math class or something, that might be optimal, but then a different kind of class in that same space might not be optimal or not even be adequate. So I, I don't know that there's the conversation point, I think, but adequately to me always has meant minimum.
[Suzanne Galusi]: May I just say. I think what's important that Paul just brought up, though, based on one of his examples is, does this say, Matt, parentheses, educational, because these are all classroom spaces we're talking about. They're not office spaces, toilet spaces. Are these all, should we, when we're scoring this, have the lens of classroom educational spaces?
[Matt Rice]: Yes, that is certainly what the parentheses is intended by. And I'm not sure, Paul, if you were just using toilet rooms as an example, just because it had the accessibility requirements sort of tied into it, and there's sort of that nuanced understanding of it, or if you were leaning in that direction for another reason.
[Paul Ruseau]: Yeah, I did just mean to, as a simple example, I could think of off the top of my head, and certainly didn't think it was relevant. Sorry.
[Jenny Graham]: Sorry. I'm hearing maybe two potential changes to this. One is about the word adequately, and one is about maybe the addition of like the words like instead of spaces, classrooms. Is there someone who would like to make a motion to make this update? Can you tell me what the motion is that you're making, Mayor? Because there's been a couple of different suggestions.
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: Make the motion that places like 2-2 and 2-3 where they say spaces, say classroom spaces. And I think Pomalone had a good word to replace adequately, so.
[Jenny Graham]: Okay, so the motion by the mayor is to clarify in section two that these are classroom spaces. Is there a second?
[Luke Preisner]: Seconded.
[Jenny Graham]: Seconded by Luke, okay. Uh, I'll call the roll. Jenny Graham. Yes. Mayor Lungo-Koehn. Yes. Dr. Bellucci. Yes. Marta Cabral. Yes. Joan Bowen. Yes. Ken Lord.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Yes.
[Jenny Graham]: Libby Brown. Yes. Marissa Desmond. Yes. Maria Dorsey. Yes. Brian Hilliard.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Yes.
[Jenny Graham]: Emily Lazzaro.
[Maria D'Orsi]: Yes.
[Jenny Graham]: Paul Malone.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Yes.
[Jenny Graham]: Nicole Morell. Yes. Aaron Olapade is absent. And Luke Preissner.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Yes.
[Jenny Graham]: 14 in the affirmative, zero in the negative, one absent, motion passes. So we'll add classroom. And then, Paul Malone, can you tell us again what your motion was to address the word adequately?
[SPEAKER_16]: Well, I feel it was Maria's kind of idea, but I'm happy to move it forward, which was how about we move to change the word adequately to optimal, or someone else said appropriately. I would say we've used optimal so many other places in this category. It's probably simplest if we stick to that. So I'd move that we change it to optimally sized classroom spaces.
[Jenny Graham]: OK. Is there a second? Maria. Oh, thanks, Maria. Okay, here we go.
[SPEAKER_16]: Maria whose idea this whole thing was to start with.
[Jenny Graham]: Thanks, Bob. Jenny Graham. Yes. Mayor Lungo-Koehn. Yes. Dr. Galusi. Yes. Marta Cabral. Yes. Joan Bowen. Yes. Ken Lord. Yes. Libby Brown. Yes. Marissa Desmond. Yes. Maria Dorsey. Yes. Brian Hilliard.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Yes.
[Jenny Graham]: Emily Lazzaro.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Yes.
[Jenny Graham]: Paul Malone.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Yes.
[Jenny Graham]: Nicole Morell. Yes. Aaron Lapata is absent. Luke Preissner. Yes. 14 in the affirmative, zero in the negative, one absent. We will change that word. Are there other questions or comments about section two or three?
[Luke Preisner]: Yeah, I've got another one, and I'm going to just limit it to this one. I could actually provide many, but I'll just say for this next one, motion to strike 2.4 because 2.4 is almost entirely reflected in 4.5.
[Jenny Graham]: I'm sorry, you faded out there, Luke, because it's what?
[Luke Preisner]: it's almost entirely reflected in 4.5. So you've got a future ready building adaptable, which is a synonym for flexible, sustainable, able to evolve. So reinforcing flexibility with changing, again, reinforcing flexibility and educational practices, tying it back to education. So I would move to strike 2.4. Okay.
[Jenny Graham]: Motion to strike 2.4 by Luke. Is there a second? Seconded Maria. Maria. Okay. I'll call the roll. Jenny Graham. Yes. Mayor Lungo-Koehn. Yes. Dr. Galussi. No. Marta Cabral. Yes. Joan Bowen. No. Ken Lord.
[SPEAKER_16]: No.
[Jenny Graham]: Libby Brown. Yes. Marissa Desmond. No. Maria Dorsey. Yes. Brian Hilliard.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Yes.
[Jenny Graham]: Emily Lazzaro. No. Paul Malone.
[SPEAKER_16]: No.
[Jenny Graham]: Nicole Morell. No. Aaron Lopate is absent. Luke Presner.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Yes.
[Jenny Graham]: 7 in the affirmative, 7 in the negative, 1 absent. That means the motion fails.
[Luke Preisner]: Sudden death vote?
[Jenny Graham]: I'm sorry?
[Luke Preisner]: Oh, just sudden death? No, just kidding. We were talking yesterday.
[Jenny Graham]: OK, any other questions about 2 and 3? All right, let's move to the next slide. Are there questions or comments about four, five, and six?
[Luke Preisner]: Jenny, can we go back to three? Sorry, I just didn't blurt it out fast enough. One of those categories in three was gets us into the school the soonest. I'm surprised we don't have something about duration. I think we do. Wouldn't those two things be the same? Like the shortest duration would be the thing that gets us into the school the soonest, or do you see it differently?
[Jenny Graham]: Matt, can you answer that question?
[Matt Rice]: Sure. Yeah, the reason that there's two different items there is that there's the potential, if we're doing renovation work that is phased that there may be a new portion of the building that comes online before say the entirety of it or the overall duration of the project completion. So it's more like what can get you into something newest versus like the overall duration of the project that might be shorter or longer.
[Luke Preisner]: Okay thank you for clarifying.
[Jenny Graham]: Okay. 4, 5, and 6. Any questions or suggestions or motions on these categories?
[Paul Ruseau]: Paul? About 5.1, I mean, I can't make a motion myself. But if somebody else would, I'd love it. I think those should be separate items. Because I think maintenance costs, you could probably spend a lot more money in a way to make sure that the maintenance was easier. And that might be different than what it costs to do the maintenance. But if we don't have that kind of information when we get to this on March 23rd, it may be a moot point. But I just see that and think of them as perhaps very different in practice.
[Jenny Graham]: Thanks, Paul. I think a motion is going to come your way shortly here. Paul Malone?
[SPEAKER_16]: I had a question about five sustainability. And I would love the project team to tell me if this is covered elsewhere, and then we can ignore it. But what about the overall longevity of the new structure or the renovated structure? And then how, obviously, whatever we build, if it lasts a really, really long time, then all the materials, we don't have to buy it again. We don't have to go through this again. So it feels like, again, if that would be put in everything was a green all the same, I don't think it's helpful. So I'd love to hear from the project team if there's useful data to get for how long these structures could last.
[Matt Rice]: So it's sort of going to bring us back, Paul, I think, to sort of where Libby was going with some of the educational options that are going to, it's going to be a sort of a bipolar swing between either the code repair upgrade option right where we're dealing with the predominance of the existing building where we have limited control over what those materials are. Certainly, we would renovate them, rehab them as much as possible, but they're going to have a fixed life expectancy after that versus new where we would design things that would have an equally durable level as we consider the various material selections and system selections. Um, but there, there may be, um, uh, a bridge in between there as well in terms of the addition renovation options, right? Because if we're renovating, um, there may be some of those existing materials that we need to maintain as part of the existing, um, building, um, that we're keeping, um, whether or not it's just structure or exterior cladding, right? We don't have that level of information yet. Um, but I think it is going to set itself up into sort of primarily an A or a B, um, type of decision. So whether that's a zero, And a five or two and a five, we'd have to figure that out as we go through the process. But I do actually think to tie it back to Paul Rousseau's question or comment or motion, the ease of maintenance and maintenance cost sort of connects to durability as well. in terms of the overall sort of longevity of the building. So I don't know whether or not we necessarily need to add durability in as a separate point, just because I think it's going to be represented, I think, at least in the maintenance costs, potentially in the ease of maintenance as well. But I think it's more maintenance costs over the course of time that would come into play there.
[Jenny Graham]: Thanks, Matt.
[Luke Preisner]: Unless there's any more discussion, I'm going to make the motion to split 5.1 into two different categories.
[Jenny Graham]: Okay, so the motion is to split 5.1 into two separate categories. Is there a second?
[Maria D'Orsi]: Second.
[Jenny Graham]: Dr. Galusi. I will call the roll. Jenny Graham. Yes. Mayor Lungo-Koehn. Yes. Dr. Galusi. Yes. Marta Cabral. Yes. Joan Bowen. Yes. Ken Lord.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Yes.
[Jenny Graham]: Libby Brown. Yes. Marissa Desmond. Yes. Maria Dorsey. Yes. Brian Hilliard.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Yes.
[Jenny Graham]: Emily Lazzaro. Yes. Paul Malone.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Yes.
[Jenny Graham]: Nicole Morell. Yes. Aaron Olapade is absent. Luke Friesner.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Yes.
[Jenny Graham]: 14 in the affirmative, zero in the negative, one absent, motion passes.
[Kimberly Talbot]: Helen? Yeah, I'm just wondering, we probably need a verb related to the split, right? Maintenance costs, what about them?
[Luke Preisner]: Oh, sure. So let's see. Magnitude of maintenance costs. And we would score a lower, more favorably than a higher.
[Jenny Graham]: Minimized maintenance costs?
[Luke Preisner]: No, just magnitude. I think magnitude. And we prefer less, so we'll score that higher and just kind of work it out that way.
[Libby Brown]: It could just be cost of maintenance, no?
[Luke Preisner]: Or we could rearrange it. But I don't know. Sure, cost of maintenance. That's fine. Same thing.
[Maria D'Orsi]: OK, cost of maintenance.
[Luke Preisner]: It's the quantity. Yeah. And then we'll just score that quantity.
[SPEAKER_16]: How about affordability of maintenance? Because then we'll all definitively know a five means it's affordable, not a five means its magnitude is high and expensive.
[Luke Preisner]: Well, affordability is one level of complexity more because you have to have a budget. So I think we keep it simple and just say the magnitude of maintenance, right? Because if you had a big budget, then your definition of affordability could vary from someone that has a small budget. But if you just remove affordability and just say the magnitude of the maintenance cost or the cost of maintenance and just leave it at that, I think it's easier to evaluate.
[Jenny Graham]: Marcel?
[Paul Ruseau]: Yes. I agree with Luke on that one only because the maintenance costs, the affordability of them will be, you know, if we do a full ground source heat pump system, which is like a lot of money, that might bring the maintenance costs down dramatically. But we'll be spending many millions of dollars to get to that. And I think that when we look at all the other, all the options, you know, some of the options will have that, some won't. And we can simply, presumably the maintenance costs will be taking that into account already. Um, and so, you know, I just worry that affordability implies, um, a bigger project cost lens, um, because we might be spending less, but the taxpayers will be paying more in, you know, the time it takes to pay the debt exclusion. So yeah, I agree. It's just, I agree with that. It's a little bit more complicated and it's sort of up a level, um, and. Yeah.
[Jenny Graham]: So the motion is to use the word magnitude of maintenance by Luke. Is there a second?
[Luke Preisner]: Magnitude of maintenance cost.
[Jenny Graham]: I don't want to lose the word cost. By Luke. Is there a second?
[Unidentified]: Second.
[Maria D'Orsi]: I'll second it for you.
[Jenny Graham]: Okay, Ken, I saw you first. Okay, let's see. Roll call. Jenny Graham. Yes. Mayor Lungo-Koehn. Yes. Dr. Galusi.
[Suzanne Galusi]: I'm very sorry. I had to step away for one second. Could you just tell me what the vote is? What is the motion?
[Jenny Graham]: To use the phrase magnitude of maintenance costs for the new 5.1.2. No. Marta Cabral. Yes. Joan Bowen. Yes. Ken Lord.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Yes.
[Jenny Graham]: Libby Brown. Yes. Marissa Desmond. Yes. Maria Dorsey. Yes. Brian Hilliard.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Yes.
[Jenny Graham]: Emily Lazzaro. Yes. Paul Malone.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Yes.
[Jenny Graham]: Nicole Morell. Yes. Aaron is absent. Luke Presner. Yes, 13 in the affirmative 1 in the negative 1 absent motion passes. Okay, are there any other. motions about any of these 456?
[Luke Preisner]: Yes, I'd like to add a category, like not a category, but a bullet under sustainability that talks about being responsible with just the natural environment, right? Like, there's a lot of things that we used to talk about, I don't see here, but, you know, um there were and I can't recall like the the jargon forum but these were like natural buffer retaining walls with like uh you know native wildlife um wetlands management I don't see any of that reflected and I feel like it needs a place um and so I don't know how many categories or how many bullets that makes up. But I guess my motion would be to ask the team to take a look at, I think, our SOI, because we talked about that in our SOI, and identify some sustainability criteria that currently aren't reflected here. but which, I'll say, allow us to value the different project options based on how they manage the natural environment around the school. We're right next to the Fells. We need to, you know, at least acknowledge it. So it belongs here.
[Jenny Graham]: Luke, is your motion to ask the project team to add bullets that reflect?
[Luke Preisner]: Responsible stewardship of the natural environment. We have 29 acres. OK. And it's something like that.
[Jenny Graham]: Responsible stewardship of the natural environment. Yes?
[Luke Preisner]: That's perfect for me.
[Jenny Graham]: OK. By Luke, is there a second?
[Brian Hilliard]: I'll second it. I have a quick question. Can we move that into the number seven site category? Is that a more appropriate location to just see how the site impacts and how everything that Luke talks about would actually impact some of the site criteria? Yeah, no objection to that.
[Jenny Graham]: I will call the roll. Jenny Graham. Yes. Mayor Lungo-Koehn. Yes. Dr. Galussi. Yes. Marta Cabral. Yes. Joan Bowen. Yes. Ken Lord.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Yes.
[Jenny Graham]: Libby Brown. Yes. Marissa Desmond. Yes. Maria Dorsey. Yes. Brian Hilliard.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Yes.
[Jenny Graham]: Emily Lazzaro. No. Paul Malone.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Yes.
[Jenny Graham]: Nicole Morell. Yes. Aaron Olapade is absent. Luke Preissner.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Yes.
[Jenny Graham]: 13 in the affirmative, one in the negative. One absent, motion passes. Paul.
[Paul Ruseau]: Yes. I absolutely don't have any issue with the intent of what was just passed in that motion. I just have absolutely no idea how we will measure it in the 29 options. So I don't think we need to answer that today, but I think somebody needs to be thinking about, you know, how does something, how is something a zero versus a five? I mean, a fully blown, just do the code upgrade will not increase the square footage one inch, and therefore that would be a five. all the other options that are going to increase the space that we use are going to be the worst options. I just don't understand how we're from the 29 options we have today that are at the level of detail we have. We don't know what the building is going to look like at all. How are we going to know what's a zero and what's a five?
[Jenny Graham]: Paul, I think my understanding or intention when I voted yes was that the project team was going to come up with something that was measurable that got to that point. So what we were asking was that the project team add something that reflects responsible stewardship. So I think we'll wait to see what they come up with.
[Paul Ruseau]: But stewardship is a pretty loaded word. I mean, there are probably plenty of people who think the proper stewardship of a lot of these lands that used to be native lands is to return them to nature. Like that's the proper, that's stewardship. So I don't know what stewardship means and how does the project team decide what that, stewardship to me would mean the smallest amount of land used and returning the rest of it to nature. That's what stewardship to me would mean. That means we wouldn't bring any fields over. We wouldn't have any parking, no parking. If you want to talk about stewardship of the land, no parking. make people bike and walk. So I don't know, I have no idea what is intended by stewardship because it seems like an incredibly, it's based on a whole lot about morality and ethics and, you know, your understanding of history. I don't know what this means. I'm also not a voting member, so I'll stop talking.
[Jenny Graham]: You know, once the project team has a chance to digest that, if they need to come back to us and clarify how they're evaluating that or ranking it, we can talk about that in our next meeting on the 23rd. Okay. Is there anything else about items 7 through 10? that we would like to change. Lisa.
[xARk0471UWA_SPEAKER_00]: I just had a question because I'm not sure where this would fit in, but like the traffic flow at the school, I know that there's one of these that says separates safe circulation of the bus, vehicle, pedestrian, and bike access, but kind of the circulation of cars at the school is more than just the separation. And I wasn't sure if there should be some something that addresses that, especially the the entering and exiting the 20 minute wait to get out of the school at the end of the day. I'm not sure that that's included anywhere, or if it's appropriate.
[Jenny Graham]: Matt.
[Matt Rice]: I think we could consider adding. An item under 7 that would say improves on site. traffic circulation to address it. I mean, you could argue that offsite traffic impact, that's really going to deal with sort of the delay, the lag in terms of getting into the site or egressing in the afternoon. But I think your point, Lisa, about circulating on the site doesn't seem like it's captured currently in any of the other site items. I'm not sure if there was anything earlier that touched on it. No, so I think it would be a potential to add 7.7.
[Jenny Graham]: That would say improves on-site traffic circulation. Is that the suggestion, Matt?
[Matt Rice]: Yes.
[Jenny Graham]: Is there somebody who would like to make that motion?
[Brian Hilliard]: So moved.
[Jenny Graham]: Brian, is there a second?
[Luke Preisner]: They're seconded.
[Jenny Graham]: I look, I will call the roll. Jenny Graham. Yes. Mayor Lungo-Koehn. Yes. Dr. Galussi. Yep. Yes. Marta Cabral. Yes. Joan Bowen. Yes. Ken Lord.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Yes.
[Jenny Graham]: Libby Brown. Yes. Maria. Sorry. Marissa Desmond. Yes. Maria Dorsey. Yes. Ryan Hilliard. Yes. Emily Lazzaro? Yes. Paul Malone?
[Adam Hurtubise]: Yes.
[Jenny Graham]: Nicole Morell? Yes. Aaron LaPadilla is absent. Luke Preissner?
[Adam Hurtubise]: Yes.
[Jenny Graham]: 14 affirmative, 0 in the negative, 1 absent. Are there any additional changes to items 7 through 10?
[Luke Preisner]: I would like to have a discussion to see if there's any support for breaking up some of these in 10. I feel like there's a particular value to facilitating community use and access to the pool. And I think that's separate from community access and use of the gym. And it's separate for the fitness spaces, which include the gymnastics area and the baseball batting cages. I feel like those are all separate things. You know, before I make another motion that gets killed, I just want to know if anybody else thinks that there's value in breaking these up because they really do speak to different parts of the community and should probably have their own categories.
[Jenny Graham]: Are you thinking about splitting up 10.2, 10.3?
[Luke Preisner]: So definitely 10.2 and potentially 10.3, because I think personally, it'd be great if the auditorium was like the one they had at Somerville, where you can hold shows without disrupting or having to access the school. I don't know what the support spaces are. I don't know what that is. So I wouldn't necessarily move to break up 10.3, because again, I don't know what the support spaces are. But I would definitely move to break up 10.2.
[Jenny Graham]: Luke, I will just say from myself, I think 10.2 and 10.3 deserve that separate intention. And I'd be happy to second your motion if you want to make it.
[Luke Preisner]: I will make that motion, but can someone just tell me what the support spaces are?
[Matt Rice]: So I think the intent is that the support spaces are those spaces that allow the auditorium to sort of function as an autonomous space. So say like the toilet rooms, the lobby space, things that are required for the auditorium to ticket window potentially. So I think 10.3 could probably get by without being split apart. Understand that 10.2 the intent there, and I think that would add something. I will just caveat it as well. It goes back to this notion of we're splitting things up, and if everything is weighted equally, we're essentially going to be giving additional support to anything besides the code repair option, right? Because I think at the level of detail of where we are right now, we have to probably make an assumption that all of the designs can achieve um, having an improved level of access, um, to say the pool, the gym and the fitness spaces. Um, just cause we, we don't know, we haven't got to the detail level of laying out all those spaces again. I think it sort of recurring theme that we've had, um, as we've gone through here. So it will increase sort of those positives, um, that go towards, um, in addition renovation or a new construction option. And I don't think that's necessarily a bad thing. I just wanted to point out, um, sort of that's the effect of, um, splitting up some of these things.
[Jenny Graham]: Um, Paul Malone.
[SPEAKER_16]: Yeah, so I absolutely agree that 10.3, which is the auditorium. Needs, uh. Either an additional bullet or descriptive language that the auditorium spaces. Ideally could be used by separation from the educational and communal school spaces because I've been in the school where they've tried to do that and it's a nightmare. And in a lot of ways, even what you would think as sort of backstage and offstage spaces need to be used by outside artists or presenters or companies or contractors. And so it's not even as cut and dried as the traditional sort of front of house, back of house, box office, So I would definitely support adding a separate line. I do also think that those same struggles would happen with access to pool, gym, media center, any of those other places where you're just one doorway or one hallway or one bathroom away from suddenly being inside what is a student space or a classroom space. The other option I would just put out is maybe to save time, we just add like a 10.5, saying that we wanna measure if community uses can be separated and operate independently without using common or educational spaces. And then that might cover it enough for what we need to do.
[Jenny Graham]: I'm gonna take a couple more comments and we can like come back to a motion.
[Kenneth Lord]: That was really a question for Matt. Shouldn't we expect as a standard design element that public and private spaces, except in the code option, will be separated? And we really wouldn't have this kind of level of information to know for sure because we haven't done adjacencies and all that in the design process yet.
[Matt Rice]: So yeah, Ken, I think that's you probably stated it better than I did in terms as I was trying to explain the differences there. And so it's a fine line, right, because we did choose to sort of suggest these four options or four criteria, which again are probably going to be similar at this level of detail that we have now for ad reno or new construction options versus the code repair. felt it was important to at least identify these. And I think the word access that's in there is really the thing that was intended to talk to the notion of separating out the access and use of those spaces from the rest of it. So we could potentially clarify that as well if that was of concern, sounds like it is.
[Jenny Graham]: Thank you. Dr. Pelosi?
[Suzanne Galusi]: I just wanted to call out where we're here on the community part, because some of our CTE programs to Matt and Ken's point too are also community facing, but we also use our buildings as community spaces. So we have the ECC that should probably be reflected here. Right now, Medford High School does contain a municipal daycare and the Medford Family Network. Those are community assets that need to be on here as well as Medford High School also houses our Welcome Center, our Parent Information Center. That's also part of our educational plan and should probably be reflected in here as well. I agree with separating 10.2 and 10.3, but I think we also have to add the Early Childhood Center and our Welcome Center.
[Luke Preisner]: Well, Dr. Galussi, if you second mine, I'll second yours.
[Jenny Graham]: How about that?
[Luke Preisner]: Done. All right. So I'll make a motion to split up 10.2.
[Jenny Graham]: OK. So the motion to split up 10.2 by Luke. Seconded by? Second. Dr. Galussi, I will call the roll.
[SPEAKER_07]: Jenny, what do we, there's three, what are we splitting the two into?
[Jenny Graham]: We're gonna split it into pool, gym, and fitness, three categories, three bullets. Okay. Okay. Jenny Graham, yes. Mayor Lungo-Koehn. Yes. Dr. Galussi. Yes. Marta Cabral. Yes. Joan Bowen.
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: Yes.
[Jenny Graham]: Ken Lord.
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: Yes.
[Jenny Graham]: Libby Brown. Yes. Marissa Desmond. Yes. Maria Dorsey. Yes. Brian Hilliard.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Yes.
[Jenny Graham]: Emily Lazzaro. Yes. Paul Malone.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Yes.
[Jenny Graham]: Nicole Morell. Yes. Darren Lopate is absent. Luke Preiser.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Yes.
[Jenny Graham]: 14 affirmative, zero negative, one absent. Motion passes. I think the next thing that we heard about was potentially some language change on 10.3. Is there a motion on that?
[Suzanne Galusi]: I think Matt explained what support spaces are. Are we all in agreement that that is staying the way it is?
[Jenny Graham]: Not hearing any motions. So Dr. Galussi, your motion is to add.
[Suzanne Galusi]: You might have to take it separately, but I would say add 10.5 for the early childhood center and add a 10.6 to include the welcome center. which is our registration office and our support services for families.
[Jenny Graham]: And we are facilitating community access too, is that correct? Correct. Just to confirm, does Early Childhood Center include Medford Family Network?
[Suzanne Galusi]: The Early Childhood Center includes Medford Family Network, our Municipal Daycare Kids Corner, and bringing all of our preschool, MEEP preschool programs to the high school.
[Unidentified]: Okay.
[Suzanne Galusi]: and expanding the capacity of it.
[Jenny Graham]: So a motion to add facilitating community access to the EEC and adding a bullet for facilitating community access to the Welcome Center by Dr. Galusi, seconded by?
[Adam Hurtubise]: Seconded.
[Jenny Graham]: Luke? We'll call the roll. Jen Graham? Yes. Mayor Lungo-Koehn? Yes. Dr. Galusi?
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: Yes.
[Jenny Graham]: Marta Cabral.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Yes.
[Jenny Graham]: Joan Bowen. Yes. Ken Lord.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Yes.
[Jenny Graham]: Libby Brown. Yes. Marissa Desmond. Yes. Maria Dorsey. Yes. Brian Hilliard.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Yes.
[Jenny Graham]: Emily Lazzaro. Yes. Paul Malone. Nicole Morell. Yes. Erin LaPadilla is absent. Luke Prisner.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Yes.
[Jenny Graham]: 14 in the affirmative, zero in the negative. One absent, motion passes. Are there any other additions or changes here?
[Brian Hilliard]: I have a quick question, Jenny.
[SPEAKER_07]: Sure.
[Brian Hilliard]: And this might be as much for the SMMA folks as anything, but Under number eight somewhere, I'm just curious about the cost of the sort of the modular classroom ideas, only because I know that can change from different options. You know, if we're, you know, depends if we're doing all new construction or some phased something, that can be a pretty big nugget. Is there a reason to actually add something in for the temporary classrooms and a cost impact?
[Matt Rice]: Yeah, so Brian, I flip back to the first item, cost and schedule. And this requires swing space. We can be more specific there, potentially, to say refers to temporary modular classrooms on that item. And I'm just going to go back to Luke's initial question about redundancy. just to make sure that there's no between eight and three in my brain is not calibrated enough to go back and forth between the two and sort of pick out the differences there. But I think to your point in terms of swing space, the temporary modular classrooms, we can account for them here.
[Brian Hilliard]: Okay, I know that there is a Um, obviously we'll need them at some point, more than likely, but obviously there's a cost and time frame also, so it seems to me more applicable down on the cost, where you had some of the other construction impacts, maybe, and because you've got costless there versus the 3.5. I guess that is a redundancy thing, because it's under three cost and schedule, so I'll leave it up to you guys.
[xARk0471UWA_SPEAKER_00]: Lisa? Hi. Dr. Glucy brought up the idea of community access to the CTE programs, whether it's the restaurant or the salon or auto repair. But that didn't get included in any of the new bullets for community. And I didn't know if other people thought that that would be a good idea.
[Jenny Graham]: Is that covered elsewhere?
[Matt Rice]: I don't know that it is.
[Jenny Graham]: So, the bullet might say community access to CTE program services or facilitates community access to select CTE program services. Is there someone who would like to make that motion?
[Suzanne Galusi]: I'll make that motion if Lisa doesn't want to. Lisa's a non-voting member. Oh, I'm sorry.
[Jenny Graham]: She needs a voter. Okay, I will. Okay, Dr. Galusi. Is there a second?
[Brian Hilliard]: I'll second that.
[Jenny Graham]: And Brian, thank you. Okay, Jenny Graham. Yes, Mayor Lungo-Koehn. Yes. Dr. Galussi.
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: Yes.
[Jenny Graham]: Marta Cabral. Yes. Joan Bowen. Yes. Ken Lord.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Yes.
[Jenny Graham]: Libby Brown. Yes. Marissa Desmond. Maria Dorsey. Yes. Brian Hilliard.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Yes.
[Jenny Graham]: Emily Lazzaro.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Yes.
[Jenny Graham]: Paul Malone.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Yes.
[Jenny Graham]: Nicole Morell. Yes. Erin Olapade. And Luke Preissner.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Yes.
[Jenny Graham]: 13A affirmative, 0 in the negative, 2 absent. Motion passes. We've got four minutes left. Are there any other changes on this slide? Okay, I just wanted to circle back to some of the before we move on to the upcoming meetings. The other thing that we talked about at the beginning, I just wanted to come back to is. I do think it would be useful to ask the project team to provide us. An explainer of the evaluation or the comparison for each of these items and to ask the project team to complete this. evaluation matrix as a draft for our consideration at our next meeting. Is there somebody who would like to make that motion?
[Adam Hurtubise]: So moved.
[Jenny Graham]: Second. Is there a second? Second. Seconded by Maria. We'll call the roll. Jenny Graham, yes. Mayor Lungo-Koehn.
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: Yes.
[Jenny Graham]: Dr. Galussi.
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: Yes.
[Jenny Graham]: Meredith Cabral. Yes. Joan Bowen. Yes. Ken Lord.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Yes.
[Jenny Graham]: Libby Brown. Yes. Marissa Desmond. Maria Dorsey. Yes. Brian Hilliard.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Yes.
[Jenny Graham]: Emily Lazzaro. Yes. Paul Malone.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Yes.
[Jenny Graham]: Nicole Morell. Yes. Erin Lopate. Absent. Luke Presner.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Yes.
[Jenny Graham]: 13, the affirmative, 0, the negative, 2, absent. Motion passes. OK, Will.
[SPEAKER_07]: What was the first part of that motion? Sorry.
[Jenny Graham]: Is to provide us a comparison chart that explains the evaluation criteria for each item and how they're being compared, what the point of comparison is. I think I was more eloquent the first time. Okay, do we have a schedule for upcoming meetings slide that I was just seeing? All right. Okay, so on Wednesday, a quick reminder, we have a meeting where we'll talk about making a decision between a design bid build delivery and a CM at risk delivery. We have our second community forum on the Fifth, that will be an in-person only interactive forum where people have a chance to see some of these 29 designs in sort of bigger form. We'll do some Q&A. And the project team will have things for us to design with, create with, as we think about this new building. So it'll be a really fun and interactive session. We have advisory team meetings coming up the week of the 9th. Um, and then we have a series of, um, meetings between, um, the 23rd of March and the 22nd of, um, June where we will like be continuing to sort of narrow down selective options. So, um, Mark your calendars. Um, we think these dates are like pretty firm at this point. We've spent a lot of time trying to make sure that everything is sequenced the right way. But if there are changes, we will keep you posted. With that, is there a motion to adjourn?
[Luke Preisner]: Motion to adjourn.
[Jenny Graham]: By Luke. Seconded by? Second. Dr. Galussi. I will call the roll. Jenny Graham. Yes. Mayor Lungo-Koehn.
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: Yes.
[Jenny Graham]: Dr. Galussi.
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: Yes.
[Jenny Graham]: Marta Cabral. Yes. Joan Bowen. Yes. Ken Lord.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Yes.
[Jenny Graham]: Libby Brown. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes.
|
total time: 37.37 minutes total words: 2906 |
total time: 0.31 minutes total words: 25 |
total time: 7.76 minutes total words: 719 |
|