[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: can get going.
[Jenny Graham]: All right, I will read the meeting notice and we can get started. Welcome everybody. Please be advised that there'll be a full committee meeting of the Medford Comprehensive High School Building Committee held via remote participation only on Tuesday, March 17th at 6.30 p.m. The meeting can be viewed live on Medford Public Schools YouTube channel through Medford Community Media on your local cable channel, which is Comcast 98 or 22 and Verizon 43, 45 or 47. The meeting will be recorded. Participants can call or log in by using the following Zoom ID, 995-5752-4021. I will call the roll. Jenny Graham here. Mayor Lungo-Koehn. Present. Dr. Galussi.
[Suzanne Galusi]: Present.
[Jenny Graham]: Marta Cabral. Here. Joan Bowen. Here. Ken Lord.
[Libby Brown]: Here.
[Jenny Graham]: Libby Brown. Here. Marissa Desmond. Here. Hi Marissa. Hi. Maria Dorsey is maybe absent. She let me know. Brian Hilliard.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Here.
[Jenny Graham]: Emily Lazzaro is absent. She's got a council meeting this evening. Paul Malone.
[fTvN7dy32F0_SPEAKER_16]: Here.
[Jenny Graham]: Nicole Morell. Aaron and Luke.
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: Hi Luke.
[Jenny Graham]: He said here. Oh, okay. Oh, and I see Nicole on her way in. So we have 13 present. To abstinence and then for the rest of our members, Bob Dickinson. Fiona Maxwell.
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: Fiona said she was coming on, so give her a few minutes.
[Jenny Graham]: Chad Fallon here and Talbot.
[Suzanne Galusi]: No, she said she's at a literacy event at the McGlynn elementary. That's right. Um, will Pippa Selly here.
[Jenny Graham]: Lori Hodgson here. John McLaughlin. Paul Rousseau here. Bill Santos. And Lisa Miller here. All right.
[xARk0471UWA_SPEAKER_00]: I'm here. I'm sorry. I couldn't be quick enough. That's okay.
[Jenny Graham]: Okay. Um, so, uh, the first thing I see on the agenda here is an approval of the minutes, um, for our meeting from 3 17, is there a motion to approve?
[Kenneth Lord]: So moved.
[Jenny Graham]: Matt, did we get, did we get, oh, today is 317, I'm sorry. Matt, did we get meeting minutes? I don't see any meeting minutes that went out.
[Matt Gulino]: They're typically linked in the agenda.
[Jenny Graham]: I don't see them, so why don't we make sure that everybody has access to them before we ask for a vote. Is there a motion to table the minutes? So moved. Motion to table the minutes by Mayor Lungo-Koehn. Is there a second? Second. By Dr. Galussi. I'll call the roll. Jenny Graham, yes. Mayor Lungo-Koehn? Yes. Dr. Galussi? Yes. Marta Cabral? Yes. Joan Bowen? Yes. Ken Lord?
[Kenneth Lord]: Yes.
[Jenny Graham]: Marissa Desmond? Yes. Maria Dorsey is absent. Brian Hilliard?
[Adam Hurtubise]: Yes.
[Jenny Graham]: Emily Lazzaro is absent, Paul Malone?
[Adam Hurtubise]: Yes.
[Jenny Graham]: Nicole Morell? I don't see Nicole. Aaron Olapade?
[Adam Hurtubise]: Yes.
[Jenny Graham]: And Luke Preissner?
[Adam Hurtubise]: Yes.
[Jenny Graham]: So we have 11 in the affirmative for 0 on the negative, 4 absent. The minutes are tabled till the next meeting.
[Matt Gulino]: Jenny, Nicole said that she's here. I don't know if you see that.
[Jenny Graham]: Hi, I can see you. Yeah, I just couldn't unmute, or I was stuck in the, I couldn't do anything before, so I'm here. Thank you. Thanks everyone for joining us tonight. I'm going to turn it over to the team who is going to provide a little bit of an update on where we are and why we've been asked to change this timeline. And then we're going to ask them to go through a review of all of the documents that they shared with us. So I'm going to turn over to the team pretty quickly here. And then once they finish their review of the documents, we can open that up for discussion.
[Adam Hurtubise]: I will go ahead and share my screen for a minute. Definitely, Matt, you can lead us through here.
[SPEAKER_10]: And I think Jen is going to take the schedule slide tonight.
[Adam Hurtubise]: That look OK for everybody? All right, moving to the minutes.
[s093VSbtp08_SPEAKER_01]: All right. Good evening, everyone. Jen Carlson from left field. Folks don't remember. Just to kind of bring you up to speed on where we are and kind of talk a little bit about this change in plans from the MSBA. As you all know, we submitted the preliminary design program report, the PDP, to the MSBA on February 25th. All 29 options were accounted for and documented per the MSBA's guidelines. After their initial review, they followed up with us with the project team to acknowledge that while we had met the minimum requirements in their documents, they wanted us, they wanted this committee to narrow the options from 29 options all the way down to three to five no later than April 2nd. So that we could further study fewer options as we move into the PSR, the preferred schematic report phase. So while this is all happening between now and hopefully our next meeting, we can get down to those three or five. I'll talk about that in a minute. They are continuing to review our submission to them. They are not waiting for us to do this work to start reviewing those thousand plus page document, which is good news on our end. So this is part of what is considered on our end as a normal back and forth with every MSBA submission. each project is really different, it gets different feedback at this stage, and even as we move forward through the project. As an example of another project that had a lot of, well actually we had 30 options on another project, we wound up that SBC decided to take a few options off the table ahead of submitting PDP. We submitted PDP and their guidance at that stage was to add back the options that had been taken off the table prior to submitting PDP. Every project is different. Every project gets put through a different lens based on complexities, based on the project, based on why there are the number of options there are. So while this, I'm sure, is a frustrating turn to be you know, recommended or requested from the MSBA to us. We are looking forward to, you know, being able to provide more information sooner on fewer options. So that I think is the plus side of this moving forward in a more expedited timeline. While MSBU's guidelines take us most of the way, there is certainly project specific feedback that we hear on each project and this downshift to narrow options quickly has been ours. And I do want to say that the project team really does appreciate your shift to expedite this timeline to line up with their request. It does allow, like I said, it does allow the project team to provide more detailed information as we narrow the list down between now and June 10th is when this group is scheduled to select a single preferred option. Before I get into, you know, reading these updated, these meeting dates, is there anyone else from the project team that wanted to add any color to that as it played out? I'm sure there will be time for questions as well. I do want to jump into the updated timeline that Jenny did share in her email out to this group. So our timeline now, obviously we're reviewing the criteria evaluation matrix this evening. Next meeting would be next Monday. That is where we are really getting into looking to narrow down those options significantly from 29 down to 3-5. Following that, our April 27th SBC meeting, we will be reviewing MSBA PDP comments at that point. We should have those in hand and we should have responses ready if not have already gone back to the MSBA at that point. We will also be discussing gross square foot, the confirmation of what moves forward and what is estimated as part of the scope of this project in the next round of estimates. We will be moving into May. As I said, we'll be submitting information in late April to the estimation team, the two estimators on the project. They will estimate the project, we'll have reconciled estimates and packaged everything up in a way that we are able to present it to this group again, well, for the first time on May 20th. Following that meeting, we have another schedule for May 27th to review the costs as they apply to the options as well. So a little more detail that might just be kind of a follow-up to that May 20th meeting. From there, that June 10th meeting is the one we are looking to vote on a single preferred option to move forward into schematic design and beyond. We are, I think, in talks with the schools and some shifting that needed to happen due to, I think it was maybe 8th grade graduation or, yeah, we are looking to move that June 22nd meeting, I believe, but we are confirming that date. But that meeting, that final meeting in June would be to vote for the project team to authorize us to submit that preferred schematic report submission with that single option and all of the backup to the MSBA. From there, once we do submit that PSR submission, the MSBA would be looking to meet with the project team and the local folks either in July, sorry, in July, either the 15th or the 29th, depending on how those meetings, those meeting agendas fill up for them. They will let us know once we submit at the end of June. From there, the MSBA has an August 26th board date, and that is where we will hear their official approval of this committee's recommendation on a single preferred option to move it into schematic design. Are there any questions from the group or anything that my team would like to add?
[Jenny Graham]: Seeing no questions, we will firm up that final date, that 6-22 date, and send a note out to everyone as soon as we're able to coordinate the calendar conflict there, but in the next week or so.
[Adam Hurtubise]: All right. Helen, do you want me to take this one or do you want to take? I thought I saw Helen hop on.
[Kimberly Talbot]: Yes, I was able to free myself from my other meeting. So as we reviewed back in February, we did go criteria, criteria, by criteria and you all engaged in that activity in a meaningful way. And so we did take those comments and we simply highlighted where we made those word changes and or added criteria based on that feedback. So again, this is the from two to, 10 are the actual criteria. Number one are these simple facts about each option. And so I don't know if folks have had a chance to look at the revised matrix prior to this meeting. And we want to just double check that we didn't miss anything or if this meets with what we discussed. So again, this is just the first couple of criteria. with the change to 2.2.
[Adam Hurtubise]: I can cycle through these and maybe stop if anyone has questions on any of the highlighted or any of the non-highlighted potentially.
[Kimberly Talbot]: Number five we had added. A little bit more. Information on the maintenance. Maintenance related criteria. And the biggest changes you'll see are in 7 and 10 site. I think you. and asked us to beef up those criteria around stewardship. And so we did work with agency, particularly under the site criteria. And then number 10, you all really did help us just really pulled apart some of those criteria to better assess each item, such as I think we had pool and gym and fitness together. So again, just kind of separating out some of those items, as well as making sure we accounted for MEEP and CTE engagement with the community. And etc so. This is where this is where the criteria sit right now. Do you have a question?
[Luke Preisner]: Yes, I do. So I'm I'm reviewing the matrix that Matt sent out. Dated 312 and with the code compliance option, there's a lot of red. Um, and I wanted to clarify and maybe just get an answer for the record. Um, what we're looking here, uh, what we should have in our minds when we see code compliance is our existing structure, uh, after four, uh, $437 million has been invested into it. So it's not the current school. It's the current school plus 440, about $440 million worth of improvements. And so that's kind of what I have in my mind. And for that reason, I'm surprised at some of the zeros I see in terms of magnitude of maintenance cost. I would expect it to be better after $440 million. So I just wanted to confirm with the evaluators who have scored this on a scale of zero, two, and five, that in fact, column F, or E, maybe it's E, is in fact our current building with the benefit of $440 million of improvement.
[Matt Rice]: So if it's all right, I think the point is well taken and we're going to get into the actual evaluation that was distributed out to everybody. I think what we want to do right here until we get to this, there's a voting piece next, is just field comments on the actual criteria that are up here on screen, just to make sure that we have sort of the evaluation metrics right that are going to be in the left-hand column as we go through the document. So is it all right if we just table that response?
[Jenny Graham]: Yeah. Are there any questions about the revisions to the criteria highlighted in yellow?
[Adam Hurtubise]: I think this is the last page. Yeah.
[Jenny Graham]: Okay. Um, so, uh, we have already voted to approve this criteria and no changes are made were made just now. So we don't need to vote on that again. We did that in the last meeting. Um, so I think we can move along to the matrix, Matt, if you want to pull that up and go through that. Obviously a is the first column, so we'll get to Luke's question first, but if you want to give a bigger point of view.
[Matt Rice]: Sure. And so again, this is not what we're going to be looking at. We're going to dive right into the live Excel file because this is one of those inherently legible pieces at that scale. So what I just want to do is make sure that this is legible for folks as we go through. What I've tried to do is make constant the Um, the, the names of the different alternative, the references to the alternatives across the top, um, I could also, um, freeze up the, um, the images, but then we're left with a tiny little sliver of information down below. Uh, but happy to fill any comments there or zoom in if that, if that was helpful for folks, but I just want to make sure that this is going to be a usable, uh, format for us moving forward. I don't know if anyone has any thoughts on that before I dive in. or if no one objects, then I will just assume that this is legible for folks.
[Unidentified]: If you could just zoom in a little bit.
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: Thanks. Yep.
[Matt Rice]: OK. So just to refresh, I think everyone is familiar with this, but for the benefit of folks that are maybe watching online and have not been acclimated to this particular document, this evaluation matrix that we have, the categories that we're evaluating on, are listed down the left-hand side of the column. And so these are all of the same categories that we were just looking at, and any of them that were modified by the Billing Committee during our last meeting, similar to how they were highlighted previously on those slides. we've highlighted them here in the column as well. So if we get back down to all the way in the sevens and the tens, you'll see those same highlights that we were looking at, just so you can understand the criteria that are there. And then across the top of this document, we have the actual set of 29 different alternatives, cost alternatives that were looked at through the course of the PDP phase. And so really what the activity that we're going to engage in now is to look through the seed populating of this matrix that SMA completed at the request of the building committee just so that there's an initial talking point that we can look at. We don't necessarily need to go item by item because there's a lot of rows and there's a lot of columns and trying to do all of that in one evening would probably not be an effective use of time.
[Jenny Graham]: Can we just hang on one second? I am seeing a question from Lisa Miller about whether she should have received this spreadsheet before the meeting. And Lisa, the answer to that is yes, you should have received this on Thursday of last week. And I'm going to forward it to you right now so that you have access to this, because this spreadsheet is really hard to manipulate given the way it has been sized and paginated. So having your own copy, I think, will be very useful. So let me just forward it to you. Thank you.
[xARk0471UWA_SPEAKER_00]: I appreciate that.
[Jenny Graham]: Yes. Yeah, it's a rough one. So let me do that right now.
[Matt Rice]: All right. So maybe just as you're doing that, Gina, just to finish up the explanation of the information that runs across the top, we are grouped again into our A, B, C, and D sets of options, with the A being this code upgrade option that's here, the 8.1. Our B options are addition renovation options that keep and remove different wings of the existing building all across the existing footprint. When we get to the C options, we have addition renovation options that focus solely on keeping and renovating the existing gymnasium, pool, athletic wings of the building. So those are the C options. And then finally, we have the D options, which are the new construction options running across the top. So that is the 29 columns across the top that we see. I'll jump down into just a quick explanation of what is in category one. As Helen mentioned, these are more facts about each one of the comparative facts, about each one of the alternatives, so that everyone can evaluate those in one spot and see them up against each other. And then once we get into category two and then down below, these are the actual evaluation criteria. So the criteria scoring that was used was an unfavorable, which is a zero, which cells have been shaded red for. There's a neutral rating of two in terms of the scoring, and that's gotten this orange color. And then there's a favorable rating, which is a five on a score, and that is automatically color-coded to green. So if we went back to the PowerPoint, when you see the reds, the oranges, and the greens, you can get a visual as you look down in terms of just getting a sense of what the individual alternatives are rated at. And then we do actually total those numbers down at the bottom for an evaluation score. Now, the outcome of this activity in terms of us filling out and really discussing the criteria points as we go through this, it will certainly modify, I'm assuming, the scores as we go through this. The scores are not requiring the building committee to pick say the highest score that's through here. This is for comparative purposes. It's really a measurement of overall through the building for the different alternatives, how each of the alternatives meets the various criteria that were laid out and agreed to by the building committee as we went through. So really it's a measure against that. And we can use the bottom line scores to inform the thinking moving forward, but it's not like there is a requirement to pick the highest and move forward with those. That'll be still a decision coming from the building committee at this time next week or on Monday of next week. So from just an organization and orientation perspective, is that helpful in terms of just shedding light on how the whole thing is structured and sort of the activity that we're going to be going through today? And so we'll take that question, then I'll pivot right into Luke's question to start off with on the code upgrade options. Luke, do you have a different question or comment in response to that?
[Luke Preisner]: I have a different question, easy one. Who provided these scores?
[Matt Rice]: So it was SMMA that generated them. A lot of it was going through on my end, trying to synthesize the various pieces of information. Thank you.
[Jenny Graham]: Are there any other questions about the general layout of this document before we Hi, Ben.
[SPEAKER_18]: I have a question.
[Jenny Graham]: Bill?
[SPEAKER_18]: Yes. So the unfavorable, neutral, and favorable, that is in relation to the educational plan? Or what are you looking at when determining whether something is favorable or not?
[Matt Rice]: That's a great question, Phil. Thank you. Sort of a segue. So there's another tab in this document. There was a request by the building committee at our last meeting as well, and we were discussing this to provide that exact rationale to explain what each of the criteria was judged on. Some of the criteria are more subjective in terms of how they were evaluated. Some are more objective in terms of having sort of a numerical basis tied to them. But this tab actually runs through and provides the alternative, the assessment rationale, as the tab is noted, behind each one of the criteria going through. So if you do have this document open, you're certainly welcome to flip to the tab here so that we can get a sense of what was used to evaluate the different criteria. In some cases, we are still very early in the process, and there are some criteria where we may have a more objective ability to sort of look at a numerical comparison as we move forward in the process, but we don't necessarily have that information just yet in terms of the overall evaluation. And I will point out also just while we're on this topic, If we go down to the operational costs here in nine, there's been no ratings assigned here because all of these items fall into that category of we just do not have a way of accurately representing what a life cycle cost analysis would be, annual operating cost, or sort of the impact of the solar PV panels on operating cost. We will start to get some insight into life cycle cost in particular as we get farther along in the PSR phase. And that's actually one area where being able to focus in on a smaller set of options is actually going to help us get some insight into that particular topic a little bit more quickly. Does that help answer your question, Phil?
[SPEAKER_17]: Yeah, it does. I think I'll just read through some of those as we go and pick and choose which ones we're looking at. So thank you.
[Matt Rice]: I appreciate that. I'm happy to hop over to the assessment rationale tab as part of the meeting here if that's helpful for folks.
[Jenny Graham]: Matt, can you address Luke's question about code upgrade next?
[Matt Rice]: Yep. The ratings for the code upgrade option, we're assuming that the building is improved to meet accessibility code, energy code, structural codes, as part of that scheme itself, that alternative. So it does represent the investment of the $437 million that is listed as the cost for 8.1 in terms of the evaluation criteria that's here. And certainly happy to go through the dialogue on the code upgrade option here. Again, this is sort of the perspective that I had going through it, but complete respect the fact that others on the building committee may have different perspectives. And I mean, that's why we're here this evening is to talk this through and to have a discussion if we want to make modifications to it as a collective, that's exactly what we're here to do.
[Kimberly Talbot]: And I think Matt Luke's Luke was zooming in more on the maintenance aspect of the.
[Luke Preisner]: Thank you, Helen. Yeah, I pointed out maintenance, but there's other ones. There's one, for example, 4.3, talking about appropriate restroom and locker facilities. I would imagine for $437 million, we would end up with appropriate restroom and locker room facilities, regardless of what we started with. There's other examples. And if we wanted, everyone could take homework and score this however they like. and either left field or SMMA could aggregate, average, or apply some kind of statistical, like meaningful statistical aggregation method to have kind of a composite score so that it's not just one person picking between, you know, 29 concepts. It's a collective effort. I'm not making a motion right now, but I'm just saying, you know, like one one way to maybe capture the voices of the SPC.
[Jenny Graham]: So the goal for tonight is that we will emerge with a chart that we agree is reasonable to use for comparative purposes. That does not mean anybody has to agree with every single Item nor does it mean we must use any bit or all bits of this data at next week when we make reductions to sort of narrow in on 3 to 5. so everybody is absolutely welcome to take this and make their own. Um, version of it and use that for how they want to proceed next week in terms of what they want to learn about what they want to study further. But for tonight, the goal is for us to collectively get to. A matrix that we can put on the website and share as a working draft as a working document that this team is in agreement with. So, if you have a specific proposal, just like we did last time, if you have a specific proposal for something that you would like to change. And maybe let's just take this like a chunk at a time. We can pull the committee and take a vote about what those changes might be. So. Let's start with A. I think the thing about A, it's my understanding that we must push A forward. Is that correct, Matt?
[Matt Rice]: That is correct. It has to be one of the options that we shift forward into the PSR.
[Jenny Graham]: So whether we like it or not, whether we love it or we hate it, this one is going forward. So I just want to add that context. And I, if anybody would like to propose scoring changes to this category, please raise your hand. Paul.
[Paul Ruseau]: Good question. Are we sending the final version of this document to the MSBA or just our 3-5?
[Matt Rice]: they will get a copy of this document, but it's not, again, it's not a binding document. It's really there to illustrate the fact that this due diligence has been done, that this study has been done. So it's just part of the overall report submission that goes in.
[Paul Ruseau]: So A is going in, no matter what anybody here says or does to that entire column. So, I mean, whether we think something should be a two, a five, a zero, there seems little chance that we're ever going to have a number big enough to even make it into the top 20. It is number 29 from the scoring we have now. So just so that we're not here until midnight, I would hope we could all agree that we don't need to talk about the code upgrade, but I'm sure that's not the case. Thank you.
[Luke Preisner]: Luke? Oh, thank you. So there are 59, almost 60 evaluation criteria. Only four of them are cost. And, you know, the criteria are essentially equally weighted, but it doesn't really take a scientist to understand that cost actually outweighs a number of these. I wanted to ask if we could apply a weighting factor just to the cost parameters. There's only four of them. And we would apply a factor of 10, so a multiplier of 10, to the cost scores, however they are now, and I think it's a mix of twos and fives, for the for the one concept that falls within our RFP cost range. So when we put out an RFP saying, hey, we want a school, hey, world, please propose concepts, we included a cost range from $200 to $600 million. So let's reward any concept that falls within our RFP range by applying a factor of 10 to the score given for any cost parameters.
[Jenny Graham]: Is that a motion, Luke?
[Luke Preisner]: Yeah, that's a motion.
[Jenny Graham]: There's a motion on the floor from Luke to apply a cost factor of 10 to the cost variables.
[Luke Preisner]: A multiplier of 10 to the cost evaluation criteria.
[Jenny Graham]: Is there a second?
[Luke Preisner]: Oh, and also to only the concepts that fall within our RFP range. That's an important part. I want to reward the concepts that are within our RFP range. So not apply to all, just apply to the ones that fall within the range of cost that we asked the design community to consider for our project.
[Jenny Graham]: Is there a second? member of South.
[Paul Ruseau]: Thank you before. I'm not going to second that. But there are none other than the code upgrade that fall under 600 million. So I'm not sure. What? Lucas suggesting because there are none that fall in the 400 to 600 million range.
[Luke Preisner]: There's one. It's the clients upgrade.
[Libby Brown]: I just wanted to, I hear you, Luke, but the number we put in the RFP was like, We're not cost estimators. We just put numbers in there. It was a huge range. So I don't even think that is a thing we should be measuring this by. It was obviously like we'd love this to be less than, I think we went up to 600 in the RFP. But I don't know if that is something we can really judge by, because that was a range that was put in based on information we had about what other projects were costing.
[Jenny Graham]: I'm going to ask one more time. Is there a second?
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: Mayor Lungo-Koehn? Paul was before me. I don't know if you have... Paul, is your hand newly up or did it stay up? Oh, okay.
[Unidentified]: Mayor?
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: Thanks. I'm trying to understand the motion, but either way, I think I, whether it's now is the time or it's, I think the 23rd when we have to actually go down from 29 to three to five, or I noticed in the, presentation, the beginning of the presentation, that we will be having a meeting on cost or two in May. I think with A being in there, I don't see necessarily the need for the motion other than maybe to score those cost sections just a little bit higher. Because of the fact, I think few of us, and I know myself, are just nervous about the cost and the price per household and what we're hearing when we're out and about. And we all on this call, I know, want to see the debt exclusion pass come May 2027. there needs to be a time that we talk about the price tags that we are seeing, which are closer to the billion range versus the, we know we're never going to get to the two to even 500 million range, but where do we, when do we talk about the cost and making the tough decisions to try to figure out what this community is willing to vote for and pass and how much our residents are willing and able to pay. So there does have to come a time, now that we know all these numbers and we need to narrow down, that we just need to talk about that.
[Jenny Graham]: Respectfully, now is not the time. This is not the right time for us to be arbitrary in how we move forward. This is a time for us to commit to the study that will help us refine these numbers because these numbers are based on very, very, very high level things for which we'll be able to know more precisely the cost once there is more work done by the design team. So I'm still not hearing a second. Paul, did you have your hand up to provide a second?
[Paul Ruseau]: No, I'll lower my hand.
[Jenny Graham]: Okay, I'm not hearing a 2nd. In the interest of time, let's move on. Are there questions about the B1 category or the B2 category? And Matt, maybe you could just like, describe those 2 categories briefly for us so that everyone is oriented.
[Matt Rice]: Sure. And I know it's a little bit tough to see these diagrams, but these will give you an idea of generally what's going on. And some will just have to help me with the colors to start off with. But the dark blue, I think that's dark blue. That's sort of where my cursor is here. Yes. Yep. So that is the existing building that would be renovated and placed, the footprint of the existing building. And is this like a blue gray, maybe? That's good. Okay, I'm good. I'm two for two right now. The blue-gray represents addition construction in the overall scheme. So in this particular B1.1, you can see we're maintaining the majority of the existing building. What we're doing is actually adding, I believe this was two floors on top. or maybe just a single floor over this section as well as expanding out CTE wing in a couple directions towards east and towards the south. These B1.1 and B1.2 is really trying to keep as much of the existing building as possible. B1.2 is similar to that. This is the one that is adding in yet another level because you can see that we go from stories four to stories five. This also is, in some of these options, you'll see that there are some white areas here as we go through in the B wing where we're proposing that there will be some selective demolition, some essentially carving out of the center of the B wing because we have science classrooms as well as general academic classrooms and special education classrooms. that all have no windows in the middle of that B wing right now. And so that would be something we're trying to alleviate as part of these initial B options that we're looking at. So that's B 1.1 and 1.2. It's basically keeping the majority of the existing building and adding to it.
[Jenny Graham]: Are there any Proposals to change the, the rating or evaluation of any of the B1 or B2 options.
[SPEAKER_18]: Bill, so I don't have a proposal to change the option. So I was looking at it just the 1 of the, I was looking at the, because there's so many. options, and then so many criteria, I was trying to streamline the analysis, right? So I was looking at like, what What criteria have a lot of variability in their rating? So 2.5 to 2.8, they're all green, right, aside from the code upgrade. So there's no point, they're all five. So there's no point in looking at that, in my opinion. So I was looking at 2.4, educational program flexibility, And there are a bunch of options that have the number two, and then a lot of them that have number five. And my question is, on B4.1 and B4.2, those are fives, and those have selective demo of wings A, B, and C. And then the column next to it, 5.1, has more wings being potentially demoed. but it's only rated as a two. And when I went to the assessment rationale, right, it was evaluated on the percentage of existing construction maintained, which will drive program flexibility. So I was just curious on why those got a five rating. Did this, is it just because those, even though there's less wings, those wings are more, you know, demoed and the overall square footage of those wings, and supersede the other ones on the other columns?
[Matt Rice]: Yeah, it's a good question, Phil. And again, there's some subjectivity on this in terms of trying to understand what does that educational program flexibility mean. But the reason that the 4.1 and 4.2 got rated higher, and again, we're happy to modify as part of this process, is the fact that the classroom heavy wings are the ones that are being built predominantly new. in 4.1 and 4.2 versus in 5.1 and say 3.1 and 3.2. It was just looking at the percentage of existing classrooms with just the understanding that the existing classroom wings have sort of provide an inherent limitation. in terms of some of that flexibility, or at least that's how the scoring was viewed and the evaluations were made. If there's something that doesn't look like it's aligning with that, that may have just been not having a complete connection between the rationale. But that was the thought process in terms of why some got five versus two in the ad reno schemes. Whereas when you move to the new construction, you'll see that they're all pretty equally five because we would have the ability to design in that flexibility.
[Jenny Graham]: Okay, I would say, Phil, I noticed the same thing. There's actually a small number of things for which there is the majority of the variability and I did actually. Spend more time looking at that, then, you know, sort of all the places where there was like, stuff in common to make sure that I understood where those variabilities were, but it is. a substantially smaller list than this whole thing if you were to pare down this view to the things for which there are differences. And perhaps the project team could give us a view of that that's a little easier to read somehow, where the only thing that we're seeing are the things that are materially different. we can talk about that, or maybe somebody can make a motion about that a little bit later on. But Lisa has her hand up.
[xARk0471UWA_SPEAKER_00]: Yeah, I was just wondering if somebody could clarify what we mean by flexibility. Are we talking about like configurable spaces with like dividers that can be moved around and so that the space itself, the physical space is flexible? Or are we talking about flexible usage? And what would that mean in terms of design? I guess like, and then, yeah, I guess that's my main question.
[Matt Rice]: I think it's the first, what you were describing, Lisa, in terms of having some ability to reconfigure the program around and sort of put the program into the spaces in a variety of ways. And that's really what was guiding the thinking by saying that if, say, the existing classrooms and, say, the C wing are a little bit smaller, you just have inherently a smaller opportunity to consider putting something different than a classroom or, like, having to actually expand the walls in some directions to be able to get to the target classroom size, the target program size as part of the process.
[xARk0471UWA_SPEAKER_00]: So just to kind of a follow up with that, so it would mean having partitions that could be moved around or something, some way of reconfiguring the space. Have you found that other schools that have been designed with that flexibility actually use that flexibility?
[Matt Rice]: There's some that do and there's some that don't in terms of the operable partitions. I think it really it's part of the school culture and usually you come from in any project scenario where usually that is not present as an option. in terms of the overall operations of the school. So whether there's professional development done as part of the project in advance of the new building opening, some of that can be things that really help to leverage the flexibility that would be built into building in that way.
[Jenny Graham]: Thank you. Can you describe Categories B3, 4, and 5 to us, and then we can ask the same question about whether there's any questions or clarifications of those sections of those 3 items or 3 categories.
[Matt Rice]: Yeah, and I didn't go through B 2.1 and 2.2. Do you want me to? I'm sorry. Yeah, so I can capture all those because you'll see the pattern generally in terms of how they evolve over time because we're starting to look at pulling away existing wings of the building and providing more new addition space. just to compensate for the removal of the existing wings. So B2.1 and 2.2 really are looking at the removal of primarily the A wing, the Performing Arts and Arts wing. It's in the bottom left-hand corner here, and you can see that the additions that are being proposed in this case, again, if we look at the number of stories that are here, this is a four-story addition in sort of a U-shape. This addition actually proposes going over the top of the existing B wing in a five-story option. So in most of these options where we're looking at a 2.1 and a 2.2, we're looking at different ways of massing the building. As we go higher, there's premiums that come into the construction due to high-rise construction considerations, which have a variety of just premiums to them on a mechanical system basis as well as fire code and sort of robustness of construction perspective. And so that's we're giving different options we wanted to understand sort of what that cost benefit was when we go higher as well you get more opportunity to utilize the site area in different ways and even though that all these sites have not been fully designed yet It's really allowing for some opportunity moving forward. So that's between 2.1 and 2.2. It is that removal of the A wing and then additions in different configurations. 3.1 and 3.2 are looking at the removal of the A wing as well as the C wing. So that one of the primary classroom wings. I think actually has the most classrooms within the existing building. Again, this is building, a lot of these are going to build south towards the existing parking lot. Some of them may consume the entirety of the parking lot. Some of them are just going to consume more of the entry plaza as it comes in. But this is all based on the addition sizing to meet the overall area that we're trying to hit. So 3.1 and 3.2 are both taking C-Wing and A-Wing away. You can see in 3.2, there's new addition construction being shown on top of the C-Wing footprint. 3.1 does not have that. And both of those options, again, are looking at carving out from the B-Wing to alleviate the issue of the windowless classrooms. And then 4.1, 4.2, they start to now look at taking away the existing B wing, right? And so we're looking now at A, B, and C being removed, addition constructed to replicate. In all cases, we're actually increasing the overall area of the building. That is what has been dictated by the program. as it's been laid out to date. And so 4.1, 4.2, again, you can see number of stories is four, 4.2 is five stories. So a little less footprint, a little additional height in terms of the building configuration. Do you want me to keep going with that or should we pause there maybe on the 4.2?
[Jenny Graham]: Yeah, let's pause there. Are there any questions about the two, three, or four.
[Adam Hurtubise]: I can get them all on the screen.
[xARk0471UWA_SPEAKER_00]: Lisa? I'm sorry to ask again, but can you help us understand in the diagrams, like if you're tearing down a building, that means like the theater is being torn down. But like if I look at B22, it doesn't look like the new construction has a space that's big enough for an auditor, like a theater. How are we supposed to make sense of these diagrams in terms of what's being removed and how the design would accommodate things like the theater?
[Matt Rice]: So from a high-level perspective to understand all of these, we have to make the assumption that the new area or the existing area that is in there, because it's just working on a sum total of areas between renovated space and new construction space, the sum total of those will meet the program. That's how these have been all organized. had the program has been laid out. So that would include the auditorium, include another space. Exactly where those things fall in each of these schemes has not been fully worked out. That's not the intent of where we are here. We did indicate some potential locations for some of those major program areas like the auditorium, like the media center, like the dining commons. in these diagrams when we showed those three-dimensional pieces up front, but those positioning elements really shouldn't be the determining criteria in terms of how we're evaluating at this early point. It's really looking at the overall massing and what it does in terms of opening up areas on the site or any of the other criteria that are listed below. But sort of to evaluate this one, looking at sort of where the auditorium is, A, wasn't one of our evaluation criteria that was listed down below. But we're also just not at the point where we've laid all those pieces out. That is exactly what's going to happen as we advance with this smaller set of options moving forward into the PSR phase. That makes sense, Lisa, or did I just make more of a mess of it?
[xARk0471UWA_SPEAKER_00]: Now, it makes sense, but I also am trying to incorporate some of that thinking and how I'm looking at each of the designs, but thank you.
[fTvN7dy32F0_SPEAKER_16]: Paul M. Yeah, so similar, very similar question I have. And what I'd like to try and is explain what I think the community access is saying broadly across the when we transition from the ones to the twos, what I'm seeing is if the A wing goes away, the existing auditorium goes away. So any new auditorium space would have to be more accessible to community. So it automatically gets a five. Is that fair to say?
[Matt Rice]: That's exactly the thought process, yes. And that would go the same for any of these elements that are listed out in the 10 community grouping of criteria for the individual items. So again, we haven't designed all the way through, so the evaluation is made if the existing program is remaining in the current space or in the footprint. that was scored lower. If we have the ability to ideally locate a new piece in an addition because it's been demolished, that's how it was scored higher and completely acknowledge the fact that we don't know yet where all these different parts and pieces would end up. It could be that something that even though the existing piece is remaining, it could get put in a new building, a new portion of the addition versus the existing building. There's a little bit of a leap of faith there in terms of the rating. And again, happy to modify any of those if people have strong feelings about that one way or the other.
[Jenny Graham]: Any other questions about or changes to B2, B3, or B4 or proposals? Matt, can you go on to B5, 5 and 6 and 7?
[Adam Hurtubise]: Sure.
[Matt Rice]: Let's see what I can fit on the screen. Maybe the 5, 6 and 7. Yep. Right. So again, we're moving forward with looking at different permutations of existing building to remain and new addition. For B5.1, the option that we looked at was keeping the B wing, replacing the entirety of the vocational wings. And so that's the entire length of it that runs through there with new addition construction. And again, we're still in this option thinking of demolishing the A wing, demolishing the C wing, and replacing those with new construction. So there's not a lot of sort of organizational change in the building, but other than sort of the replacement of existing construction with new. And again, carving out the existing B wing to alleviate the windowless classrooms. 6.1 and 6.2, Now we're looking at demolishing the majority of those existing wings aside from the C wing, as well as that collection of athletic and pool building wings, right? So here we have the A wing, the B wing, and the vocational wings all being demolished and replaced with an addition. In this case, this is a four-story addition with multiple courtyards in the middle. This is a slightly different way of organizing that same concept, still the same pieces coming down, still keeping the C-wing as well as the athletic portion. The 7, sorry I was scrolling over because those are hidden from you behind everyone's faces. But for the 7.1 options, these are keeping similar to what was in B6.1 but looking at keeping the northern section of the vocational wing. So this would be auto technology, shop space would be kept. The metal fabrication and I believe construction craft laborers are sort of in this grouping. It may also be carpentry, but it also doesn't mean exactly that those spaces are going to remain where they are right now and they would get renovated in place. That may be the case. This is again looking primarily at sort of the balance of square footage and at different options in terms of keeping existing construction and building new. 7.2 is a slightly different way of organizing that geometry. Again, more internal courtyards associated with that. And these are still at the four-story condition in both scenarios, just looking at different geometries. One of the just small nuances here that I don't think is going to drive things entirely at this point, but something that people may have noticed down below in terms of the orientation of the buildings, where we have an east-west geometry like this, this is going to be the most beneficial from a passive solar management building of the massing. It really has to do with the fact in terms of where the windows, the predominant quantity of windows, on these buildings would be is on the north and the south elevation, which we have the best ability to control from a passive standpoint. So from energy efficiency standpoint, this type of geometry has some advantage, though it's obviously just one criteria piece in the current list below.
[Libby Brown]: Libby, did you have a question or a proposal? It's a question, but I might have found the answer in the assessment rationale tab, so sorry. I'm just curious on a lot of these options. like all the ones we've been looking at down in the section 10 about facilitating community use and access to the fitness spaces. Assuming we're renovating them, I don't see why there's like a big jump. And this is why I think I might have found your answer. So sorry, I'm maybe wasting everyone's time. But it was confusing to me, like all of a sudden they get better when they're still just being renovated. That's further down, we haven't gotten there yet. And it seems like, is that just basically because you're demoing something, providing better literal access? Like, what's the big jump?
[Matt Rice]: Yeah, it goes right back to Paul's question, actually, in terms of the fitness spaces being sort of right in this bar, right? And they're just challenging to get into right now. You have to go into the building. They're sort of an interior location. So once we get to options where this piece is demolished and rebuilt, that's when the jump happens in terms of the higher priority given to it. And again, we can probably argue that and you could probably easily convince me that it would be sort of a different rationale in terms of how we might be grading those things. But that was the approach that was using just to sort of have a consistent brush across the different options.
[Libby Brown]: Cool. Sorry if that was already asked. I've been trying to read all through this. No, no.
[Matt Rice]: It's good. I think it does reinforce my response to Paul, which maybe wasn't as clear as it needed to be. So hopefully we can go through it a couple of times. At least people will understand what the thought process was. And again, happy to modify as we go through here.
[Libby Brown]: Oh, it makes sense. I might have been heads down in the Excel doc. So thank you for clarifying.
[Jenny Graham]: B changes to B4, 5, and 6. Any last questions, changes? OK, Matt, do you want to keep us moving with 7 and 8, B7 and 8?
[Matt Rice]: So I did just cover 7.1 and 2. So I can actually jump, I think, over to the 8s.
[Jenny Graham]: Before you do that, are there any changes or proposals for 7? Okay, yep, take it away.
[Matt Rice]: All right, so the eights, so I'll do the eights and then we'll pause because then we're going to jump to the Cs. So the eights, again, looking at preserving different parts of the existing building. Here we're keeping the B wing, the C wing, which are sort of the most highly populated in terms of academic classroom spaces. And then the entirety of the athletic wings as well. So this would include replacing the vocational wings as well as performing arts wing, the arts wing, wrapping around with the generation of a couple of additional courtyards. And again, modification of the existing B wing. Exact same complement of existing wings to remain in 8.2, but with a different geometry, less courtyard based, reaching out towards Steve Miller Drive. And in some cases, this is a scenario where we know that we're not talking about the design and the layout of it yet, but sometimes we can't help ourselves and we want to look at sort of what it would mean to organize the building geometry in a slightly different way and understand, OK, what does that mean to come up Steve Miller Drive? So that's really the reason why you have the 8.1 and 8.2 options here is just looking at some different ways of massing that geometry.
[Jenny Graham]: Proposals about the evaluation criteria for B8-1 or 2. Okay, Matt, why don't you take us into the world of the C's.
[Matt Rice]: All right, so let me go these four first, the C1 options, 1.1 through 1.4. So just again a refresher that the C options are all dealing with salvaging of or the renovation of of the existing athletic wing. So it's going to include the gym, it's going to include the pool building, as well as some large proportion of the existing wing that has the fitness room, it has the gymnastics gym, it actually does have also the existing cafeteria spaces, but What this means is that we're not renovating and keeping two different cafeterias on two different levels. That is not part of the educational plan moving forward. It just means that that space would be renovated and reused as part of these overall schemes. So the C1.1 option is looking at a series of like the extent out again we're replacing and building on top of the existing performing arts wing the b wing the c academic wing and then the vocationally as well so all of those program spaces are going to get reconstituted to some degree within the footprint of the new addition as well as the existing renovated space some of the spaces obviously the gym is going to remain a gym but What happens to locker rooms down below the gym? That could certainly be used for other types of program space that we will vet out moving forward as part of the next more detailed level of study that we're doing.
[Jenny Graham]: Can I ask a question about C.1.4? And we just lost your share.
[Matt Rice]: We lost.
[Matt Gulino]: We may have lost Matt completely.
[Matt Rice]: That was very interesting. I came right back. Didn't even say that my internet dropped out. It seemed like I was like kicked out. I don't know if I said something to offend Will or something and he just listened to me.
[Paul Ruseau]: Got a little, uh, choppy to me. I don't know if ever the people. Okay.
[Matt Rice]: So maybe it was. All right. Let me share my screen again. We'll pick up where we left off. All right. Can everybody see that again?
[Jenny Graham]: Here we go.
[Matt Rice]: OK. Apologies there.
[Jenny Graham]: So Matt, did you hear my question about C.1.4?
[Matt Rice]: I did not, no.
[Jenny Graham]: So actually, I don't think I asked my question, because I think I saw you drop off. OK. So C.1.4. Preserves and renovates the gym and the pool in its current location.
[Unidentified]: Correct?
[Jenny Graham]: It disconnects it from. The rest of the building and it separates it by playing fields. Is that correct?
[Matt Rice]: It's a playing field with parking below it. So it would be an elevated deck. So there might be some ability for us to run to some type of interior connection. It would be a long hallway of some sort running in between. Or you could potentially walk at the field level in between the two. But it is a different approach in terms of how to potentially mask the buildings, for sure.
[Jenny Graham]: Thank you. Other questions about C1.1 through 1.4? Comments, changes? Okay. Do you want to go on to C2 and C3?
[Matt Rice]: Yeah, let's see if I can, I don't know if I can fit all of them. So let me, I'll start with these four, the C2s and then C3.1 and 3.2, and then I think it'll make sense when we shift over. So the C, if I scroll up a little bit, so the C2.1 options are looking again at the same type of approach in terms of what we're saving, the gymnasium and the pool and that dining piece. But we're actually looking at building on a combination of the hillside that's just located to the west of those existing wings, and then stretching a bit towards Edgerly Field as well. You can see in both of these options, as the massing stretches to the north towards Edgerly Field, there would need to be some modification of the extents of the field. What we're suggesting to help compensate for that is that there would be the creation of additional field space to the south of the site to essentially be located on top of the existing footprint after that portion of the building would be demolished. So these are just two different approaches in terms of how to mass and organize those parts and pieces. And there's a different number of stories that's associated with them as well in terms of the height. The seven stories here is really indicated because this is stepping all the way up from down below at the field level, the new field level that would be down up to the edgerly field at the top. And then also trying to limit the amount of horizontal footprint means that you would have to go higher. I think that may be the tallest option that we were showing across any of the 29. And then C.2.2 does a similar type of activity in terms of connecting that lower elevation up, but there's more horizontal footprint here. So we did not need to go up to seven stories. This would be a five-story option going up. And then the C.3.2 C3 options, so C3.1 to C3.4, are all looking at building more of the existing construction on Edgerly Field itself. And so in that scenario, and to varying degrees with these, we're, again, recreating field space down below. In some cases, we might have the ability to overall increase the field inventory on site by maintaining some up top. and creating some down below as well. As we shift to building on Edgerley Field primarily, in terms of this addition that could be connected down below or up above with some type of bridge or connection down below the surface, If we're building off the entirety of the existing footprint, which is really what Edge really offers as an option, that starts to become the scenarios that are least impactful to education, because it means that we can build a majority of new construction without impacting what's going on down here, other than site construction access. There's still going to be trucks that are accessing up the site and building things here. So it's not like it's going to be silent and everything is completely serene that's going on down here. But in terms of having to use modular classrooms to alleviate or compensate for taking down some of the existing wings, this C3.3 option is one of the ones that we're not projecting would require any modular classrooms as part of the construction activity, which is why you see the zero down here. C 3.4 is a different take on it. It's building on really three sides of the existing gymnasium. And that would sort of turn into a core of the building, sort of a central organizing element. And it does stretch a little bit down onto the hillside as well. And there is some overlap here on the C wing.
[Jenny Graham]: I did have a question as I looked at some of these C options. If I look at under cost and schedule 3.4, there were generally these were all the same with two exceptions and C3.3 and D2.1 had fives and everything else was leveled at a two. But when I look at the project duration, they are all the same. Is there something else in the criteria there besides project duration when we are evaluating allowing students to move into the completed new school the soonest?
[Matt Rice]: Yeah, so the trick here is that there's more square footage to build up front that would not be impacting the existing footprint. And so that's why the overall duration, when we were just looking at the amount of square footage that would have to be built, it doesn't present itself to be consequently different at first glance. Again, when the construction manager comes on board, we'll be able to get a much more educated view of what that is in terms of are there nuances there that would allow a portion of it to be opened early if they're going to build it in phases or something along those lines. The reason that the swing space evaluation criteria for CE 3.3 and for D2.1 were rated fives because those are the two that are not conceivably, they don't require the use of temporary modular classroom buildings to be able to be built in terms of sort of a high-level analysis of it. So that was the deciding factor on those that got the fives, if that makes sense.
[Jenny Graham]: Yeah, that's helpful. Thank you. Will, did you have a question?
[SPEAKER_00]: Yeah, I did. So a lot of these like C options and some of the late B ones have better on-site traffic, but I'm noticing the buildings are kind of built farther away. What's kind of like the correlation? Is it just because there's more room now to kind of play with driving or is there something else at hand there?
[Matt Rice]: Yeah, it certainly is one of the more qualitative criteria in terms of how it was scored. I think the rationale, which hopefully is discussed a little bit in there, but in terms of giving us a little bit more room to have circulation down towards the southern side of the site when you come in and not have the building be so close, was seen as just providing more opportunity to provide a more optimized condition at the end of the day, just because you have more space. So that's why you start to see when you get into the C3 options, for instance, versus if we went all the way back to like a 1.4. Here coming in, you're really forced to move all traffic up into the site and do something up here, which is just going to be a little trickier given the grades that are going on there. Again, high level comparative analysis. That was the rationale.
[Jenny Graham]: Paul, sorry.
[fTvN7dy32F0_SPEAKER_16]: Yeah, I have a quick question about 5.1 for ease of maintenance and My very basic assumptions were that as we move further to the right, and more of the old structure is demolished and we have brand new facilities. the maintenance costs might stay the same because of the square footage, but the ease of maintenance would improve. But once we get into the Cs and then looking ahead into the Ds, there are some of these that have a zero for ease of maintenance. So actually a worse outcome compared to just renovating the existing structure. Can you speak to why that is?
[Matt Rice]: sure yeah and again i know i sound like a broken record but i'm happy to modify things as we go forward i didn't intend for everything to be right going through here on the first pass the the thought process there was the fact that once we get up to like those seven or eight story buildings that maintenance just becomes inherently more challenging just because we have to we have to have more floor scrubbers on every level as we go through, or you're moving those things up or down on elevators. So that was sort of the guiding factor behind us. We go to those really tall buildings, it just seemed that maintenance was going to be more challenging. We can certainly shift it from a zero to a two, potentially, as a modification, just to make it more reflective of the fact that it's not horrible, it's just less than ideal as if you can potentially achieve that in a three or four-story building, for instance.
[Jenny Graham]: Did you want to make a motion to adjust those scores or are you satisfied with that answer?
[fTvN7dy32F0_SPEAKER_16]: I mean, I'm sort of scared to because I do understand the rationale behind it's just it's hard for me to understand. But basically, what you're saying is it correlates almost exactly to the height of the building.
[Matt Rice]: There is that, yes, and there was also sort of the impact of the existing building and sort of the challenges that are inherent with maintaining it. that even like in the code repair upgrade, if we go all the way back to Luke's point initially, there are challenges in terms of maintaining that existing building. In terms of getting out on the roof, like there's only two access points of stairs that go out to the roof and then you're forced to traverse across the entirety of it during the winter is challenging in terms of access and you have to carry filters and things up vertical ladders. So there is some inherent challenges from the existing building, and so there is probably some blending of existing building percentage to height as we go up, that is sort of combining to give that overall evaluation on the ease of maintenance.
[fTvN7dy32F0_SPEAKER_16]: Thanks, that's helpful. I'll wait and consider a motion until we get all the way to the end, since it seems like these are also repeated in the D and further. So thank you.
[Kenneth Lord]: I was just going to chime in and support what Matt's saying. A taller building, moving just materials throughout the building takes more time. It's not a zero, I don't think, but maybe a two or a three compared to a five, but it does give more inherent difficulty within the building. Some of the equipment becomes a little more complex as far as being able to push water throughout the building and whatnot. So things become a little more challenging, but not a zero, I think.
[Jenny Graham]: Do you want to make a motion around this 3.5.1? Sorry. Yeah.
[Kenneth Lord]: I would move that those be made a three instead of a zero because it's still essentially a new building.
[Matt Rice]: So Paul, could you just clarify 5.1? Where, where am I looking? Are we back in the bees?
[Kenneth Lord]: Yes.
[Jenny Graham]: I mean, there are two now sustainability, Matt.
[Kenneth Lord]: Yeah, ease of maintenance is a two, not a zero for those.
[Jenny Graham]: But I think the question, if you scroll over, Matt, on 5.1, when you get into those C options, which all are newer buildings, but tall, they go to zero. And I think the question is, is it really a zero or is it?
[Kenneth Lord]: Well, those are the Cs.
[Matt Rice]: I see what you're saying, 5.1 in terms of the actual criteria. I did not realize that that contradiction just happened until now.
[Kenneth Lord]: Yeah, I would say those C3.1, I would move that those be at least a two. I would say movement of two, so they're equal.
[Jenny Graham]: And Ken, are you suggesting the same? Well, we haven't gotten to the Ds yet, but since we're talking about ease of maintenance, there are a couple of Ds that are in that category as well.
[Kenneth Lord]: Yes, I would say that D1.1 as a six story building would be like a three, you know, as a brand new building, at least.
[Matt Rice]: So the only challenge is we don't, we only have zero, two and five right now.
[Kenneth Lord]: Okay. I didn't catch that. Yeah. They'd have to be twos then.
[Jenny Graham]: The motion is C3.1.1. 3.2, C3.2, D1.1, and D2.1 become twos.
[Kenneth Lord]: Correct, for 5.1 ease of maintenance.
[Jenny Graham]: Is there a second? Second. Second by Dr. Galussi. Any questions about that motion before I call the roll? Okay, I will call the roll. Jenny Graham. Yes. Mayor Lungo-Koehn. Yes. Dr. Galusi. Yes. Marta Cabral.
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: Yes.
[Jenny Graham]: Joan Bowen.
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: Yes.
[Jenny Graham]: Ken Lord. Yes. Libby Brown. Yes. Marissa Desmond. Yes. Maria Dorsey is absent. Brian Hilliard.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Yes.
[Jenny Graham]: Emily Lazar is absent. Paul Malone.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Yes.
[Jenny Graham]: Nicole Morell? Yes. Erin Olapade?
[Adam Hurtubise]: Yes.
[Jenny Graham]: Luke Preissner is absent. So 12 in the affirmative, zero in the negative, three absent. Um, the motion is approved. Um, are there other questions, comments about C 3.1 through C 3.4? OK, do we want to go to D?
[Matt Rice]: Slide over there. So the D options are the all new construction options. So this means removing the existing gym at the 30,000 square feet, rebuilding it as a 18,000 square foot gym, which is the smaller gymnasium. And it also means building a new pool building, a new standalone pool building versus renovating the existing one. The reason that you don't see a separate geometry here is that it would be connected in some way to that existing form. That's what these volumes that are shown here represent, that in that square footage there would be a pooled building. It can be connected but still sort of a separate entity in terms of how it operates from a system standpoint. At the same time, as we move forward, if it made more sense to separate it from that existing volume. That's certainly something that we can look at as we go forward. The D1.1 option looks at building the majority of the new building on the parking lot right to the south of the site. As you can again sort of start to picture coming up Steve Miller Drive and having that building right there. It would in this scenario extend over both the performing arts wing as well as the southern portion of the vocational wing. So there is still some phasing and disruption to the existing building footprint in this scenario. To alleviate that entirely, we maybe would have to be building like a 10-story building or something here on a tiny little footprint, which we just didn't feel was feasible or responsible to illustrate as an option because it would not meet so many of the educational plan goals in terms of creating a building that we would want to see at the end of the day. That's why this is stretched out a little bit further. It is still very compact in terms of the site and it's still going up to six stories right on the parking lot. The D1.2 option still takes that same approach, but it says rather than going tall, it goes a little bit wider. And you can see when we start even on the parking lot and extend in, we almost end up consuming the majority of the existing building footprint. So this is sort of new construction phased in place. So it would involve building new portions of construction of the building, opening that potentially sooner. Back to your question earlier, Jenny, about sort of why In some cases you might be able to get this section of the building open sooner than the rest of it, but there would still be overall duration wise a long time associated with pulling it down, putting up new pieces. and would certainly involve the use of modular classroom buildings to facilitate that phasing in D1.2. And then 2.1 is going back to the notion of trying to build predominantly on Edgeley Field at the top, which would alleviate the need for the modular classrooms in this scenario. I believe that there is Some overlap currently shown on the existing gymnasium, so there might be some time when that would have to get pulled down and removed as a resource. But in terms of avoiding any overlap with the academic classroom wings, the performance, performing arts, arts wing, vocational wings, that could all, all this construction could happen without impacting those footprints down below. So that's generally the different approaches on the D options. The geometry could certainly be studied in any of those three as we move forward. It's really the general concept about where we're building and how we're building.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Paul has his hand up.
[Jenny Graham]: Can you all hear me?
[Paul Ruseau]: Thank you. Um, you know, I was, I was having a conversation, maybe it was on Facebook, um, this conversation about the pool, which I'm sure we're going to have more than one more time. Um, there are no scenarios for at all, where the pool is not closed for an extensive amount of time, whether that's building a new one or renovating the one we have. There's no pool. available to the community for a very long time, right?
[Matt Rice]: So I would say with the exception of D2.1. So what D2.1 offers in the promise, and we could probably create this scenario or talk about creating this scenario in other options as well, if that's a primary concern. But in this scenario, we could build a new standalone pool building outside of the footprint of the existing building and outside the footprint of the existing pool. have that up and running fully completed before we start demolishing the existing pool online. If that is a priority, that's something that we can certainly study and look at in terms of where it would potentially go on site to fulfill those different criteria. One site, and this is on the hillside in between or just to the west of the existing building. The other location for that where it might be able to happen is on top of the parking lot to the south if we were wanting to be thinking about a pool down there. So we also want to think about like just long-term sort of campus orientation as well, and what makes the most sense for the school's use and the community's use, right? Putting it on the parking lot makes it a lot more accessible to people that are coming in off of Winthrop, but would also make it in this scenario, it's a little bit of a hike to get from the school down to the pool. Maybe that's a good thing. I think those are the types of things that we can study moving forward, but there are a limited number of options where you could visualize that happening.
[Paul Ruseau]: Thank you. I guess, you know, what I'm hearing is, you know, the people who have a primary focus around keeping the pool seem to not fully be hearing or understanding that if we keep the pool, it will still be closed for what, 18 months, two years, more?
[Matt Rice]: I would say between 12 and 18 months is probably the time in terms of renovating the existing pool. But yes, in a renovation scenario, then there would be a time without the pool for that duration.
[Paul Ruseau]: And I certainly think that if we end up prioritizing pool access, that's one of the reasons I know we're not picking an option today. But the new construction on the field allowing us to keep a pool or put a pool somewhere, you know, it just seems that the folks who are most concerned about the pool are unaware they will have no pool for a year, year and a half. And we have one option here that would actually allow them to not have that problem. So I think that's an important thing for people to mention when we have that as the people on this committee have that conversation and we keeping the pool to most people means that they can just keep using the pool through this project. And that's just not true. Right.
[Matt Rice]: And I think, Paul, just to clarify, because I think it's a good point to make sure that people, we can educate everyone about what the options are. There are other scenarios that we could look at, right, with C3.2 or 3.3 or 3.4 that says, okay, we're going to build a new pool, again, towards this corner of the site. It just means that we're not renovating the existing pool building. So that can be something that we talk through as well as the options as they move forward. Again, if it's a priority to not have the lost pool time.
[Jenny Graham]: In a related question, D2.1 shows a pool in the image. And it is a freestanding pool, so we know for sure that the MSBA will not share in the cost of erecting the new pool. But is the build of the new pool in the bottom line number that has been shared with us about D2.1?
[Matt Rice]: Yes, yeah. The D1.1, 1.2, and 2.1 all include costs and square footage for a new pool. It's just not shown as a separate volume, a standalone volume in 1.1 and 1.2, but the costs for it and the scope of it is included in those.
[Jenny Graham]: And if I look at the cost table, It says the pool scope for those 3 options is 12.7M dollars. So is 12.7M dollars, which is less than the pool numbers and basically most of the other options. So is 12.7M dollars enough to build a new pool on the site freestanding and If it is, is it the same size as our current pool, or is it something smaller?
[Matt Rice]: So yes, the dollar value is intended to be representative of building a new pool freestanding on the site. The question in terms of the, sorry, repeat the last portion of it.
[Jenny Graham]: Is it the same size as our current pool, or is it a smaller pool?
[Matt Rice]: So it was not it was not originally estimated to be the same size as the original pool on the new one we definitely heard feedback since the estimating was done, that there is a strong desire to maintain the existing pool size as we move forward so that would have to be an adjustment that we would have to be making going forward. into the PSR phase. The reason why it is less expensive than renovating the existing pool, and that's where I was getting hung up on, is the complexity of the fact that the existing pool by itself is sort of connected in with a lot of other square footage that's there that would have to be renovated at the same time. And that's why it's not as easy as like a one-to-one comparison between those two. But yes, in terms of the overall cost of it and then the smaller size.
[Kimberly Talbot]: That's helpful, thank you. And if I could just add in from sort of an administrative standpoint, once the pool is a new pool, it becomes a separate project. You'd need a separate committee and it is treated as a wholly separate project. So just keep that in mind as we move forward.
[Matt Gulino]: yeah so just to add to that we have incorporated the cost but if a new pool facility is desired the msba will not allow you to build it within the project similar to allow you to go up to a thousand square foot auditorium but if you do 1100 I'm sorry, 1,000 seat auditorium. If you wanted to do 1,100, they wouldn't allow you to do that. So it's just one of those MSBA kind of guidelines and processes that we have to continue to study as we go down this road with these options, especially if there is a new pool facility included.
[Jenny Graham]: Thank you, Matt. Ken?
[Kenneth Lord]: Does that also mean that it could potentially or have to be a separate contractor, a separate OPM, a separate architect, all nine yards?
[Matt Gulino]: Yes.
[Kimberly Talbot]: It's possible. Yes.
[Kenneth Lord]: And potentially would be incredibly complex to have two sets of contractors on the same side at the same time.
[Matt Rice]: So I want to give Helen, though, the example of what is transpiring out at East Longmeadow right now, the project that we're working on. The pool building is going essentially in a parallel track in terms of construction, a little bit behind the main school building, but the same GC, or the construction manager, won both of those projects. The same designer is working on both of those projects because all of the reasons that you just mentioned, Ken, in terms of why it would turn into an incredible challenge to have two different teams, Like there's that part of the process ended up playing itself out. And so that the community wanted to take advantage of those efficiencies and ended up selecting essentially the same teams. And at the end of it, but Matt and Helen are absolutely right that it needs to be separated from a process standpoint in terms of procurement, even if it ends up with the same entities being responsible for it.
[Jenny Graham]: Does that also include If a debt exclusion is required to build a new pool, can that be lumped in or does that have to be a separate vote? Thank you.
[Matt Rice]: Just to circle back on one other detail in terms of the reimbursement for it. In no cases with any pool scenario will the MSBA give any reimbursement, whether it's renovation or new construction. The real difference happens between renovation and new construction in this sort of parallel track of really separate projects is when you go to a separate pool building.
[Paul Ruseau]: Paul? Yes, I think that was a great question about the debt exclusion. And I mean, I like it also because having it separate lets the voters decide whether they want a pool. Having it part of the high school project means that the voters, they don't get to do essentially an a la carte decision-making process. So, I mean, I'd certainly vote for a debt exclusion for a new poll, but I also think that the whole point of debt exclusions and overrides is that the voters decide, not us as a group of people or elected officials. This is the ultimate poll. People get to decide at the polls whether or not want it. And I think by putting the pool into, aside from the fact that in the options where it's not a standalone building, there will be no pool available for 12 to 18 months, we also take away the very democratic option of letting the voters decide whether there will be a pool. So I really like this. We also, I feel like Having it as a separate items means we can have another group of people, another committee of people. I assume, I don't know if it'd be on the school committee we created or the mayor or what, but to design and think about a pool instead of just like a thing with a bunch of water, like do we want it to be something more? And how big do we want it? And all that other stuff. Doing it as part of this project, means that it's just going to be one of our 5,000 other things we're thinking about. So I have a strong, I mean, I hadn't really thought about it this way, but I have a strong preference to letting what is it we want as a community for a pool to look like to really be a group of people who are focused on what the pool would look like. I mean, I'm not on this school building committee because I care about the pool, frankly. I know a couple of people here are, in fact, volunteer, because I want to make sure that I don't lose the pool. But I'm guessing most of us are not here because the pool was our number one priority. I think that a group of people focused on the pool would be the best possible group, so.
[Jenny Graham]: Thank you. Kent?
[Kenneth Lord]: I thought the MSBA would participate in the renovation of the pool. How are they going to separate out things like the fire alarm and the sprinkler system and the HVAC system and those? You're going to have to allocate costs out?
[Matt Rice]: So it does not need to be separated out from a financial standpoint into a separate project if it's a renovation. It can be connected to. They're just not going to reimburse on that square footage.
[Kenneth Lord]: That's what I'm talking about the reimbursement for it, so they don't reimburse it all. I thought we were told that like they would participate in the reimbursement of pool like they would participate in the reimbursement of the field house, but not building a new one.
[Matt Rice]: No, because there's there's no baseline pool square footage that is in an MSBA guideline building. Yep.
[Jenny Graham]: Questions or proposals about the D options?
[xARk0471UWA_SPEAKER_00]: Lisa? Yeah, I had a question about, I think it's criteria 6.4, navigating time between classes. And I noticed that in the assessment criteria, I believe it is based solely on horizontal distance. I'm just wondering about if the students like if the if the building is six stories high are their students going to be navigating five flights of stairs between classes and how does that kind of get included in that navigating time?
[Matt Rice]: It's a great question Lisa and I don't know exactly how we would analyze it more specifically at this early point in time. I can certainly think that you have a very valid point there. And as we go up, you may add the time in that direction. And maybe it's people moving up and down, or up at least slower than they would be going horizontally. In which case, you could potentially just normalize it in terms of the rating across all of them. And maybe it's just neutral as opposed to fives.
[Kimberly Talbot]: But presumably what you're getting at is about compact floor versus a more spread out floor situation, correct, in terms of the horizontal versus vertical? Are you talking to me or to Matt? Both of you, in terms of evaluating this as a point situation.
[xARk0471UWA_SPEAKER_00]: Right, I'm just, I do think that there are issues with having students go up many flights of stairs. I got, you know, four flights of stairs between classes that is, that will increase the, you know, the passing time between classes, but it doesn't seem to be accounted for if we're only looking at horizontal navigation.
[Paul Ruseau]: Paul, is your hand up for this one or is it still up from previous? Okay. It's up for this one. You know, Lisa, that's a really, I see why this one was hard to figure out how to score because Arlington High School, they had sort of like one floor, one wing or whatever it's called was the sciences and like another floor, another wing was the, you know, language arts or whatever. And so in that scenario, nobody goes from science to science, they go from science to English maybe, that's one floor, or English to math, that's down two floors. But whether or not we make that kind of approach to how we orient our academics, I think none of us, I haven't thought about that. I don't know if other people have already made that. That's such a big decision. I mean, you know, that's certainly, I've never been in a high school where the things are that kind of stacked and separated. And, you know, when we think about where we're going to put different vocational programs, you know, we're very unlikely going to have them all just lined up in a row like they are now. And so figuring out and calculating the, how far from one class to the next is going to be hard until we get past where we are now, I think. You know, my daughter says she runs between two of her classes every day, has to run. And it's just, you know, the way the schedule works and what the classes are and the kinds of classes she wants. And so I certainly hope we can figure out how to have a design where that's just not a reality, because we also probably don't want to have to add more time to the school year when we open this so we can have longer transit times between classes. But I also think we're so far from that kind of thinking and decision making that, yeah, but a six-story building, I think inherently, it seems impossible that it's going to be quicker to get around, right? So I don't know. It's a hard one.
[Matt Rice]: Again, I could see putting twos across the board on this, just to acknowledge the fact that it's, like you're saying, Paul, it is very challenging at this early stage to be able to understand the schedule, the layout of spaces in terms of how one may be minimized and not. I would acknowledge the fact that going up a significant number of stories is still going to be time consuming.
[Jenny Graham]: There any.
[Paul Ruseau]: That's right.
[Jenny Graham]: Oh, go ahead.
[Paul Ruseau]: 1 last point on that 1. You know, there is the issue of, um. Students that will require require elevate students and staff that might require elevators. Um, you know, when we talk about. Actually, I don't know in new buildings, I just always said there are enough elevators and it's not like in every building that we always go to now and it's there's never enough.
[Jenny Graham]: I assume elevators will be driven by ADA standards, et cetera. Like, I don't know how many elevators get put in a building gets factored.
[Matt Rice]: A combination of accessibility codes for sure, but also I think gets to this topic of universal access and sort of horizontal distribution around right so we want to make sure that they're convenient elevators acknowledging where different access points into the building are for after hours community access and to make sure that we have approximate elevator to be able to traverse different floors. So there's probably a formula there in combination of the horizontal footprint, as well as the number of stories, but it would certainly be a subject of conversation as we get into the design process a little bit more.
[Jenny Graham]: Lucy?
[Suzanne Galusi]: I agree with Matt's suggestion about maybe doing twos. I just feel like there's so much still. We're not at that phase to kind of go through how this will be laid out on the inside. We've said numerous times this right now is well beyond just a comprehensive high school. This is a community building. And so having that conversation about where you're putting the ECC, where you're putting central office space, also could be on maybe a floor that students don't have to necessarily traverse. The outside schools also have four floors. I know sometimes the passing time is different, absolutely, at a high school. But I agree that maybe just doing twos across the board is the best way to handle this right now, because we just don't know right now in this exercise how things are going to be arranged internally.
[Jenny Graham]: Is your motion to add to do twos across the board just for the D choices?
[Suzanne Galusi]: Yeah, that was Matt Rice's suggestion maybe as like a way to move forward because Lisa made a really good point about the difference between horizontal and vertical. So just the D choices. Well, there were some C's that had seven floors. So I think to me, I would say my motion is anything more than four floors.
[Jenny Graham]: So the motion is that anything more than four floors becomes a two. Yeah. Yeah. It's not a five. Okay. There's a motion on the floor. Is there a second? Second. Second by Ken, I will call the roll. Jenny Graham. Yes. Mayor Lungo-Koehn. Yes. Dr. Galussi. Yes. Marta Cabral. Yes. Joan Bowen.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Yes.
[Jenny Graham]: Ken Lord.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Yes.
[Jenny Graham]: Libby Brown. Yes. Marissa Desmond. Yes. Maria Dorsey is absent. Brian Hilliard.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Yes.
[Jenny Graham]: Emily Lazzaro absent. Paul Malone.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Yes.
[Jenny Graham]: Nicole Morell? Yes. Erin Olapade?
[Adam Hurtubise]: Yes.
[Jenny Graham]: Luke Prisner is absent. So 12 in the affirmative, zero in the negative, three absent, the motion is approved. Matt, can you toggle back to the D's? Sure. Are there any other questions, comments, changes to any of the D rankings? Dr. Galussi?
[Suzanne Galusi]: I don't necessarily want to go back regressively about the pool, but I did just have a question. I don't know if this is the right space to ask it, but does the new construction of a Tufts pool factor in to this conversation at all? And do we know if that's a community pool or is that just Tufts use only?
[Jenny Graham]: They don't know for sure personally, but my understanding is it is not necessarily for community use, but we could try to verify that before the next meeting, unless somebody else on the call has any answer to that.
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: Through the chair, I think that that's correct. I don't think it's a community pool, but they are very good to their neighbors and in some cases the communities, but I think it's mainly for university use.
[Jenny Graham]: Okay, thank you. Other questions about the D options?
[Paul Ruseau]: Paul? I'm feeling a little silly, I should probably know this, but is there this amount of athletic fields in outdoor spaces, which we see on screen right this second, is there a rating For that as well, and I want to add new categories, but like some of these have substantially more outdoor spaces.
[Adam Hurtubise]: I think that there was.
[Matt Rice]: Yeah, so there's increasing the field inventory on site as 7.1. I think in the in the assessment rationale, you would see that if it. If we're adding just a single field, that got sort of a two, I believe. And then if it was we're adding a significant amount of field space, then it was anything more than one is what got to the five.
[Jenny Graham]: Questions about the D options? Is there a motion to approve this document as amended so that it can be posted on our site? So moved. By Nicole, is there a second?
[SPEAKER_10]: Second.
[Jenny Graham]: By Ken, I'll call the roll. Jenny Graham? Yes. Mayor Lundo Kern? 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. Marissa Desmond. Yes. Maria Dorsey is absent. Brian Hilliard.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Yes.
[Jenny Graham]: Emily Lazar is absent. Paul Malone.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Yes.
[Jenny Graham]: Nicole Morell. Yes. Erin Olapade.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Yes.
[Jenny Graham]: And Luke Prisner. Is absent so 11 in the affirmative 0 and the negative for absent. So, this document is approved as amended and I think we'll make sure it gets posted to the site and meant and promoted in the superintendents. Friday memo, because I think. The thing that is sort of clear to me as I look at the evaluation is that not everything is important to everyone in the same way. I think the pool is a good example of that. Some people are going to vote based on the pool variable. Some people are going to want to know about the cost. Some people are going to want to know about playing fields. Some people are going to want to know about modulars and how long it's going to take. And so this document gives people sort of a point of view to like jump off and think about 29 options, right? So I wanna make sure we get that out onto the site as quickly as we can. Paul, did you have a question?
[fTvN7dy32F0_SPEAKER_16]: Yes, I have a quick question about preparation for the next meeting for the SMMA folks. Yep. To get into the narrowing options, the, I have the presentation from you from January 14th that has the large scale pictures of the plans with aerial massing. Is that still the most up to date? I've been trying to follow along, but the thumbnails on the Excel are so small that it's kind of difficult. I'll show briefly what I'm talking about. So is this still accurate if I want to review these before we have to narrow it down to three to five?
[Matt Rice]: They, they are generally accurate. There's a few clarifications that we made just actually earlier today to the plan diagrams, um, to make sure that what was being shown visually aligned with the scope that was estimated and described in the PDP report. We do have an updated PowerPoint that we're going to be putting out through Mentimeter, which was an opportunity for the larger Medford Public to just provide some indication of interest. And each one of those actually has a full slide scale. The plan image, the updated current plan image as well as like a simplified description which aligns exactly with the text that was circulated earlier today to everybody, which is just sort of a simplified description of each one of the options. I'm trying to think if we can probably take those three-dimensional images and layer them into that slide as well, just if it provides people a little bit of additional clarity as to what each of the option represents. Because sometimes it is easier to see in three dimensions if we're building over the top of something versus just looking at that two-dimensional plan graphic. And that would bring it all current and make it all available for everyone to look through in sort of a good way, so. I know Helen's probably thinking whether or not we can do it right now.
[Kimberly Talbot]: No, no, or just making clear which ones have been adjusted, because it sounds like, Paul, you're interested in being able to have that view of the 3D.
[Jenny Graham]: It would be helpful for us to send out the current version of what we should all be looking at. So I think we can take that action item just so that there are no version control issues, no back and forth, like let's all be on the same page about that. So we can take that takeaway. The other thing that is listed on the agenda is sort of like some thoughts about how we uh, go about narrowing this down. And I did have a proposal myself that I wanted to share with you all to see if we felt like this would be helpful. Um, I think that my idea is to distribute, um, essentially like a straw poll to the members of the building committee so that everybody can vote on, uh, three, uh, Renovation options and 3 up to 3 up to 3 renovation options and up to 3 new options so that we could share. How many people are weighing in on each of the options at the outset of our next meeting. From the building committee, and we can use that. In addition to the meant to meter polling and all of the feedback that we've collected to date. So that. I think there's going to be options where there is just no support. And so I'm thinking that if we all participate in a non-binding straw poll ahead of time and can share that data, it might help focus the conversation as we are talking. So I think we can definitely get that put together if there is strong interest in that from the committee. I just am sensitive to I've been digging in and looking at all these in lots of detail, and I'll be sharing my thoughts with my mail list and people that I talk to, and I'll be asking people what they think. I think we're all going to do that between now and next week, but it does matter where the committee's mind is at. I think that would be helpful for me, but I will ask the rest of you to weigh in on that idea. Lisa?
[xARk0471UWA_SPEAKER_00]: Are you asking only the voting members to participate in kind of the straw poll or the non-voting members also?
[Jenny Graham]: That's a great question. My proposal is that we all weigh in, voting and non-voting. Thank you. Paul, did you have your hand up?
[Paul Ruseau]: No, I was just hoping you would say just that as well. Because aside from being a non-voting member, I do think that since this isn't a decision-making Any, in any way, shape or form binding, I would hope we could all participate. But I also can't make that motion, so you all can either.
[Jenny Graham]: That would be my proposal.
[Paul Ruseau]: Dr. Galussi?
[Suzanne Galusi]: I think it would be a great place to start and would really focus the conversation rather than maybe having to go through all 29. So I'm happy to propose that we start the next meeting having completed a straw poll to begin the next Monday's meeting.
[Jenny Graham]: Is there a second?
[SPEAKER_10]: I'll second that.
[Jenny Graham]: By Aaron. Any other questions about that? Paul, do you have a question about that?
[Paul Ruseau]: I do. And maybe somebody else could make this motion. But for all of the rows in the spreadsheet for which there are no differences, can we maybe ask that they all be hidden and we never discuss them again in this next meeting. I just feel like we can severely reduce the amount of, significantly reduce the amount of, I don't want to say noise, it's all important, but when everything is a five or a three or a two or a zero across the board, it just adds a lot of visual overload. And when I took that version of this and I got rid of all the rows that were the same, of course, not based on the latest updates, and then I got rid of everything that scored really badly, looking at the sums, and it all fit nicely on a little screen instead of requiring my gigantic monitor. So I think a lot of people would enjoy that, but that's not emotional, obviously.
[Jenny Graham]: I think everyone is like looking at this differently, right? So I think that's part of the power of having 25 people at this committee is that we are all coming to the conversation with something distinctly different in mind. So I think people, yeah, I think people should feel free to do their analysis how they see fit and weigh in that way so that we're hearing from as many people as we can. And I do think like, you know, we talk a lot about the open meeting law and about making sure this team is compliant, you all are free to talk to people in the community about what you think, and you are free to ask other people in the community what they think. Where you have to be careful is if you are asking people on the committee to be in alignment with you or what they think, and then sharing that sort of in a more broad way. So if you are talking to your network, to your spouse, to your kids, whoever, you're welcome to do that. I just want to make sure people feel comfortable being able to do that, because I think this is important. I'm expecting that there will be members of the community at our meeting on Monday, and we'll make sure that they know how to weigh in as well before we start voting. and we'll package up all of, as I mentioned in my email last week, we'll package up all of the feedback we've received so far and make sure that gets out to you in the next couple of days. Okay, so we have a motion on the floor by Dr. Galusi, seconded by Aaron, that we will start the next meeting with the results of straw poll. So I'll 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. Marissa Desmond. Yes. Maria Dorsey. Brian Hilliard.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Yes.
[Jenny Graham]: Emily Lazzaro. Paul Malone.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Yes.
[Jenny Graham]: Nicole Morell. Yes. Erin Olapade.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Yes.
[Jenny Graham]: Luke Presner. 11 in the affirmative, zero in the negative, four absent. Motion passes. Jen, can you bring up the schedule slide again? I just wanted to come back around full circle to this slide and address some of the other questions and comments that popped up along the way.
[Matt Rice]: Is it this slide, Jenny? You want me to go back to the beginning?
[Jenny Graham]: Yes.
[Matt Rice]: This one.
[Jenny Graham]: Apologies, I'm driving. That's okay. Matt, I can't see your screen.
[Adam Hurtubise]: How did that happen? It's very, very strange.
[fTvN7dy32F0_SPEAKER_16]: I took over to show you the presentation. Sorry.
[Jenny Graham]: All right. Okay, thank you. So, on Monday, the 23rd, we'll narrow down to 3 to 5 options. The shift in this schedule does allow us to have a dedicated meeting that was already scheduled on 427 that has. Sort of some space for a different kind of conversation and. Um, what the project team is working on between now and then, um, in collaboration, um, with, um, the district team who helped write the educational plan and helped, um, provide all of the input that generated the space summary. Um, certainly we will review the, the MSBA PDP comments. Um, but there are also like any number of. scenarios for which this committee could make decisions about inclusion or exclusion in the program. And since we've been picking on the pool all night, I'll use it as an example. So we could as a committee decide the pool is an absolute must. And we could also decide as a committee the pool is an absolute no. And The goal in this meeting is to bring some of those bigger proposals forward with some consideration so that. where there's data that can be provided about what the choice is, um, that we can put that on the table and examine some of those choices that could change the square footage before that square footage for the three to five options goes to the estimators. So we will dedicate this meeting to like, as I, like what I think of as scope, right? So, um, uh, you know, I'll pick on, um, you know, Uh, the, the team health center, for example, it is listed as a program for which space was allotted on the space summary and. This committee has not talked in depth and ask questions about, like, what does that proposal entail? Right? So we're not quite there yet, but in this meeting on the 27. That is an example of something that I'm expecting to be able to have the project team bring forward and say, here's what this would entail. Here's what it would mean. Here's how many square feet it is. Here's how much it would cost and allow this group to sort of consider that as a choice. And make a choice so that if we say, yes, 100%, we want to carry that forward some more and understand a little bit more about the cost estimating with that in mind that we can do that. But if we say. We're not in for this at all. We can remove it from the scope. We can take it completely off the table in an official capacity and then we cannot. Sort of muddy the cost estimate with that, which we don't intend to carry forward. So those kinds of questions. Are what I am wanting to dedicate that 427 meeting to so that. There is some dedicated time and space to talk about questions people may have about gross square footage, which is the honest, biggest driver of cost, right? And all of those decisions that we make on the 27th will be packaged up and sent to the estimators so that when the 3 to 5 estimates come back, they will reflect any decisions being made by this team on the 27th. I think that's a really important step, and I'm actually kind of glad we have a dedicated meeting to do that, because that is its own set of variables outside of what does the building look like? Where does the building go? What's in the building? What's not in the building? So we'll have some dedicated time and space to talk about that in our April meeting. So I'm glad for that, and I look forward to those discussions. Um, on the 20th, as we mentioned, we'll then look at the cost estimates that will reflect anything that we changed or decided on the 27th. Um, and then, um, we will use, um, our meeting on 5, 27, um, to sort of dig in deeper and, um, continue to answer questions, um, from the, the committee, um, and the community. Then we'll in the lead up to our vote on the 10th, um, where we will vote on a single option. Sprinkled throughout here, which is a schedule that I did send to you last week is also a huge series of community input sessions where there's formal community forums. And this team is getting ready to take its show on the road and be out at tables and all kinds of city and community events. And if you have littles, you can find us at the egg dash on Saturday morning. So we'll be there to answer questions to collect feedback feedback and input and all of those good things. So we'll see you at the dash and. at many, many more meetings as we head into the gauntlet that is May and June in the public school system. Any questions about the schedule? Okay, is there a motion to adjourn? So moved. Dr. Galusi, is there a second? Seconded. Is that Mayor Lungo-Koehn?
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: Yes, seconded.
[Jenny Graham]: OK. I will call the roll. Jenny Graham? Yes. Mayor Lungo-Koehn?
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: Yes.
[Jenny Graham]: Dr. Galussi? Yes. Marta Cabral? Yes. Joan Bowen? Yes. Ken Lord?
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: Yes.
[Jenny Graham]: Libby Brown? Yes. Marissa Desmond? Yes. Maria Dorsey is absent. Brian Hilliard?
[Adam Hurtubise]: Yes.
[Jenny Graham]: Emily Lazzaro is absent. Paul Malone?
[Adam Hurtubise]: Yes.
[Jenny Graham]: Nicole Morell? Is absent.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Oh, yes.
[Jenny Graham]: Sorry. Yes. Aaron will party. Yes, the president is absent. So, 12 in the affirmative 0, the negative 3 absent the meeting is adjourned. Thank you. Everyone for your.
|
total time: 2.09 minutes total words: 220 |
total time: 33.35 minutes total words: 2459 |
total time: 9.46 minutes total words: 761 |
|