[Jenny Graham]: We're going to go ahead and get started. Welcome, everybody. Thank you to the listening audience that's joined us tonight. I'm going to read the meeting post, and then we'll get started. Hearing some feedback in the room.
[Unidentified]: Or again, very basically. How's this? All right.
[Jenny Graham]: Good. All right. Okay, welcome. Please be advised, there'll be a full committee meeting of the Medford Comprehensive High School Building Committee in person at Medford High School in the library, 489 Winford Street, and via remote participation. 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 using the following Zoom meeting ID, 980-5694-5088. I'm going to go ahead and call the roll so we can get on with the excitement. Jenny Graham, here. Mayor Lungo-Koehn. Present. Dr. Galusi. Present. Marta Cabral. Here. Joan Bowen. Here. Ken Lord. Here. Lindy Brown. Here. Marissa Desmond.
[SPEAKER_03]: Here.
[Jenny Graham]: Maria Dorsey. Here. Brian Hilliard. Emily Lazzaro. Paul Malone.
[Unidentified]: Here.
[Jenny Graham]: Nicole Morell. Here. Aaron Olapade. Here. Luke Preissner.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Here.
[Jenny Graham]: Bob Dickinson. Fiona Maxwell. Chad Ballant. Kim Talbot. Here. Wilkin Bacilli.
[Will Pipicelli]: Here. Emily's online, by the way.
[Jenny Graham]: Hi, Emily. Um, Lori Hodgson here, Don McLaughlin, Paul Rousseau, Bill Santos, and Lisa Miller here. So 15 present, zero absent. Um, okay. We have a few, uh, orders of standing business to take care of before we start talking about auctions and voices, and all that good stuff. So first, there is a need for us to approve minutes from the 225 meeting and the 317 meeting. Is there a motion to approve?
[Luke Preisner]: For these meetings, I'm sorry, the minutes sent out.
[Jenny Graham]: They're hyperlinked in the agenda, yeah.
[Unidentified]: So moved.
[Jenny Graham]: Seconded by Ken, seconded by Libby. I will call the roll. Jenny Graham. Yes. Mayor Lando McCartney. Yes. Dr. Kalusi. Yes. Marta Cabral. Yes. Joan Bowen. Yes. Ken Lord. Yes. Libby Brown. Yes. Marissa Desmond.
[Kimberly Talbot]: Yes.
[Jenny Graham]: Maria Dorsey. Yes. Brian Hilliard. Yes. Emily Lazzaro.
[Kimberly Talbot]: Yes.
[Jenny Graham]: Paul Malone.
[Unidentified]: Yes.
[Jenny Graham]: Nicole Morell. Yes. Erin Olapade.
[Unidentified]: Yes.
[Jenny Graham]: Lupe Preissner.
[Unidentified]: Yes.
[Jenny Graham]: 15 in the affirmative, zero in the negative. The minutes are approved. Um, the next item, um, for review is approving our February, 2026, uh, one for left field for $20,000, one for estimate for $90,000. And then, um, a final one for environmental insight, $173,969 and eight cents for a total of two 83, nine 69. So I'll turn it over to the project team. Before we ask for a motion.
[Matt Gulino]: Uh, yeah. So as, as Jenny outlined, these are the invoices for the month of February, uh, 2026, uh, the 20,000 slot fields monthly, uh, lump sum, uh, the 90,000 from SMA is, uh, their monthly lump sum. Uh, and the environmental insight of 170, uh, 3,969 and 8 cents, uh, is a combination of all of the existing conditions work and surveys that's been going on. geotechnical work and surveying from the consultants working through SMA. All of these invoices are eligible for reimbursement, nothing really outside of the ordinary here. So if there are any questions on these, please let us know.
[Jenny Graham]: Any questions from the committee?
[Matt Gulino]: Just one. What's the remaining budget?
[Luke Preisner]: Next slide.
[Matt Gulino]: So yeah, overall total budget is $3 million for the feasibility study. We have so far committed just over $2,600,000 and only have spent $725,869 of that committed to date. So still, you know, a lot of work to be done through the feasibility study and schematic design, but that's where we currently stand on overall budget.
[Jenny Graham]: Any other questions? Is there a motion to approve?
[Adam Hurtubise]: So moved.
[Jenny Graham]: I can, is there a second?
[Adam Hurtubise]: Second.
[Jenny Graham]: All right, I can call the roll. Denny Graham, yes. Mayor Lungo-Koehn, yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Okay, we're moving right along. Item four on the list is a question for this committee. So multiple, you know, we've done a lot of work trying to push out communications. However, if you aren't on mail lists, if you didn't know about the mail lists, if you aren't on social media, you may not know where we are at with this project. And so the request I think from the mayor and others has been that we send out some sort of informational mailer to the community, which is like 26 plus thousand houses. And that that mailer sort of invite everybody to be part of the process, much like we have been doing But also to make them aware of what the timeline is for the for the decision. So obviously we'll be making some decisions tonight. They're very preliminary and there's lots of work to do before June 10 when we'll make a final decision on a single option to go forward. But the idea is to try to make it so that anyone who wants to be involved in this project knows how, right? So that's the premise of the mailer. The quotes that I have gotten so far range from about $8,000 to about $15,000. And that's based on the preliminary data. So we can authorize that spending out of our earmarked feasibility study funds, if this body thinks that's a good idea. And so what a motion might look like, it would be like a six by 11 postcard, probably much like you saw in lots of political mailers, and would let people know how to get involved, perhaps be able to show some of the concept options, potentially depending on how many we leave here with tonight, And then it would be dropped to every household through something called EDDM, which I've learned more about in the last week than I wanted to know about mailing. But it is the most economical way to mail things out to abroad unrestricted group of addresses. So there's obviously a lot of variability in the quotes that I've got. So I'm sure there's a lot of things that are not held equal in those quotes. Obviously we would be looking for whoever can do it the most effectively in a timely fashion so that the information reaches yours as quickly as possible. There is budget to do this if we so choose, and I will be happy to answer any questions. Yeah, Paul.
[John Falco]: It's over 10,000. Do we bump into any procurement issues? I don't remember. I know that they changed the procurement limit at some point.
[Jenny Graham]: I don't know the answer to that question. You need to get three quotes. Three quotes under $50,000. I have two waiting for the third. All right, so we're good. But I think our next meeting is not until April 27. So the timing of the approval matters in terms of when this can be designed, concepted, and out the door. So other questions?
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: I just have a question through the chair. whether it's on this mailer or we agreed to do a second mailer, the calculator to what it would cost a resident per household should either be in a QR code and lead to that place on the website so that people can start calculating, you know, That's going to be the big question sooner than later. How much is it going to cost me per year for this project? So since we're tonight, we're trying to try to go down to five concepts. We kind of know what the total estimated project costs are. I think our OPM and designer could figure out the bottom line. I did a back of the envelope calculation. And I think we just need to make sure that that is linked somewhere on the website through this postcard.
[Jenny Graham]: I think it's far too early for us to be using numbers that are A, not informed by any information directly from the MSBA and B, not reflective of any of the work that the city needs to do to determine like how this will be paid for. So I think that number would be fairly alarmist at this point where what I'm trying to do is make sure that the people who want to know about this project and want to be involved in it can do that. Whether we decide to send something out down the line is a different question. And we may, we may well want to do that as well, but we, I would not support sending a tax calculator out at this point in time. We don't know the total project costs. We don't know what the MSBA will cost share for. We don't know how the city can support this project without pushing it on taxpayers. Like we don't know any of the things that would be important to be able to create an accurate calculator.
[Luke Preisner]: So what would be the message of the mail? You said awareness, but we've been at it for two years. Everyone I talk to asks me about the high school and say, everyone in the city knows that we're thinking about a new high school. So like, maybe that's false, but that's my perception. And so, you know, the messaging, the literal words that go on the postcard are important. You don't want to mislead anybody and we should have a purpose for the mail. If it's only awareness, then that's going to lead to limited wording. If it's come on out and get involved, then that's different wording. It's going to have specific information for people to contact or otherwise get involved. Will we have a chance to discuss the words that go on mailer before it goes out?
[Jenny Graham]: We could. Two things. I agree with you. I believe that everybody knows about this project. I don't think that's an opinion that everybody in this room shares. Having said that, like we can do a draft or review and approval, and that would require a separate meeting for us to be able to do that because it has to happen in public session or we would be making a choice to delay that until 427, which is our next scheduled meeting. So I'm okay in either direction, but I think those are the options before us.
[Unidentified]: Libby? I think I agree with most people probably know about it, but the biggest thing might be just getting them to the website. So it's like this, you could find it where every meeting is and all the documents are here. The feed might be the only thing that is maybe we aren't aware about. So as long as that's on there, I think I'm happy.
[Libby Brown]: They can find the information they need.
[Suzanne Galusi]: I just want to extend that because I also agree that I think a lot of people know, but I don't know if everyone knows what is entailed in this project because one, I don't know if everyone understands what a comprehensive high school is, how many CTE shops we currently have or programs we currently have, how many CTE programs we're expanding to in this project, and then the other community-facing pieces that are part of this project. So I think people are aware of what is happening, but I don't know if they understand the depth of what's involved in this project.
[Kimberly Talbot]: That's awesome.
[John Falco]: don't agree that everybody knows. And my only feeling for why that can't be true is that literally a butter to the library claim to have no idea what construction, which to me says, some people are working hard to not know it almost. I mean, that example still blows me away. Because the library. Yeah. But you're literally against the library and you said you didn't know until it was being demolished. I mean, that was, That was a wake up call to me that they're going to be good to not know until it's done. Like they're going to be like driving by and be like, Oh, I guess we're going to do that. So I think we need to get everybody Nicole.
[Jenny Graham]: Yeah, I agree. I think we could go back and forth all night as far as like how we, like what circles we run in and who we think knows about it. I do think what Dr. DeLucia said is really important. Just like the extent of the project, because I think a lot of people do, you know, yes, new high school, but I run in circles with people with three and four-year-olds. They don't really know unless they're like me, they don't really know what goes on at the high school.
[Libby Brown]: But even if they're involved in like MFN too, they don't know what goes on. So I think really covering the comprehensive aspect, I think it's really important, particularly at this point.
[Luke Preisner]: So I like what Dr. Gillespie said. She outlined an objection, which is we want to spread the word about growth areas, the community facing aspects. That's an objective. And that's something we can discuss and either agree or disagree with. And then wording comes with that. I think we should discuss it before we commit dollars to it.
[John Falco]: I would also further think that the mailer needs to make it quick. Like lots of people are pulling, googling what's a high school cost. And I think they have an answer, but all the other high schools are just high schools, skipping the vocational conversation of it. We're not just a high school, we're a pile of city services that happen to be located in the building that aren't in any of these other high schools that people make access to. So I think this is a comprehensive high school, that means the vocational programming, the non-vocational programming, and then it's also a pile of other things that are not high school at all. And having that conversation one person at a time, it's exhausting, I'm sure we've all had that conversation. and it'd be helpful to have it. Don't ask me how you communicate all that on a postcard. It's a lot, but I would hope that we could at least also communicate this is not just the high school.
[Luke Preisner]: And I think that's actually a really important message. I would, my recommendation would be to receive MSBA's feedback on what's reimbursable and what's not. So that, you know, when we word the mailer, We have that knowledge and we don't indicate the things which are not reimbursable. Many of these community amenities are in fact part of the MSBA reimbursement proposition to us, right? That's their value proposition. If you conform to our standards and follow our process, we'll share the cost with you. And there's aspects of our project that may not be reimbursable and you and I, probably already know what those are, but it's not real until the feedback arrives. So let's wait until the feedback arrives. We have the document and then we'll proceed with the mail. being sufficiently informed as to the scope, the extent, that I wouldn't say that people are conversant, knowledgeable about and so on, especially if they're going to be asking me to make a decision around financial impacts. And this is something we've talked about. The committee has, and I just read some of it now, all the information is on the website, it can be looked at, but the committee tends to want the community come to you. I am an advocate of you going out to the community. It's one of the most effective ways to go out to different school districts at those locations physically and meet with groups of people, answer their questions, have a two-way dialogue. That hasn't been going on. So I think, do people know about this project going on? Yes. Do they understand? the implications of it, not comprehensive. So I think it is more of an issue.
[Jenny Graham]: That's my view. Can I just ask you to come forward? Just the people on Zoom aren't going to be able to hear you in the back, and it makes it really hard for them to know what's going on.
[John Falco]: The idea is that I think our library is a community center. I agree, it should go out to the schools, but the community library, they should have some big posters as to possible developments, of course, talking with the librarians to find out, but they have so much space. I think they would give it and allow to know what's going on, what are the options and when it should be plotted and completed and all this, you know, a timeline. Thank you.
[Maria D'Orsi]: Karen?
[Aaron Olapade]: I attended one of the MSBA's roundtables in late November of last year, and they talked a lot about the general recommendations or standards that most communities will follow in communication out to the community. One of the recommendations was a mailer. They said that this is generally for folks in the public who may not have access to technology or may not use it commonly, who generally are more used to kind of word of mouth interaction. They found that this is one way to, I think, start to reinvigorate the interest. And I think many people in the community have mentioned that there is an understanding that it's happening, but maybe not more than you want components of it. And I think that, you know, we've been doing this for quite a while now as a committee. And so it's a little bit easier for us to understand what's going on because we've been doing it ourselves. And so I think that, you know, as we get closer and closer to these final decisions, community members are starting to want to learn more, but may not know exactly what touch points to hit upon or which members of the community to reach out to that they may know from other circles. For me, I'm supportive of the mailer. I appreciate Luke's perspective about what is the actual intention of it and how do we get that information across in the most succinct way in a short, maybe six by nine mailer. But I'm not quite sure about, we have the time right now, given what we're trying to accomplish in this timeline that we've already set to discuss the specifics and the language of reuse and then do that. I think we can make the decision we want to do it and then discuss the language and work together to find that. But I'm not sure we want to do that first. you do something like this, so it doesn't feel like we're outside the recommendations of the partner we're working with.
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: Mayor? Thank you, Chair Graham. I do agree we need a mailer, if not two, one coming down the line with price tags. But I think if it leads to the website, that's really important. And I don't think there's anything stopping our designers or our OPM from flying carbon copying it to everybody on the committee for feedback before it goes out without having to meet him, meeting a meeting. So I think we can move for approval, but make sure that the committee sees it one way or another through people that won't break over meeting violation.
[Jenny Graham]: There was a motion on the floor by the mayor. Is there a second?
[Libby Brown]: Second. Yes, you just, if you can just come a little closer so we can.
[Luke Preisner]: I'm old school, and I went to the old school that was finished off in 1970. This was started in 1971, I believe. And it seems like it's like 56 years old. I'm thinking, this brick and mortar building looks pretty damn good outside. And with all the leaks we've got since 1971, we're not even one year old, and the contractor never came back. We're always notified. repeatedly. So I think old school, and you're going to change flat roofs like maybe 10, 15, 20 years, whenever the old timer comes up to inspect for you, instead of a knock, et cetera. In my opinion, so it looks pretty solid out there. And the old high school, I got out of that one, 68, 11 years. Anyways.
[Jenny Graham]: Did you have a comment about the mailer?
[Luke Preisner]: No, that's the subject? Yes. Well, I'm worried about spending hundreds of millions of dollars. This is my first time here and probably my last. But I want to say the old high school is going to be standing like the Coliseum in Rome. And when I went there, we were on a split session after we started in 1965. And we went to two buildings that were open. And we had a plywood hallway. And the center building was bright, and the one in the rear The location was burned. It was a vicious fire. And I would think we would be like six, seven years on split sections of eight to 12 and one to five. Why couldn't they have built those two wings that were burned and then switched the other way and remodeled the other two wings that we were using? I don't know. There were 8,000 homes in this city. 100 years old. And these immigrants with two rolls in our paycheck, if they made $2.50. These old homes are still standing. Thank you for listening.
[Jenny Graham]: Thank you. Is there a second?
[John Falco]: I will second.
[Jenny Graham]: I'm sorry, who?
[John Falco]: Nicole.
[Jenny Graham]: OK, sorry, Nicole. OK, I will call the roll. Jenny Graham, yes. Mayor Wendell Carter, yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Onto the main event.
[John Falco]: Yes. I did get some feedback from people online that absolutely nobody who doesn't come sit up here is being heard online.
[Jenny Graham]: Okay. So for everyone in the room, we're going to need to join us temporarily here at the table so people can hear you. Okay. Thank you for that. Okay. I'm going to turn it over to the project team. The thing that we are here to do tonight as a reminder, is to make some choices that bring our field of consideration from 29 options down to three to five. So the project team has prepared some information about all the various ways we've received community input so far. And we'll go through that. And then we'll also share the straw poll that we agreed to at our last meeting as a starting point. I also just want to reiterate that the reason we're making this down selection now is because it was the request of the MSBA so that they could focus their energy and effort on a deeper level of feedback on this important project on a smaller number of options rather than trying to sort of spread all 29. So we don't yet have feedback from the MSBA, but that is that is forthcoming and they are awaiting this decision of our three to five so that they can provide that feedback. I'm going to turn it over to the project team who's going to take us through some slide about all the community input we have received so far.
[Matt Rice]: Thank you, Jenny. I'm just going to give a quick reminder as to the different types of engagement that we've had, both because just a good to have reminder of what we did, but also for folks that have maybe not been engaged throughout the process, just have an understanding holistically of what we've been able to run through. And so it's taken a variety of forms. There was a good level of effort associated with the community workshops and the staff workshops that happened about two or three weeks ago now in terms of timing, but we tried to approach it in a variety of ways. We did solicit priorities in the form of both some pom-poms that were identified in terms of being located in a variety of jars, as well as write-in priorities as well. If the prescribed priorities that were listed out that we've heard organically from the process were not listed amongst them. We've had some activities that focused on looking at adjacencies for the overall building design in the program. both within the building and then outside the building as well in terms of site program. And then we actually did some activities that involved opportunities to look at the overall scale and scope of the program for the project and how it would fit on the site in the form of two-dimensional and three-dimensional models that we had available at both the staff and community workshops. Additionally, we've handed out at all these activities that we've been doing some voice and vision cards, which allow everyone to provide us more direct input, not prescribed, but really provide us any type of feedback that's going to be on people's minds after they're engaging with the different workshop activities. And then we solicited feedback on the different alternatives that were out there, the 29 different alternatives. In the form of heat maps really of interest. I'm using color dots that have been distributed at various points throughout the process. So we have compiled all the data that we've gotten through all these various engagement methods and we want to share that first with everyone today. And then as Jenny mentioned, we're going to shift over to results of the straw polls. So first to just cover the input that we got from the voice and vision cards. These were the small, small postcard type cards that were handed out and really we solicited feedback on. What we've done is gone through and used some character recognition and some AI to synthesize the feedback that we've gotten there. And we've created some high-level takeaways from that. We will have available on the website all the individual data responses that we got in case people want to dig into those. But what we're trying to do is pull out trends and overlapping interests where we've seen them. Um, so just very quickly, um, we've broken them out, uh, from the different groups that we solicited feedback from, um, this one that's up on screen now is, uh, feedback that we've gotten from staff. Um, and again, we've broken this out into groupings here, um, in terms of just overlapping drivers that we saw emerge. Um, there's definitely a focus, um, on work environment facilities that one would expect from staff, um, from, um, There's a focus on student support as well and having that connected to CTE excellence. And also a focus on operations and logistics in terms of how the site operates, drop off traffic activity on site. And so I think these were as expected, it certainly aligns with what we've heard anecdotally from staff throughout the process. One of the particular items on the work environment facilities is this notion of class ownership and the notion that teachers own their classrooms here today. They don't move around. And that is it's certainly been a challenge in terms of having people be acclimated to the MSBA process where that's not an allowable model as we move forward. What we're trying to do is make sure that the building can be as efficient as possible. So it's something that's changing over. So this is this is not solving any of the issues as we have them displayed up here but it's really identifying what we've heard and letting us focus on those particular topics as we move forward. in terms of thinking about the design. Just big picture takeaways. I'm going to try to not delve into too much detail here. There is a lot of wonderful detail that we've heard from all these different groups but we do want to make sure that we save time to get to the deliberation on the different alternatives. So I'm going to try and give high level overviews here. On the community side again sort of the grouping of the feedback that we got was really centered around public resources and the school as a community hub. this notion of the neighborhood impact and also the sustainability of the building overall, as well as academic excellence in the priorities. And so that's important that it's coming from the community as well. That's not just high school staff or students, that's really the outside vision and perception of what the school really represents. And so you can see also here some particular topics that re-emerged, preservation of the pool, gym, and vocational shops as these public assets. ensuring academic spaces and teacher needs are prioritized in some cases over athletic or extra facilities. So in that case there's some competing senses of what the community is giving us feedback on. And that'll continue as we go through the process. From the parents that submitted the voice and vision cards again the groupings here were around student well-being and athletics. The notion of the safety commute and campus flow, again, this focus of site circulation, drop off and leaving the site as well. As well as, again, this focus on specialized academic programs and spaces, which includes this highlight of CTE being connected to that. And again, this covers a range of topics from modernizing sports facilities, again, focused on the gym and pool. ensuring safe biking and walking routes and these dedicated spaces, again, for early childhood, CTE and the arts.
[Luke Preisner]: Can I make a comment before we start the next section? Sure. I just want to make an observation that these are responses from maybe 120 individuals, but we're a city of 60,000, 45,000 or 40,000 are probably adults. We did talk about a mailer earlier, And we don't have to discuss it, but I just wanna float an idea. These were the important thoughts and concerns from the self-selected respondents, right? But not the whole community. Would there be a way through the mailer to conduct a straw poll of what's important for the community? If we're gonna spend money to reach out to 40,000 people, one piece of value that we could extract out of it is learning what the community wants and what the community thinks is important in a new high school. So just food for thought.
[Matt Rice]: Thank you. And just to maybe respond to that, I think it is completely viable to do something like that. We've already have created electronic versions of those voice and vision cards. So we can include a link to that as part of the mailer that goes out so that people can fill that out electronically and get it back to us. I think the advantage there also is that we have also multiple language translations, so it can get out to a wider variety of people. And then we can take that in and perform the same type of analysis that we've done on it with a smaller sample size with that larger group in terms of the feedback. We'll just have to think through the timing of it in terms of, again, going back to your earlier point of sort of what is the message, and then when can we get something back in a timely manner. But I think it's a good opportunity. All right. So the pom-pom jars. So these again were the, a series of physical glass jars that we gave priority pom-poms to for every participant at the staff workshop and the community workshop. And we had prescribed priorities that aligned with things that we've heard previously. So these are the topics as they run from top to bottom, site safety, security and traffic, educational plan and equity, interior exterior design, CTE spaces, sustainability, the athletic facilities, outdoor learning spaces, ease of maintenance and operations, the trailheads and the connections to the fells, community gathering facilities, construction timeline and keeping construction costs low. So in terms of where respondents actually dropped their pom-poms into, this was the distribution that occurred across the entirety of the meeting. So here we had a 416 votes cast. And we did have a couple of write-in priorities as well. And so you can see those off to the right-hand side. So this just gives you a general sense, again, of those who participated sort of where the priority is aligned amongst this group. There's a lot more detail here in terms of some additional comments that were provided as part of the process. This is just a sampling from that full data set. But again, we'll make the full data set available if anyone wants to read through the entirety of it, just to make sure that there's transparency into sort of what we're taking in and sharing. And similar here, I'm not going to run through all of these, but there is good feedback here that's definitely going to be taken into the process as we're proceeding to the next stages of design. In terms of the building opportunities, we did ask as well some questions on those voice and vision cards about what people learned. in terms of the process of looking at the models that we had, the two-dimensional and three-dimensional models, looking about really a variety of sort of higher level topics, right? And this is where we saw the majority of feedback come back in, in these groupings. So there's been a little bit of AI use here to help synthesize the data and sort of create some core takeaways. Again, I'm not gonna read through all of these at this particular point, The higher level topics, right, new construction versus renovation, looking at multifunctional parking solutions, site access and traffic mitigation, the integration of special programs such as the Curtis Tufts Therapeutic Program, the modernized STEM and maker spaces utilizing the topography that exists on site, capacity for future growth, HVAC and overall air quality, visual communication engagement, as well as flexible and interdisciplinary layouts. The really great thing here is that these topics have a lot of alignment with things that came out of the educational visioning processes, as well as the educational programming processes. So it's not like there's two completely disconnected trains of thought that we're seeing in terms of what we have been having conversations about with the educational leadership, as well as sort of school occupants and visioning team, as well as the larger community that we're talking with as well as the high school staff, the full staff body. And then just one particular takeaway that I think was really what we were hoping for in terms of just trying to conduct these activities with the models to let people understand the complexity of really the project overall. Um, that it's, there's a lot of, um, moving parts to it. Um, there's a lot of nuance to it. Um, and, um, whether it's a new construction or it's an additional renovation option, um, there's, there's, um, a whole host of issues that need to be sorted out. And those are specific.
[Luke Preisner]: Those aren't like, um, they're not synthesized folks. They're specific individuals. Exactly. Yeah.
[Matt Rice]: All right. Um, And so the last piece of feedback that we just want to share before we jump to the straw poll is really the collection of feedback that we've gotten on the different alternatives at the different points that we've had these heat map interest boards for the different alternatives available to the building committee, to the community. And so if you recall these dot boards, we did the first iteration of this activity back at the end of the January 14th building committee meeting, When we had both the building committee members given colored dots, as well as community members that were here in attendance, they were allowed to sort of put those colored dots on options that they had interest in. And so we did that activity again with the full high school staff on the March 3rd staff workshop that we held. And then we did it one more time with the entire community, the community workshop on March 5th that we held. Um, so what we've done is actually combined all that data together. Um, we've actually then layered on as well. We hadn't a butters meeting on the 18th of March, um, where we allowed them to overlay their interest level, um, on top of the larger community meeting, um, preferences as well. So we've taken that sort of numerical, um, pulse of where things were just by counting up, um, the actual dots on the individual alternatives as they were listed out. Um, but because that's a little tough to go through there and read it and understand it, we also create a graphic exhibit that helps to reflect where the higher quantity of votes lie. So the way that this graphic works is that the larger images are the ones that received more votes. And for those of you in the room, I know that this is blocking that number in the top right hand corner. So as a for instance, the T 2.1 option had a total of 43 votes that it got. amongst those grouping of feedback opportunities that we had. The next highest was the C3.4, which received 28 votes. I mean, we really go in that level or that order, descending order, as we get into the smaller quantities of options that had votes to them.
[Luke Preisner]: Can I ask about the voting pool?
[Jenny Graham]: Luke?
[Luke Preisner]: Does this include our votes too?
[Jenny Graham]: No.
[Luke Preisner]: Oh, okay. I know what I voted for. I don't see it here. So there's a straw poll. It's marked as a zero now, but I know I voted for it.
[Jenny Graham]: Oh, well, your votes are not in here.
[Luke Preisner]: I know. I asked what was the voting pool, what was the population of voters. So I want to clarify that it wasn't this committee.
[Matt Rice]: No, that's what this is. So I'm just going to back up to clarify in terms, because there's two different graphics I'm going to show you. In a second, I'm going to show you the results of the straw poll, which I think is what you're asking about, Luke.
[Luke Preisner]: Not exactly, because option A wasn't part of the straw poll.
[Matt Rice]: Correct, because option A is going to move forward regardless. So I just want to point out that when we're showing this collection of data, there was an initial vote by the building committee, or not a vote, but a level of interest shown. at the end of the January 14th meeting. So everyone that put dots on at the end of the 14th meeting, your choices are reflected in this graphic. This graphic, however, did not reflect the straw poll. So the straw poll was conducted. And I think up until about 5 p.m. this evening, we were taking in those responses. We were able to collect them. Those are the numbers that you see here. And then what's actually showed up on screen now, similar chart, but this is just reflective of the straw poll preferences. From the Billing Committee, it included both the voting members and the non-voting members in this pool is who the straw poll was open to. So we have this diagram to refer to, and we have this diagram to refer to. This is a little bit larger in terms of the sample size of what it was collecting, but both are sort of equally valid in terms of the...
[Jenny Graham]: Matt, before we move on, can you talk a little bit about the pool in these various scenarios? So I think there's some confusion because some of the designs people see, they can't easily see the pool. So can you tell us, are there any designs where you have costed the design without a pool?
[Matt Rice]: Where we have costed the design without a pool, no. OK.
[Jenny Graham]: And if we don't see a pool with our visual eye on a graphic, does that mean the pricing is for a freestanding pool and it could essentially go anywhere?
[Matt Rice]: Yes, that is the case. So just to really simplify it for folks, all the A, B, and C options include costs for a renovated pool.
[Jenny Graham]: In place.
[Matt Rice]: In place, where exactly the same pool as it is, we're just We're fixing it to meet code to make sure that it's both energy code compliant, accessibility compliant. And that's what's represented in the cost as well as the visuals. For the new construction options, the D options, they all represent a new freestanding pool building. The only thing that I think is a little bit confusing about a couple of the D options is it's not shown as a separate building. it still would be new construction. It could still be attached, but it would just have to be separated physically from the rest of the interior circulation of the building and the mechanical electrical systems, that type of thing.
[Jenny Graham]: And that's because the MSBA requires that separation. Is that correct?
[Unidentified]: That is correct. Yes.
[Jenny Graham]: And what would, um, can you also explain how, um, the project, a separate pool project would be like managed and paid for?
[Matt Gulino]: Yeah, do you want to talk to the short? Yeah. So, through the, um. In a renovation option, they will allow you to renovate the pool. They will not reimburse for any of that work, but they will allow you to incorporate it into the project. If it's a renovation. If it is a new school building, a new. Cool facility, it needs to be broken out of the project completely. It needs to be procured. It needs to be its own separate project, essentially. It needs to be funded completely different from the MSBA school building. So we have included that in the cost analysis so far to date so that we understand what that cost looks like. But as we move forward, and if we have any of those D options that has a new pool, we'll have to break that out, kind of show it down at the bottom, broken out from the high school project. but still have that cost so everybody understands what a potential new facility would cost. But come vote time, it would have to be under its own project, kind of handled separately from high school. So the MSBA simply will not let you build a school project if a new pool is in it. So two separate votes. Correct.
[Jenny Graham]: Will, did you have your hand in the air?
[Will Pipicelli]: I did, yeah. So just kind of going back visually. So while you're saying that, Right. So like D1.1, for example, the pools in that kind of H-shaped design. That's correct. And then in like D2.1, the pool is kind of that freestanding square. Right.
[Matt Rice]: And so that's what I was referring to, Will, is like the confusion. So in both of those cases, it is a separate pool structure. And it would just not, if it was in the D1.1 option that's on site, it might be at the end of one of these legs, say, interior connection to the rest of the building. It could be either scenario, but it does need to be a separate little structure. Thank you.
[John Falco]: And in my remembering one of our previous spreadsheets that in all scenarios, a new pool and a separate building is cheaper than the renovation.
[Unidentified]: Yes.
[John Falco]: Yeah.
[Unidentified]: Yeah.
[John Falco]: For people that are mostly concerned about the cost, which everybody should be concerned about the cost, the more expensive option is to keep the pool. If you want a pool, if we build a pool, it will cost less to build a new one. And we're free to kind of build it any which way we want and any kind of considerations about a public pool versus if it's part of a high school where it's going to be high school security and all the other stuff involved. So I think it's important to know that if zoning is your biggest concern, you do not want to keep the pool. You want a new pool. Because it's millions of dollars cheaper. I just, I think that can't be overstated. Also, if we renovate the pool, you'll have no pool for 12 to 18 months. I mean, there's not going to be a, if we build a new pool, we can probably build it before we even close the old pool. So depending on options. So it's going to be a new pool, not only going to get to that, it's going to be cheaper.
[Libby Brown]: Um, yeah. So when you say two votes, that's two votes by this committee is what you're referring to. Two separate votes are you talking about? There will be two funding votes. Two funding votes. Okay. So two separate votes on... Or somebody with a few million dollars to repay.
[Jenny Graham]: But yeah, but yeah. Separate, separate. We're getting an anonymous benefactor.
[Suzanne Galusi]: Um, so it will be two separate, they would have to be separated, two separate debt exclusions. Correct. Okay. Thank you. Well, um, sorry, Luke.
[Luke Preisner]: So Paul, just point of clarification. regarding the pool costs. I don't believe that I've seen an artifact that was generated, which compared the cost of renovation versus new. I'm not saying one wasn't created. I just haven't seen it. What I have seen are estimate initial space summary estimates, and they don't distinguish between renovation or new build. They just assign square footage, the pool. And I haven't seen any Um, cost rate, um, that, uh, I'll say discriminates between whether it's renovated or new. And so in the absence of that, I assumed cost would be the same. Um, what artifact do we have that we can point to which supports the claim that a new pool is cheaper than a renovated pool? Uh, yeah.
[John Falco]: It's on our website. It can be, uh, it can be cost. Thank you. It is okay. A brand new school is 12,000,710 renovated schools, 14,760. So a little over two million. Okay.
[Unidentified]: So if it's, if it's, uh, Matt also created a document that I, it's helpful for me. It was the PDP alternates that he sent out last week. And it kind of goes over these options, which is great. Yes. That's I think we'll all just, well, it's like, it's like even more detailed. Okay.
[Jenny Graham]: Um, I want to, take public comment before we get into struggling and reducing and all of those good things. But before we do that, I just wanna make sure the committee doesn't have any other burning questions about what we've heard so far. Okay, for those of you on Zoom, if you would like to speak during public participation, you can just use the raise hand feature and we'll alternate between the folks in the room and the folks on Zoom and hopefully that'll keep us moving. Everyone, please state your name and address for the record and please keep your comments brief so we don't have to get out of the timer. Hi.
[Luke Preisner]: Chip Myers, 197 Place Ted Road. So I understand Paul's comment about how if it's separate and it may be cheaper, although My experience with construction is that renovation can be cheaper. I don't know if that's, I don't think we necessarily have to take that for granted, that it would be cheaper versus a new structure. But that said, I think if you care about the pool, there's a very real chance politically, if you have two separate votes, that people who are really concerned about the overall cost to the project will not vote for the pool if it's not incorporated with the overall project. And I think that is a more important issue, particularly if you care about the pool.
[Unidentified]: Um, regardless.
[Roberta Cameron]: Hello, thank you for giving me the opportunity to speak. I wanted to reiterate, can you hear me? Roberta Cameron, 12 North Street. And I'd like to just piggyback on a couple of things that have been mentioned already. The importance of the school as a community, all of the community functions that are bundled in this one building. And I think that the pool and the gym are two of those really important community functions, as well as just in general, the amount of space that is in the building as it is today. And I am keenly aware of how not only how much it costs to build municipal space and school space for any purpose, but also how difficult it is to get the funding for that. There really aren't many funding sources that will help to pay for the community space that we need for any purpose. So I think it's really important to prioritize a solution that saves the parts of the building that we can, assuming that we're never going to be able to politically fund a second round of, to obtain a second round or separate round of funding to rebuild some of the space like the pool. and that we need to maximize the amount of space that we get in the school building when the project is completed, because that's going to give us the most flexibility to meet our community needs going forward. Just literally having indoor space is going to help us to meet community needs. So that's basically the comments that I wanted to make. Thank you very much.
[Jenny Graham]: Thank you, Roberta. Hi. I mean, I just for the record.
[Maria D'Orsi]: Wanted it to be welcoming, but yeah. I'm Sunny Dillard. I have a 39. I've listened to a lot of these meetings and I just want to say thank you for all this hard work. This is not easy. I do these projects. I've worked with MSBA. I know how difficult this is, but I also feel like there's not There's not a clear awareness of what MSBA funds and how much this is going to cost the taxpayers. I want this project so badly. I have a two-year-old. I have friends who have small-to-middle-families. I think this is an incredible community resource. And it's clear that the community wants this as a hub. But I think we can do it with a smaller price tag. I think I'm very familiar with the space summary, and I would encourage everyone on this committee to take a look at that space summary because the only way we're going to reduce the cost is to reduce square footage. And I think it's through this committee to take a look at what MSBA recommends and how much we're over. There's a whole document that SMMA prepared about the variances that are incredibly important to look at. MSBA looks at that. I think there are a few items in here that I'm frankly sort of frustrated or even in the space somewhere. Just as a designer and as someone who knows how this project works, I voted for all of these people that wanted this project to go forward because it's so important for our community, but it's more important for this project to go forward than for it to not. We asked for a better school. We didn't ask for a worse school. I think that's really important. And I'm happy to talk with people after about the Space Summary and where I think we can save. So I think there are things that can have more dual purposes. I think we need to understand the utilization rate of the existing school spaces to understand why we need more. There are so many things in the Space Summary that are not in the existing school, and we probably need some of them. Do we need all of them? I don't know. I trust you guys to figure that out. I don't have the memory of that, but I know a lot of people that have been really appalled by the cost and have talked about a code upgrade. And that's frankly not going to serve our community. We know that. We know that we need this project needed to be more than a code upgrade. And that's cool.
[Jenny Graham]: Just so you know, our meeting at the end of April will be talking about some of those potential scope changes, so we will be diving deep into all of those things.
[Maria D'Orsi]: I do really hope that this committee can do some work for them, though, to really think about what elements on that space summary need to be looked at, because the architect's estimators are going to need time to figure that out. That deadline is approaching quickly.
[Libby Brown]: Thank you.
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: through the chair. On that point, when is the time to talk about the variances and reducing space? And I'm asking that to our designers and architects. It sounds like that's what our last speaker was that works with the MSBA. Sounds like we should be doing it now. And I brought that up at the last meeting and I was told now is not the time, but maybe just a further explanation of why not and when is the time?
[Suzanne Galusi]: If I could just jump in a little bit. As behind the scenes, the Medford Public Schools folks are working very closely with SMA and the left field team to dig into that space summary, just to Sunny's point.
[Jenny Graham]: We are looking at all those little spaces and trying to find the efficiencies and trying to make sure that this building is the right size for the needs of the Medford community and school. And I think that is, you know, we are having some really deep dives into the space summary, into the educational plan looking back to the educational programming on exactly what spaces were talked about and needed early on. And I think this is part of this entire process. And I know it's hard to see when you see options and kind of think this is a fully flushed out building. But the first steps are, if you were building a house, I was talking internally about this process and bring it back to just building a house. If you have a family of five who want different things, they start with all of those things on the table. And then from there, you come back and say, we don't really need a basketball court in our home. We have one in the school up the street. We can take that off the table because we can't afford it right now, or because it doesn't meet our needs as a family, or we can get that from another space nearby. And then you start to wean down that list, and then you can get to that point where you have what's right for you and your family, and you move that forward. the process we're working on behind the scenes is whittling down what is identifying what is right for the building, the community, through the space summary. And we will be bringing that back to this committee on April 27 to discuss those recommendations.
[Phil Santos]: Thank you.
[Maria D'Orsi]: Bill, did you have a question?
[Phil Santos]: I just want to say that I think that it's great that we're having those meetings, but My frustration is the fact that I think that these meetings are happening and then I don't know about anybody else in the committee, but I don't get copies of any meeting minutes of all the meetings that happen throughout the month. I don't know what conversations are being had. So like if you're talking about building a house, right, well, the people that are making the decision should probably get information on what you're discussing. And maybe we have a good idea. Maybe we can chime in on something. I don't expect to be at every meeting, right, because I'm not This is only a full-time job. It is yours. So I'm glad that we have somebody on the team to do this stuff. But I think sharing of that information would be highly useful and give me more confidence that this stuff is being done. And then I can be an advocate and I can explain to other people that this information is available and is being shared and we're doing right. But because I come to these meetings, I'm on the committee and I hear information through emails a little bit. And then at these meetings, and then we're, you know, luckily I'm not a voting member, so I'm not, I don't have the pressure of voting like everybody else, but I feel, I would feel a sense of dread coming to these meetings and having to vote on things that I'm hearing for the first time, so. That's all.
[Jenny Graham]: I see online we have Erica DeRoche.
[Maria D'Orsi]: Erica?
[SPEAKER_03]: Hi, yes, I was just unable, I was just able to unmute myself. Thank you very much for taking my comment. My name is Erica Deroche. I live at 260 Willis Ave and This is the first time I'm engaging with the process. And, um, so with that background, um, I have not very familiar as the previous commenter, um, with the space, um, with the program and the space allocations, um, as they're being proposed. Um, but I have reviewed what I was able to find online of the 29 options. And my comment is basically that I would like the committee to please consider the long-term needs of the community. And when they think about the community, that they include the regional community in particular, as it relates to the pool use for the high school, It's an incredibly important resource for the community, not just Medford, but for the surrounding community. It's a life safety issue for the whole region, actually. Since pandemic, there's been a severe reduction in pool access, and it directly translates into into less safe, less water safety in the community and more drownings. I'm not to be alarmist, but it is a severe problem and there's a severe shortage in the area. So I just wanted to make that point. And I also, I just, now that there's gonna be a mailer and there'll be more outreach, I think that's a wonderful thing. And I appreciate that outreach and I would like I would like there to be really clear opportunity for community members to participate and give feedback in addition to the 100 or whatever who already have. But I find the options were not, the PDF that I found online, it was like a 2000 page PDF. It was not very clear to me what all the, advantages and disadvantages were of all of the different options. And I was wondering if there's any discussion in the C or D options related to embodied carbon. It seemed like that had only been considered in relation to the B options. And I just looking for a lot more clarity from the designers in regards to what those options are and a lot more community engagement. Thank you so much for taking my comment.
[Jenny Graham]: Thanks, Erica. And I think all of those are wonderful points. And with three to five options, I think we'll have a lot more opportunity to dive deep. So stay tuned for that. I will go to somebody in the room.
[Maria D'Orsi]: Yes, I'm Kathy Burns. I live at 166 Jerome Street. I have other colleagues here or school people. So I just want you to say that for me here.
[Kimberly Talbot]: I appreciate your highlighting the pool to understand some of the intricacies. And I do think the idea of comprehensive is probably not well understood by the larger community. So I think having a postcard and piggybacking on existing activities to do outreach will help with the notion of explaining how much the high school has going on. Thank you.
[Luke Preisner]: I want to just make a comment before we move on. So to Jen's point about, you know, building a house, when I build a house or buy a house, I start with the budget. And to Suni's point about space driving costs, we've talked about that many times. We all understand that the size is the proxy for So that sequence of three is something that might require feedback. Now, I don't want to articulate what that feedback looks like yet, but I do want to say budgets are important. And I know the city has been working on a capital plan. This is a city of 60,000 people. Some people send their kids to school. Other people, they don't have that need. That service isn't relevant for them. But they do need a fire headquarters. They do need road improvements. They need lots of things that are embodied in a capital plan. So at some point, and it doesn't have to be today, but maybe this summer before we start getting down to brass tacks, we should have both left field, take a look at the capital plan, the city's capital plan, figure out what all those things that are non-school are gonna cost people, and then figure out how much the school is gonna cost and add that up And then we have conversations about what the tax burden on our community for all the services that we need could look like, because the most vulnerable people in our community when it comes to taxes are people on fixed incomes. And we can't ignore that. So I just want to make the point, we can all think about it and maybe return to it in the future, hopefully in the near future. The city's capital plan is an important contributor to other decisions that affect this high school. And we should look at everything holistically. We shouldn't just treat the school as the only project the city needs, because that's not true. Just want to make that observation point.
[Jenny Graham]: Thank you. Medford Music Studio, I'm going to ask you to unmute.
[SPEAKER_23]: Hi there. Can everybody hear me?
[Jenny Graham]: We can.
[SPEAKER_23]: Hi, sorry, I couldn't figure out how to change the name on my thing. So this is Laura Brereton. I'm at 25 Wyman Street. And first, I wanted to just thank everybody. I know this is an enormous amount of work and we really appreciate everybody's efforts to work on this project. And admittedly, I'm getting a bit caught up with all of the details. I am predominantly here tonight because I want to learn more and be a little bit more aware of what's happening but I'm also one of those pool people and I use the pool for my own fitness and both of my children are on the swim team and I think it's a really important aspect of the school and to echo what some of the other previous community members have said It is an asset both safety-wise, recreationally, and I also think it's important to note that we make money from the pool because other communities that don't have a pool rent ours. And so it's an opportunity to, in the long run, continue to bring in some money that presumably would be useful and can be help the overall larger picture of this. I wanted to get a little clarifying question, and I do apologize if this has already been discussed and I missed it. As I said, I'm getting caught up a little bit. It sounds like there are options of the existing pool to be renovated or a brand new pool to be built. If the brand new pool is built, the two questions I have is, does the money that we currently have for this project include that separate pool building? And the second question is, is will the separate pool building be also built on the grounds of the existing high school, or will it be built somewhere else in the community? And again, I apologize if this has already been talked about. I'm just trying to get caught up. Thank you so much.
[Jenny Graham]: No problem. So Laura, a couple of answers to your questions. Um, whether we renovate the pool or we build a new pool, the MSBA does not cost share. So that those numbers will go before voters, presumably via a debt exclusion. Okay. Um, in terms of a new pool being built, I guess that's a great question. Um, whether it would be built here on premises or somewhere else. Um, we haven't gone down that rabbit hole just yet because we're just frankly, not quite there. Um, I did also just want to like correct the assumption that the pool is revenue generating. The pool operates at a substantial loss to Medford public schools. And that's something that I think the community just hasn't heard enough about and deserves a lot more information about. I think the pool is a wonderful community resource. I'm all for investing in community resources that benefit the community. My concern with my school committee hat on is right now that takes away resources from the kids in our district to have their own things that are sort of generally expected to come out of the operating budget. So there's a lot more information that needs to, I think, come forward and be more clear to people so that we understand what investments we're making and how and why. I'm a huge fan of the pool. I don't even use the pool. I think it would be important that we have one. I'm personally open to like all the different ways that we could do that. And I think we'll see a lot more about those variations as we go forward. But for right now, all of these options and the very high level pricing assume a pool. So hopefully that helps.
[SPEAKER_23]: Yeah, thank you so much. And my apologies, I should have obviously done my homework about the pool. I had assumed that because we rented to lots of other communities that that was some sort of revenue for us, but clearly that is not the case. And I wonder if when we get this new pool, if that model can be different and it can be somehow generating money for us. I don't, I'm just throwing that out there as an idea, but it sounds like that might be something that could change with this new plan.
[Jenny Graham]: Yeah, and I think elevating that need to solve that problem, no matter what the scenario, I think is really one of the things that's going to come out of this process very clearly. So thank you for that.
[SPEAKER_23]: Terrific. Thank you all again. Appreciate all your efforts.
[Jenny Graham]: Thanks, Laura. Norman Kaplan.
[DNuiAY3aRNM_SPEAKER_03]: Hi, I've just unmuted. I just want to make sure I can be heard.
[Jenny Graham]: We can hear you.
[DNuiAY3aRNM_SPEAKER_03]: All right, great. I, too, am a beneficiary of the pool, and I want to add my strong support for including a pool in any of the plans. And I hope the final decision will come down to only a binary choice between a new pool or a renovated pool. eliminating the pool is taken off the table as an option, it would be a terrible mistake. And eventually, there'd be regrets. Other people who benefit from the pool have spoken, and so I don't need to spend a lot of time. But I would like to just conclude by saying that in my own opinion, there are three major important contributors to quality of life here in Medford. I've been a resident for 11 years, and over that time I would say at the very top of that list are the library, the pool, and the recent enactment of the leaf blower ordinance, which will finally eliminate the toxic emissions of gas-powered leaf blowers. So with that said, I'll keep an eye on what's going on. And if I see the needles start to tilt towards eliminating the pool, I will be heard again. Thank you very much.
[Will Pipicelli]: Thank you, Norman. Norman, can you state your address for the record, please?
[DNuiAY3aRNM_SPEAKER_03]: Sure. Headland Way, 23 Headland Way.
[Jenny Graham]: Thanks, Norman. I'm in the room. Hi. Name and address for the record. Yeah.
[Libby Brown]: My name is Lisa Bonnell and I live at 19 Paul Road. And I just wanted to make a quick comment about the pool, because I went to the Tufts University presentation recently on the pool that they were building. And I worked at Tufts University for 20 years, about 30 years ago. And Nancy Bigelow was the swim coach and Don Negerley were the swim coaches. And they talked about the pool, the new pool they wanted. 30 years ago, they talked about this new pool that they wanted, but they had to wait until they got the funding because they needed approximately 50% of the funding and wouldn't even to dream about building the pool. So 30 years ago is when they started talking about it, the two swim coaches. who recently retired. They still work in development, I think. But nonetheless, it was a 30-year-ago dream. I mean, I know that the cool at the high school probably doesn't suit everybody's needs, but nor did Tufts University's cool fulfill all the dreams. And they have some really incredible swimmers coming out of that university. I mean, I don't know how many Olympians we have coming out of our school, but I mean, Nonetheless, it was, it took a long, long time. And right now I think they're at like 21 million. So they have to get to 27 million in order to have 50% of the money for the pool in order for them to begin this fall. So that's how much planning it took for them.
[Unidentified]: I know that these projects seem like they can happen like overnight, but Tufts University took a long time to make the dream happen. You know, you have a pool,
[Libby Brown]: We'll also have a new pool coming at Tufts University.
[Unidentified]: And I don't know what the membership fee is for the Medford residents. I think it's $30 or something like that. I don't know if it's that cheap, but I'm just saying that it's not something you can just say you're going to do and not think it's going to take like 20 years to come up with half the money.
[Libby Brown]: I mean, you know, you might be able to get some of the money from, you know, other funding, but to get like our money, to put our money into the project, we would need a lot of time to me to donate money and keep donating until you have the money that you need to fulfill the dream. That's all. I just wanted to tell you that.
[Jenny Graham]: Thank you. Dave Lane.
[SPEAKER_29]: Hey there. Can you hear me?
[Jenny Graham]: Yes.
[SPEAKER_29]: Awesome.
[Jenny Graham]: For the record, please.
[SPEAKER_29]: Yeah, I was getting there. Dave, love and Bella have first time caller, and I'm also going to jump into the pool party, a little bit as well as someone with four young kids to at the Roberts two more on the way to the Roberts in the next couple years, my family and I care quite a bit about what's. happening with the high school as it directly impacts I think our future plans to continue to live in Medford, which we'd obviously prefer to do. But I think a lot of young families like myself are having the same conversations, maybe not publicly, but certainly privately in terms of trying to understand where this is all going to net out to. So from that aspect or standpoint, I think people tend to, you know, the law of large numbers to a certain extent when you're talking about is the pool, you know, in the building, out of the building, whatever the case might be, being a differential of a couple million dollars is a fraction of a percent, right? When you're talking about these huge budgets, but every fraction obviously adds up and matters. But I think in, This is just feedback what would be really helpful for folks that aren't as close to it as all the committee members, which I, like, I think everyone else a big thank you for all the time you're volunteering to do all of this. It'd be really helpful to understand what the different funding break points are right? Because essentially, at a certain budgetary level, you're going to talk about. whatever property tax increases are going to happen or just different funding avenues that you're going to have to take in order to be able to create a functional path forward for building or rehabbing high school. And I'm not familiar with what those different break points really are in terms of funding. And then obviously, as it relates to other services that exist inside of a high school, like a swimming pool, I will say that I strongly believe that it is in the best interest of the entire community for us to have a pool located at the high school that is a community resource. Obviously, we have the North Shore Swim Club right there right now. If the pool was to be used in a new building, I think someone should definitely take a look at the economics of that in terms of maybe doesn't become revenue producing, but what does that actually look like in terms of offset against running expenses and everything else. However, based on what some of the other commentary was earlier, I think it would be very helpful if we could be able to also understand exactly what those funding options look like in the different snares, because based on what everyone has said, it's confusing to understand if building the pool as part of a renovation or building a net new building. Obviously, again, they're similar in price, but is the funding path to each similar or not? Meaning if it's bundled in with the school renovation, is it a foregone conclusion that the pool also has to be up to code, so to speak, in terms of the renovation, and that's the easier path forward or not. And I think a lot of us would probably want to understand that a little bit better. So thank you for taking my question or comment.
[Jenny Graham]: Thank you, Dave. Here in the room. I think that is for the record.
[Luke Preisner]: Paul Monteranzo, 25 Barber Lane. I want to thank you all for the work that you've put into this to date. I know this is not easy by any means, so As a resident, I appreciate the time and effort that everyone puts in. I know there's not one plan that's going to be a silver bullet that's going to address everyone's needs or desires. Uh, you know, but as I look at these plans, I would encourage this group to think about, so this is a civic building that the community should be proud about and proud about building and thinking about, you know, I think about from a site location, how do you celebrate that? What's, what's that look like from the street? And I think about the hundreds of thousands of students that are going to be going to this school, maybe walking into the school. And I can tell you having a daughter go into school today, it's hard to get her to walk to school today. So any consideration for new buildings that are pushed far back to the site, it's going to be just more of a challenge for kids to get their butt off those buses on Winthrop Ave to get into the school. And so again, I guess by clustering some of the buildings that affords opportunities to limit site construction, reduce costs and extend utilities and other upgrades in order to facilitate this construction.
[Matt Rice]: I understand it's also an opportunity to tap into that ledge and do a blasting. I get that. As a resident, I will say, I do live near this site.
[Luke Preisner]: I'm not interested in 80 years of blastings ahead of us. I would implore the group to consider, you know, this is a walking school. And so the closer you can bring it to the street where the kids are actually going to walk, that's going to help with pick up, drop off. You know, the farther you put it back, you know, more students are going to be getting dropped off and you have limited access. You have one access in, one access out, and you're going to try to widen that access. You can work with the synagogue or other means, but the farther you push it back as a parent, those kids are going to say, hey dad, can you drive me? I'm going to be dad, they're going to drive them every day. So it's going to amplify the traffic concerns or implications that you may not be realizing in a traffic report. But with that, we're going to vote those in. Thank you.
[Unidentified]: Thank you, Paul. Faye?
[SPEAKER_32]: Yeah, hi. My name's Faye Colan. I live at 9 Billings Avenue. And I'm very new to a lot of this information. I don't have any children, but I do feel very committed to the schools. I tried my best to fill out the survey, but it was confusing. The main thing I wanted to get across when I filled it out was the importance of the pool. I'm another pool person and it has meant so much to me to be able to swim at the Medford High Pool. Just in terms of close proximity, I'm a senior, so just having to kind of go up the street and swim is just like so wonderful. I think the great thing about the pool is it also allows people in the community to take part in pool activities. And I go swimming and I see other seniors there. And it's just so wonderful to have this pool that that senior citizens can be part of. And I think it's so important to continue it. And I feel, I myself feel pretty flexible. As long as we have some sort of pool that we can go to, I would be happy. So I'm really here to put in a strong vote for a pool.
[Jenny Graham]: Thank you, Fay. Alicia?
[Alicia Hunt]: Good evening. Excuse me. Thank you. Alicia hunt 41 Watson Street. I'm a parent of current student and two who have already graduated and I just wanted to make a couple of comments as a member of the community this evening. I note that a number of people are really, really fixated on the price, and I think it's important, and it might need to come from our OPM to remind us, but the price right now is primarily based on square footage and not on all the other details. And therefore, choosing right now by price is a weird choice to be making in this point. That's the decision we make as we look at what the spaces are critically. and look at that further down the line. Right now, I think it's really important that as we look at this matrix, I really appreciated seeing the criteria matrix online, that we think about some of the things like long-term flexibility. This is a building for the next 50 to 80 years for educating our children. And I think that's really, really important to remember because education changes over 10, 20, 30, 50 years. So having spaces built that can be used and flexed differently is super important. It's actually fascinating to me how vocational education is really back heavily and core. And that is something that has done like a 50-year turnaround that has changed so dramatically. That's going to come and go. My sons have benefited amazingly from our vocational program. and I hope it remains strong, but just thinking about what is the flexibility, and it may not be robotics and engineering that is the most important thing in 20 years, it might be something else that we haven't even thought of in our vocational spaces, so having spaces that we can flex over time is important. I also wanted to agree with Paul, who was in the room, about location on the site. That is one of the big differentiators that I'm seeing and understanding from this matrix. And I really love the idea that children's education won't be disrupted. And it's really, I don't know that it's fair for me to say this, because my son will have graduated by the time this is under construction. But we need to think about the education for everybody and not just the, four years of students who or two years who are gonna suffer with this construction on their site. It really is a shame that that has there's no other way to do it. We looked very hard at the city there's nowhere else to put this but we need to think about the long-termness and if you bring the building closer to the front it does make it more welcoming for people who are trying to walk and bicycle to the site. And I think the other thing that's really important is thinking about site circulation and bus drop off and traffic as we deal with this, because as much as I wish that would go away, it won't. And I just wanted to make one other comment that I personally is that I feel it's really important for people to realize. Actually, this sorry, I have to say it was raised by a member of the committee. The idea that the school only benefits people with children. Every person in our community benefits from all children being engaged in their education and getting an excellent education. Whether or not you have children, will ever have children, because you want smart people working around you, living around you, people who've been educated doing things. And kids who have checked out of school because their school is not a nice place to be, are not productive members of community in the long run. And the idea that only people who have children benefit from a school is actually the equivalent of saying only people who have a fire in their house benefit from a firehouse. And I just needed to sort of give voice to that because it really bothered me. Thank you very much. And I really appreciate the incredible hard work that you are all doing and the benefit of the quality of life for the students in the long run for this. So thank you.
[Jenny Graham]: Thank you, Alicia. You're in the room.
[Libby Brown]: Hi, I'm Jenna Capeley from 22 Raleigh Grove. And I'm speaking because I remember my father saying, and I grew up in Cleveland Eastside, that one of the most important things was that you had to learn how to swim in order to graduate.
[John Falco]: And always stayed with me because as a water safety instructor and lifeguard, I know how important it is whether, I hope never favor on this because in doing a comprehensive study of schools that have pooled you'll find that more students, you know, they don't drown, they know how they handle themselves in boats, et cetera. So definitely stay on this point, as I am a pool person. And also to study the integrity of our pool, is it good? And I'm sure, you know, I know we had to replace some tiles, but, you know, weigh carefully whether we need a pool versus an old.
[Libby Brown]: And as a teacher in Lexington, I'm finding that having passed,
[Unidentified]: Sometimes the new materials in buildings are not as good as some of the old structures.
[John Falco]: So I'm just saying, for the building, sometimes older is better, and then build on to that. Hopefully that's still good quality. Also, well.
[Unidentified]: Thank you very much, and I appreciate the work, too.
[Jenny Graham]: Thank you. I see Debbie online. Debbie Steiner.
[JknWFpZeyhQ_SPEAKER_27]: Hi there. Thank you everybody. It sounds to me like I got misinformation. So just FYI, I feel I would like to just apologize because I was told from somebody who does a lot of work with the pool that one of the options would be not to have a pool. And so that's where my Messaging came through today from that. So I want to apologize for that But and it's obviously clear that there's a lot of interest in keeping the pool. So I'm not gonna beat that horse anymore I think you guys have all heard it by now. I'm looking at this blue slide. I was sitting in the room I had to leave to pick up my daughter who was actually on swim team at the pool, but now we're home So I use it in the morning. She uses it in the evening. Yes, we use it quite a bit great We want the pool move on so I don't understand this blue picture that I'm looking at, this C3122112133C4. Everything is super small. I can't even read. And I have a big screen at my house. And when I was there in the room, I couldn't read anything. I thought when I got home, I'd be able to blow things up and look a little bit more. But I guess my understanding is that this meeting today was to try to make things go from 29 to three or five. So I would love to see us move along that path, but it sounds to me like everything is really quite similar. So maybe if A, B, C, or D, if those things are radically different, then maybe we could talk about what's the difference between doing A, doing B, doing C, doing D, and then It's kind of like buying a car, right? What model do you want? And then you go down, what brand do you want? And then you go back to the model. So if we could just, is the goal tonight to decide if we want A, B, C, or D, and then we'll hash out farther from there? Or is the object tonight to say, well, we like A1, and we like B2, or B3, 2, or B something, and then C something, and then D something? Because I don't know how, successful that will be if we're just talking about how much we all love the pool. Oh, and one person said how much we need more space, because it's really hard to get space. And literally, the next person came on and said, look, we need a school. We don't need every bell and whistle. So you're not going to get consensus probably on almost anything.
[Jenny Graham]: Thanks, Debbie. Yeah, so Debbie, just to like clarify, we are picking, we are not just simply picking A, B, C, D. We are picking specific options. Having said that, in the next phase, we can and will ask for the project team to look at all kinds of iterations of those designs. So they're very much not set in stone. I think What we're sort of needing to weigh is, is like in concept, what are we trying to do? So like, maybe do we want to pursue something on Edgeley Field? Do we want to pursue something in the parking lot? What it exactly looks like in those spaces can very, very much change between now and June. So for me, yes, we have to get to that detail. But I also just want everyone to know and feel good that if you're like, I don't like this because it looks like a spaceship, it doesn't have to. We're not tonight saying we're definitely doing something that looks like a spaceship. We're saying that we want to explore something that wraps around the pool and the gym. roughly operates in this particular space. Like that's what we're doing tonight. So there'll be lots and lots of opportunity for additional input and comments about what you like, et cetera, going forward. So I think of this as important, but not the most important decision this committee will make before this is done. I think we have one more person here in the room. Oh, sorry. David, can you state your address for the record?
[JknWFpZeyhQ_SPEAKER_27]: Oh, sorry, 29 Damon Road, Debbie Case. I just figure everybody knows me. Gosh, sorry.
[Will Pipicelli]: You now, Debbie, you now.
[Jenny Graham]: Thanks, Debbie. Yeah.
[SPEAKER_27]: Hi, Andrew Oswald, 59 George Street. And I've been in and out of this process a little bit, so maybe it's already been covered. But I see that you have selected or you did your heat maps and you got some maybe short list of things that seem popular. It strikes me that maybe those are largely based on some aesthetics or where things are, workplace. What I was wondering was, have you done any rough modeling or analysis of the models that would suggest like, what are the things that we're gaining and what are the things that we're losing? what we expect or what we project might be the impact of the cost. So for example, you know, when I just looked at a person sitting next to me who had printed everything out, all the costs look nearly identical. I mean, give or take 10% or something like that. But it seemed that some of them like, hey, if we have to have mobile classrooms, that's $30,000 or $30 million that we're kind of flushing down the drain. Hey, if we save the pool and the gym, those are valuable to save because we can't replace them. And so maybe it's better to go and renovate them. And so I was just wondering if somebody's done a kind of rough quantitative or metric-based of what we might, to give us a view of what is potentially a best value for the money. And I guess the other thing I would wonder or ask would be if there's aspects of our super duper multi-use school that aren't covered by the SBA, is there, and we do have a pretty large building that has at least some aspects that are maybe solid. Are there, maybe we save a part of the old building and put some of those functions into a renovated old building section that we wouldn't necessarily get reimbursed for. And that may be a way to kind of get a new school, but get an extra, how many ever thousand square feet community center types of functions or, you know, Medford Family Network or larger auditory of those kinds of things.
[Unidentified]: Thank you.
[Jenny Graham]: Just so that you know, there is a pretty detailed, quite large matrix on the website that does go through and evaluate lots and lots of criteria across all of these designs. that'll get a whole lot easier to look at when we're down to like three to five. But I think one of the things that sort of jumped out at me is all of these buildings do most of the things. And there's a handful of places where there really is variation, but there's a lot in common with all of these, which is probably why to your point, you're seeing like very sort of common, like a common cost fan. So all of that's gonna continue to be refined as we go forward. But that is out on the website and available if you want to take a look at it.
[SPEAKER_27]: One other little comment. Somebody was saying that, you know, something about putting things up for a library. It might be cool to have a sort of progress report display or some visual place that people can just walk by and maybe see what models and, you know, what the top five are. And so it's a place that like finding this meeting and coming, when is it, where is it, and all that kind of stuff is somewhat daunting. But if there's a visual place in community, library comes to mind, that people can just sort of walk by and say, you know, oh, this is the tools the architect did today. And, you know, these are four 3D print models of what it might look like. Might be a way to also get involved, because you need to sell it to the community.
[Jenny Graham]: Thank you. And I see Cheryl online.
[SPEAKER_34]: Hi.
[Jenny Graham]: I'm sure for the record.
[SPEAKER_34]: Yeah. Can I just, can I say a couple things?
[Jenny Graham]: Sure. Can you just give us your name and address for the record?
[SPEAKER_34]: Sure. It's Cheryl Howe, H-A-U-G. I live at 28 Monument Street. I've swum at the pool since the 80s, and I was always struck by how I love the pool, but how it was really underutilized. But what I found in the last five or so years was so exciting because it really is being utilized by not only people here from Belmont, Winchester, whatever. So that's one comment. I now my kids went to school here and now my grandchildren are now at the Brooks School. I don't know if they'll see this new high school, but I just had this thought about how what the new library has meant and what it's been. It's turned into a community place. I see men with strollers on Saturdays in the, you know, it's a community. I mean I just, and I've always loved libraries and I think. To sell schools today, it's a community thing. I think of Arlington with their community night programs, unbelievable. And I think that the high school, to sell it also, it's important to really make it available at night. They're putting in meeting rooms like the library has. But I think we have to look at a bigger perspective, that the pool should be used. The rec department should be involved in this as well, using gym space and having classes that people can take. I don't know. I like to look at the big picture. And I think there are a lot of connections that can be made in terms of funding and support. And I just think that we should be thinking that way because the building will be wonderful and it should be used by everybody so that we can all be appreciative and proud of this new asset in Medford.
[Jenny Graham]: Thank you, Cheryl.
[SPEAKER_34]: Yeah.
[John Falco]: Well, I really appreciate what Cheryl had to say, I also just want to maybe from mine, but can hope that Cheryl can join us when we finally do have an option, because this committee as a body, the city school system is barred from selling this project to get across the debt exclusion. We cannot send a nickel, can't send an email supporting the project to get over debt exclusion. So anybody who's interested, whatever it ends up looking like on your own time, and obviously I'll say as individual members, His body will not be able to send a mail or supporting the override exclusion. Now, I got it with the mayor's office. It's kind of a weird thing. I don't agree, but it's the law.
[Unidentified]: Thank you.
[Maria D'Orsi]: We have somebody here in the room.
[Unidentified]: We've been at it for the rest of the week.
[Luke Preisner]: Constant ready and we'll pull out. Put your piece of reference. Okay.
[Adam Hurtubise]: What's your comment?
[Luke Preisner]: Yeah.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Thank you.
[Luke Preisner]: I may finish up what I was probably speaking out of turn earlier than what I was supposed to do with the mail house. But I'd like to finish my comments that I made about when I participated at the old high school in Forrest, and Chevrolet Diana was on our tour. Or I saw it right after, three weeks ago, when I didn't have any tickets either. But anyway, it was a wonderful show. We had a baby boomer class in the 60s. And that was approximately 800 students per class times three, eight, nine, 10. And then, and Mayor Pompeo got offended when I mentioned this at one of his designs, many things. And he said, I wasn't there when they did that. I don't know if that's true or not. So it hurt me to see the school come into the West Method Woods here, because we had maybe $1.50 in our pockets cash. But the cigarettes was $0.28. Today, they're $21.24. So if you put it in perspective, we should have bought cigarettes instead of the Dow Jones. Furthermore, we supported the square. We're a double 50 in our pockets. Maybe we made some money. I chose full world apparel. We had Medford Center over here. We had Kendall Prince, Walnut, the Pewter Pop, Breakfast, the Armory Dancers. The square was hopping. Talking about vibrancy and doing up a square for the ninth plan, it was hopping. It was sad to see it. and have such a demise and go down. Middle Glen Mall was probably, I say Ring Road and Middle Glen Mall, but ironically, Middle Glen Mall would have this, but go figure. So, we're sad for the economic square. However, I just have some mathematical questions if I may.
[Jenny Graham]: I'm sure we do have to get to the next phase of this agenda. So let's, yes, happy to answer all these beautiful brains. I'm sure I can get a correct answer. And what do you got?
[Luke Preisner]: What are you on these big numbers going around? What is the maximum liability is going to cost us a million, a billion, 10 billion can give me a small pop. That's all I need.
[Jenny Graham]: The options right now range from 438. million to about $893 million. OK.
[Unidentified]: And then you also have other things involved with a couple of billions of dollars. Thank you.
[Luke Preisner]: And how many real estate tax payers do we have? How many bills go out every three months?
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: That's important. That's key. It's 19,000 properties. But that doesn't include apartments and commercial. It's just 19,000 homes. 19,000 residential homes approximate? We can get you that number.
[Luke Preisner]: I can start with 19 residential buildings. 19,000, right? OK, so I'll do the math later on. I'm going to divide it by the mortgage payment, but it's fine. $1 million, there'll be $5 million monthly. on a 20-year fixed. Of course, you're going to do a credit exclusion meeting. Unless you're going to just afford a bond, if anybody will buy that bond.
[Unidentified]: I'm not that smart. Thank you for your time. Thank you.
[Jenny Graham]: Any other comments before we move on to the committee? Seeing none. Okay, so I want to turn us back to the results of the straw poll and remind the committee that option A will go forward. We must put forward at least one option from the combination of B and C, and we must put forward at least one option from D. Those are the requirements of the MSBA. Um, is there anybody who would like to make a motion?
[Unidentified]: Letting everybody for a motion, but the way I see it, um, if we five is okay, we just have less than five, but if we say five, um, You then do build options. The difference between, you know, building ideally you're building on the parking lot. Those are very different. And certainly the buildings look like that's to be determined, but I saw a lot of votes for the versions where it's up on the north side. And I don't know if that's because everyone likes what they look like, or they see that it costs less, or maybe it's a little faster. But I think having one of each study would be really important to see the implications of that. I do have a kid who will be in the disrupted time period with modulars, and put him in mods, I don't care. It's five years versus the generation of having the building in the right place. So I think you go into like, take some sort of extreme, say like in that, just saying of the new builds, like take one of each. For the reno options, like take a couple of different levels of new construction versus renovation. So we have like real things to study. It's really not about what the building looks like, or is it bars or swoops? It's just like, how much is new? How much is renovated? So we get a really good sense of the difference between the four. I could try to pick four specifically if you want that, but that's just the way I would approach it just so we have as much data as possible.
[Jenny Graham]: Nicole? Yeah, I really appreciate what Louise said because I think I lean towards the parking lot area, I think, because a lot of things people said tonight as far as having the street facing, having a shorter walk for students coming up that space or other ways they're getting in traffic patterns. And I think also I, as you do, live right in that area where those abutters are right now, the closest, houses are against fields to now have a four to six foot story building kind of right against those houses.
[Libby Brown]: I think that's a really big difference. And I think a lot of those people may be already aware of that. And I know all of this is subject to design change, but I think that's, you know, two big reasons why I lean towards more of the parking lot area. But I think it is important, let me say, just making sure we have those two options because same, I'm not really sure what's motivating people or why they're choosing one over the other, why they're heavily choosing Edgerly Field. So let's just piggybacking on that.
[Luke Preisner]: Chet? Sorry. I just want to explain why some people, or at least why I was leaning towards more than Edgerly Field. And the reason is it doesn't overlap with the existing high school as much as some of the other options. Right. So I'm going to have children who are probably going to be at the high school during construction. And frankly, I would rather take an option that does the minimum amount of damage to the existing high school so that they can have their high school experience while still going to high school.
[Suzanne Galusi]: Thank you. Dr. Galuzzi? Just going to echo that a little bit. Some of the things that just for me, personally, going through to look at the options, I agree and would like to see the data for what the differences are. But I do want to say that And looking at the strong pole and the other poles, there is some input there from the community, from this committee, that people are interested in seeing what the varying options would look like. So I do think it's important to move that forward. But I would say like, for me personally, I did look at the modulars. There are two options that don't require any modulars. So that's the least disruption to educating our students throughout this project. And then there are three tiers of modular use. And one of the options right now that has a complete build in the current parking lot is the most amount of modulars, and not just for the most amount of money, but I really would be curious where we would put 96 modulars to educate our students and what that would look like. And again, speaking from the point of this is a community building, I don't know sitting here right now what that means for modular use for our municipal daycare, for MFN, for our welcome center. There's a lot of questions there for me. I think it's important to study, but I definitely have been looking at this. I definitely looked at modulars. I definitely looked at the lease impact. I definitely looked at community facing options. I'm very much for not only the community piece, but the safety and security of the building. Very much would like to see a lot of our community facing programs and activities clustered to some degree so that we can be open and welcoming but also secure the rest of the building. I did look at traffic and I also looked at stories like how many floors, what is that grade difference between maybe one part of the building and the next. But again, I think it's important to this phase to be looking at what those different options are. So we're armed with information, but I'm always gonna go for least disruption to our educational.
[Kimberly Talbot]: Paul.
[John Falco]: I don't think we've ever talked about that. Do we know in fact that we could put that many modulars here or are we talking about the multi-story buildings that are literally there temporarily?
[Matt Rice]: So we did look at different options. We have included one of the prior building committee meetings a slide indicate some potential locations where they could fit in that match the quantity that's listed for each of the options. So they would all have to be two-story buildings to be able to accommodate all the other things on site that we need to, such as traffic circulation, construction, logistics, lay down area.
[Suzanne Galusi]: But I don't believe they connect, correct?
[Matt Rice]: No.
[Suzanne Galusi]: So it would be like around the perimeter, but they don't connect.
[John Falco]: So double story. Yes. Thanks for coming up with an answer, we have a lot of room. So not the double story. Can I just finish my question real quick? Those modules, I assume, have to be up to all the standard code. So it's literally like they're building houses or they're being brought in and brought down. They're not, like as a kid, I lived for a year in Florida and most of the school was in modules forever. It wasn't temporary. And they were like, the trailers you could order on a catalog that somebody dropped off at the wheels. These are not those.
[Matt Rice]: Would be set on a foundation, but they do come in on trailers. At their core, they are the same type of thing where they would be wheeled in, they'll be set on something permanent. They're gonna need an elevator. If they're two stories, they have to be bulletproof compliant, as you said. Thank you.
[Luke Preisner]: I'd like to, so I agree with a lot of what was said. I want to make a motion that we include one concept that avoids modulars in our set of five.
[Jenny Graham]: You know, we're not narrowing anything down with this motion, right? That is what we have to do before we can leave tonight. But there's a motion on the floor to include at least one alternative that does not have modulars by Luke, seconded by Dr. Galussi, I'm going to call the, do we know like how many of those are?
[Luke Preisner]: There's two options that don't have modulators, modulars, C3.3 and D2.1. So we just put both of those to the second phase, CSR.
[Adam Hurtubise]: C3.3 and D2.1.
[Luke Preisner]: Which I will say equally had 10 votes each from the Toronto poll.
[Suzanne Galusi]: and for the community input, can you just also have the most votes? 28 and 23. Tears though.
[Luke Preisner]: So I don't know if you would accept that amendment. I'm sorry, Luke, are you accepting that amendment or, okay. So the amendment is that we would move forward C3.3
[Jenny Graham]: and Dean 2.1.
[Jenny Graham]: Okay, any questions about the motion? Lisa?
[Libby Brown]: With those being up there on the field, one of the things that was confusing to me on the diagrams is traffic flow in terms of both drop off and pick up, but also access to the CTV program. Should we read much into the current diagrams or is that something that would just be addressed in the future?
[Matt Rice]: I think it's one of the almost immediately first things that we need to address as we move forward to that next level of detail, but there hasn't been complete development or resolution of on-site circulation as part of these initial diagrams.
[Kimberly Talbot]: I think some of the designs do show roadways and some don't. And these are ones that don't show roadways going up there.
[Luke Preisner]: Can I ask SMNA to walk us through, and just quickly, it doesn't have to be in-depth, but when I look at D11, intuitively, I think to myself, I should move modulars there for any duration, really. So why are modulars part of D11? Since it's in the parking lot.
[Matt Rice]: Yes, it's difficult to see on that diagram. Maybe what I can do, we do have slides that actually have some detail. Sorry, I'm taking you a place you didn't want to go, but I think it's just easier to see here. Yeah. Okay, got it. So these two wings are stretching onto the existing footprint of the building. And the key thing is always from the modular perspective is when we start to cross over onto the B wing, the existing B wing, during some course of construction, or the C wing. Those are the two that have the highest quantity of academic classrooms in them. And so that's what really drives the quantity of the modulars up. So because these wings will have to at some point build on top of those existing classroom wings, we need to be able to compensate and provide modular classroom space while that's being built.
[Luke Preisner]: Okay. Yeah. And so thanks for clarifying. I get it now. I think when I saw it earlier, I saw the orange, I associated that with parking.
[Jenny Graham]: Okay. So is there the amended motion is C 3.3 and D 2.1 forward. Any questions about the motion?
[Unidentified]: Yes, we think in two levels.
[Aaron Olapade]: So we decided on four total.
[John Falco]: 3 to 5 is really 2.4, so 8 goes in. Or is it 3 to 5 on top of that? 3 to 5 total, Michael.
[Matt Rice]: So the specific number, like the MSBA not prescribing that we pick 3 or 5, they're giving that as a general guidance for range. So one of them has to be a Um, so we can have the next to get us to three, we could add more. That's really the deliberation. It's not 29.
[Jenny Graham]: Can I just offer one more amendment that we advance these two options forward as finalists in case we end up with like six or seven that we then consider, because we've only talked about two months. So we're just like, moving them to the final pool?
[Luke Preisner]: If we didn't amend it, walk us through the finalist selection.
[Jenny Graham]: If we didn't amend it, they would be going to the MSBN. We want to create a smaller pool to consider. or are we saying these are going to the MSBA? That's the question.
[Luke Preisner]: Okay. So the amendment is to create an interim pool. Yes.
[Jenny Graham]: Okay. Is everyone, is everyone with us? Yes. Okay, great. I'm going to call the roll. Jenny Graham. Yes. Mayor Lungo-Koehn. Yes. Dr. Galusi. Yes. Marta Cabral. Yes. Joan Bowen. Yes. Ken Lord.
[Unidentified]: Yes.
[Jenny Graham]: Libby Brown. Yes. Marissa Desmond. Yes. Maria Dorsey. Yes. Brian Hilliard. Yes. Emily Lazzaro. Yes. Paul Malone.
[Unidentified]: Yes.
[Jenny Graham]: Nicole Morell. Yes. Erin Olapade. Yes. Lou Pricer.
[Unidentified]: Yes.
[Jenny Graham]: Okay. 15 in the affirmative, zero in the negative. We have two finalists. Can you go back to the straw poll? Thank you. Are there other items here for which there is a motion that we should put them in this finalist poll? Ken?
[Michael Pardek]: I kind of go the other direction and make a motion that we remove all the B options from the pivot.
[Jenny Graham]: Motion to remove all B options. Is there a second?
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: Yes. And why?
[Unidentified]: They all take a key part of the building and try to renovate that, except for the gym and the pool. So they're all keeping the B wing and the C wing or something, or trying to renovate a portion of that, keeping the B wing.
[Matt Rice]: make a hole down the middle of it to try to bring pools of light in. It just seems the long way around the barn doesn't get to, to my perspective. Okay.
[Jenny Graham]: Well, before we go further, is there a second so that we can consider this motion?
[Phil Santos]: Second.
[Jenny Graham]: Second. Okay. Are there other questions? I saw some hands over here. Bill?
[Phil Santos]: I was going to say, maybe it's good to keep a first portion of B because there are things that we're gonna look to in space evaluation to maybe reduce, right? So like the offices is a $24 million item, right? That's like down below are the administrative offices. Maybe renovating is a cheaper alternative than building new, right? On something that's not as reimbursable. There's something to think about. Yeah, it's just for me, it's the position it's in to keep that in the front of the building to try to renovate those. Yeah, I guess it doesn't matter which part, but I'm saying like you could renovate some wing Right. And do like the new MFN there. It's not going to be fully reimbursable. So renovation could be cheaper possibly. I know sometimes it's actually more expensive, but just thinking of like trying to save part of the building to use as a space for the items that we don't get reimbursement on.
[Libby Brown]: So you're saying that was keeping for informational purposes?
[Phil Santos]: Well, keep a version of, yeah. So like, I don't know where we're going to keep it. Right. What makes sense? Like maybe the science wing doesn't make sense. It's all labs, but maybe the,
[Luke Preisner]: HAB-Michael Leccesereeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee
[Unidentified]: I think this team deserves to have that information. I think we went to the community to say we've looked at keeping as much as possible and renovating it. And maybe it'll be, hey, this is not feasible. You guys can show us diagrams of here's the structural grid. And if we want 950 square foot classrooms, it screws up this and that. And it doesn't work. I think we need to have that information. Best case, we're like, this is great, actually. We can keep the building and use these wings. and actually works wonderfully. Worst case, it doesn't work, but we can show people that information and say, here's why it doesn't work. I just, I very strongly think that that needs to be something that we at least look at for a couple more months.
[Luke Preisner]: Thank you. And so I just wanted to add my voice of support for keeping at least one B option and it's going to sound like virtue signaling, but the embodied carbon, it's connected to energy and energy is cost. And we are pressured because of how big this thing is. And we're looking at every possible way to control cost. We can't exclude the value of maintaining the embodied carbon. That's a buzzword, but it's connected very strongly to the amount of energy resources that are put towards constructing, making materials. And those embodied costs are savings that we can potentially leverage to help control the overall size of this. So I would ask them to keep one B for that reason.
[Maria D'Orsi]: Brian?
[Luke Preisner]: I'll jump on the wagon, actually with Ruby, and say that I think it's actually very important that we keep a B option on the table. And I singled out 4.2 as one that kept some of the best components that we've got. It's a lot of capacity. It's got the larger gym. but it actually deals with some of the really unfortunate holes that we've had to create in space that we already own or knocked down. I was a little bit concerned with a lot of the options that jammed this new construction up against old construction, and, you know, it creates a lot of issues with light corridors. I feel like 4.2 deserves a really good study.
[Unidentified]: I think throwing that out now would be a fun state.
[Suzanne Galusi]: Dr. Galussi? Well, now I'm not seeing on this slide. Do we know how many? Part of the reason why I maybe didn't look solely at a lot of the bees is because they were the ones that required the most modulars. Like nine, what is it? The highest number of modulars. 96 of them. How many does this option require for modulars? I don't have this on the list. just that it's the second highest.
[Luke Preisner]: And I will say, I looked at it as it is. I looked at it for 30,000 feet. It wasn't about the most modular. It was how do we get the kids to be one of the better products out of the feed. We've got a lot of good choices for better products at the end of the day that maintain what I think is some of the
[Unidentified]: That's stuff that we've got in the city, but then deal with everything else that we can be rectified, so. I don't know. Is there a comment?
[Jenny Graham]: Are there any amendments to the motion?
[Unidentified]: Are we still going to go to these, or are we adding more?
[Jenny Graham]: That is the motion on the floor. The motion on the floor is to eliminate all the Bs.
[Michael Pardek]: We amend it to eliminate all Bs except B 4.2.
[Jenny Graham]: That is up to Ken.
[Michael Pardek]: That's up.
[Jenny Graham]: OK. So the motion as amended is to eliminate all the Bs except for 4.2. And seconded by Aaron. Are you also accepting that amendment? Yeah. OK. Are we ready to vote on that? OK. Jenny Graham. Yes. Mayor Lungo-Koehn. Yes. Dr. Galusi. Yes. Marta Cabral. Yes. Joan Bowen. Yes. Ken Lord. Yes. Libby Brown.
[Libby Brown]: No.
[Jenny Graham]: Marissa Desmond.
[Libby Brown]: Yes.
[Jenny Graham]: Maria Dorsey. Yes. Brian Hilliard.
[Unidentified]: Yes.
[Jenny Graham]: Emily Lazzaro.
[Unidentified]: Yes.
[Jenny Graham]: Paul Malone. Yes. Nicole Morell. Uh, no. Aaron Lopate. No. Luke Preiser.
[Unidentified]: Yes.
[Jenny Graham]: 12 in the affirmative. Three in the negative. The 4.2 is a finalist.
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: If I may, through the chair, can I ask why any of the no votes, why you voted no? We can always move reconsideration. We're doing this fast, although I know it's past time, but is something we can't rush. I'm taking advice from almost like the architects in the room.
[Unidentified]: I mean it only keeps half the building. I think I think a version that keeps more of the building is valuable to understand. I also I didn't vote for those ones. I know it's supposed to be anonymous. I like for printing diagrammatically but it had a 69 month schedule at our timeline. And so I just generally leaned away from those. Modulars is important, but also just like timeline is important to me. So I just preferred the ones that were leaning closer to, you know, four and a half years. 54 months or whatever. So it was just basically, I think there needs to be a version with more interesting construction that remains and is a shorter time frame.
[Luke Preisner]: Brian? I'd actually just like to layer onto that. I firmly believe that there is an option within some of these options to move things around and actually fix that problem. I would actually want guys to make sure that I'm not speaking out of turn, but this isn't, again, set in stone. I feel like we can push and pull all of these elements, which includes time and modulars and, you know, Monte Carlo and all these things. There's an answer in some of these decisions that we'll get to.
[Unidentified]: So I feel pretty secure all over that that's a good start, but it's not the end of the world.
[John Falco]: Well, I completely agree with you, Brian, except if we take every option and all of us think about all the ways we could change all the options, none of us are preparing the options that are in front of us. We're all preparing our own version of all the options. So I completely agree we need to have that conversation. And I'm not looking at this table of options and say, this has a pool, that's not renovated, and this has a pool that is renovated. I could be like, well, maybe in this one, we can decide to make it renovated instead of in a new building when I'm making the decision. And I just feel like it's sort of like a cost. They're not intended to mean the actual cost. So you can compare to each other. But that's only true if you actually assume that we're comparing the items on this spreadsheet. So don't disagree. But I think if we all do that, then we're We're all just kind of making it up.
[Jenny Graham]: Well, yes, and somebody just told me today I should buy a shirt that said, yes, and. So the output of this, I think one of the things the design team is really interested in, and we'll maybe find a way that when everyone's not quite so tired to collect this input from you all, but I think they want to know why. we liked various things, why we didn't like various things. So perhaps we can talk at our weekly meeting about putting together some sort of survey that provides people an opportunity to sort of funnel some information about what they're thinking now that we will have a smaller set of options. So I think I agree that all of those things are true, but also like the next step of this is to like sort of go in detail and like kick the tires on these like smaller set of options. It's really hard to do times 29 right like you can't be like give me every option times with the pool without a pool with a separate pool with a new pool with a bigger pool like there's two, it's too much. And I think one of the things that we're sort of hearing from the community, like we have lots of people come talk to us tonight and not a single one of them said, I like option 3.4, right? And what we're hearing somewhat consistently is there's so many choices, like it's too much. So us getting to this smaller number and then being able to have real conversation, I think is important. And that can start with us. So we will like take that as an action item. away, because I do think to Brian and Libby's point, like if we have a B that goes forward, does it have to look exactly like this? No, probably not. Obviously, we can't ask them to build 29, B 4.2, but if there is some cohesiveness in terms of sort of how people are looking at these whittled down options, I think that's very valuable for us to do, and we can do some work to collect that input.
[Luke Preisner]: Ken? For me, the difference between the B options which wing you want to keep. Right.
[Matt Gulino]: And that's, that was for me looking at those and trying to make a value judgment based on that. And then that of course drives all the other characteristics. That was kind of the differentiator between all of those. The C options for me, the biggest thing was where on the site I was going to put the rest of the building, keeping the gym and the pool. And that was all that. And then the D's of course are new options in different areas. So it kind of, It narrowed down very quickly for me when I was doing the analysis, thinking of it that way.
[Michael Pardek]: And then looking at the other characteristics that were important to me, the number of modulars, things like that.
[Jenny Graham]: Can you go back to the straw poll, Matt? I just want to give everyone that anchor again. Aaron.
[Aaron Olapade]: Just an observation with the straw poll. I mean, for me and my reasoning for my vote, I think in part it was because With the struggle there wasn't a lot of a lot of agreement of that would be options felt like where we want to lean in towards how their responses. see if you're also limited, but I do find that when I was having conversations with community on our meeting on three five and then I think a lot of considerations you had about like the time this will take for. module buildings, which I've gone to schools in module buildings before. I found that to be pleasant, but that's like with a lot of caveats and nuance and things like that. So please don't hold me to that one statement, but you know, I think that, you know, you know, we talking a lot about the way that this is going to impact students and impact families and the community at large. And I think that the duration of time and the actual student learning component is something that we're really trying to grapple with as individuals. And it's challenging because, you know, there's no one perfect model or one perfect fix, but, I think the duration of time for at least that one option spelled it really staggering for me to like grapple with. Well, because there'd be in modulars for that duration of time and the amount of them and the costs. So, so.
[Suzanne Galusi]: Dr. Galussi? What I'm saying to just like extend that, what you just said a little bit is that on both strop holes, I did observe, whether it was community one or ours, that C3.4 was one of the preferred concepts in both struggles. It also speaks to everything you just said in terms of duration, lower tier modulars, only force floors, the timelines there. I don't know if people are intrigued, we're calling it like the Star Trek concept, but I would make a motion to have that be in the contender pool based on both straw poll results.
[Jenny Graham]: 3.4 as a contender. Dr. Galusi, is there a second? Second. All right. Questions about 3.4? I just want to make sure. Are we still doing the finalists? Yes. Yes. We'll come back around once we're, everyone's satisfied that we've like narrowed it down and make sure we're all in agreement, or a majority, or anyway. There are questions about 3.4 that the team can answer for us.
[Luke Preisner]: I think the observation, you know, it's going to look like a contemporary art museum, probably very beautiful. You're not going to see it from the street. Only the people who are on a mission to visit the high school that day will see it. Just an observation. Hidden gem.
[Unidentified]: Okay, other... Okay, I'll go ahead. This is where we argue whether we like that or not. Yeah, sure.
[Luke Preisner]: Not my favorite. Personally, I went with 3.2 for a lot of other reasons. Again, I feel like it's the most flexible, but I'm not trying to... I have a hard time believing that we're gonna get the 3.4
[Unidentified]: it's going to be confusing, it's going to be, it's a tough one to build.
[Luke Preisner]: For me, it's always been a throwaway, but when I looked at a lot of the parameters around 3.2, it is, it accomplishes a lot of the things that we were trying to do as far as building a high up in the fields. It, again, seems the most flexible, but it keeps, it maintains the pool and the gym, but it also has one element that comes through public. I'd like to see something that comes down below the old existing construction, because I don't think that's very friendly as far as a street presence goes. So anything that we can pull down to the south, helps, but it also manages to build a lot of construction up high and keep the kids out of the construction zone for as long as possible. Which number was that? 3.2. Again, I just feel that is something we can work with. I'm having a hard time envisioning work around people at work as far as phasing and visual. And a little bit like having the core, maybe it's just one big blank, one big box that has a little channel in the right and a channel in the side, so.
[Unidentified]: Libby? To go off that, I think you're right. I think we're already, I have 3.3 in our, finalist pool, I believe. I think you're right. I think you're totally right, Brian. I think they're kind of close enough to the thing. I don't like courtyards, so I'm a 3.2 guy. We're just talking like where the majority of construction goes.
[Luke Preisner]: Yeah, I'm trying to think through phasing, and I don't like the fact that it's entirely hidden. The public view, as soon as you come on the site, is this old building from 1970. and everything that's hidden behind that. So anyway, we can sort of connect that tissue from up high down low and have that, let's make it something that's secondary. That's what we're going to be doing.
[Jenny Graham]: So that is, I'm sorry, which number was that?
[Unidentified]: That's 3-2, that's 3-2. 3-2, okay. And again, Malibu, but C. Okay, C-3-2. C-3-2.
[John Falco]: Well, I'm not on the working group for security. I'm assuming other people are, because it's made up of us. But does that group have opinions? Like, you know, the one in particular that I've always been like, didn't hate, but from a security defense, and I'm the opposite, I hate talking about schools as this thing that need to be fortified. But when I look at, for instance, B1.1, I'm like, I don't know how you fortify a school that's like three inches from the road and right on where people are driving. So I'm just wondering if anybody's been on that group. Has any feedback from that group about options that they've said?
[Jenny Graham]: We're not there yet with any of the groups. That's the next meeting.
[Luke Preisner]: I do want to share a concern that I have with all of the elderly options. And, you know, it should be informed by someone representative of the first responder community. But there's a lot of accidents that can happen, right? It doesn't have to be some sort of deliberate security response that we're responding to. It could be an ambulance call. It could be a fire. We, by putting things so far back and with some of the, I'll say, complicated footprint geometries, I am concerned about first responders being able to get to the entrances and do their job in a timely way. I see the advantage in positioning a structure on the lower parking for that reason. I did hear the gentleman speak earlier about drop-off. It resonated with me. It makes sense. I drop a kid off every day. I know exactly what it looks like in the morning, and I expect to be doing this for the next eight years. So I would like to have one option that's, or at least maybe some discussion about having one option that's kind of close to the street, primarily to facilitate first response timelines. Cause I feel like that's just a common sense thing we should think about and incorporate in our thinking. We're making a big decision for like 1300 people, right? Their safety is our responsibility and we shouldn't ignore considerations about how or first response to immunities, answer calls, should they happen? So for that reason, I'd like us to consider including something that's closer to the street.
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: I mean, I think close to the street is also relative. I mean, everything is closer to the street, but it's still up that hill.
[Libby Brown]: It's still fairly set back on the street compared to other schools in that city.
[Unidentified]: Sure, but it's as close as it can be.
[Libby Brown]: No, that's what I'm saying. I'm agreeing with you. I'm saying it's still up a hill. even when we're getting close.
[Jenny Graham]: Brian?
[Luke Preisner]: Well, I guess if we're sort of trying to move forward, different options. I'm not sure we're moving on from C options yet, but deep 1.1, I think they're very, when I chose, for a lot of reasons, everything's a compromise, but again, I feel like it's got the most valuability and it's going to, and then deal with whether it's, you know, security issues, anything to be worked with. Obviously, there's circulation, all these things are a problem. If we're to compare it to a C option where everything's up on Adulia, I don't think it's fair to get there. But I think this holds a lot of potential compared to some of the others. I've already made it known I'm not a big fan of Courtyard, which you can see that in some of the other ones. But I think the reason I like more of the C option We embrace the federal and some of the public sensing. And the reason I didn't like the 2.1, which is also up on Edgley, it was for just, I think, being able to explore one up on Edgley. And I prefer the C version up there, 3.2. And the D version, which is 1.1, which is down to Luke's point, down lower. And I think then we can sort of start to look at the benefits of having one down low and one up high and what that means. Maybe security flags or not, I don't believe it, but I try to separate my choices out for different reasons.
[Unidentified]: And that's, I think it would be better to keep it 1.1.
[Jenny Graham]: Matt, can you show us C2.2? Matt and I were, so a couple of things. We did have a meeting that was very well attended by our abutters. So while there's not, we don't have that many direct neighbors, we have a significant neighborhood of which I am a part as somebody else on the committee. And we heard from the abutters, you know, lots of questions that abutters have about the project and the timeline and all of those good things. But we did also hear from them, you know, real concern about the height and the setback from that edge of the property being like a real concern for them. And so some of the elderly options are very tall and very close to where there are homeowners homes and people who live there. So I think that's a consideration. What intrigued me about this option was We're not all the way up high. We're not all the way down low. We're preserving some stuff. And it seemed like it might be an interesting option. And one of the things I was thinking about as I was thinking about this is this one seems to require a lot of modulars. And I actually was talking to Matt about that at the egg dash on Saturday. saying, why does this one require so many modulars? So Matt, I don't know if you can just share with the team what you're thinking is. It's going to muddy the water for everybody, but I think it's important because this second site, we talked about this site as a potential siting for new construction. And none of the things that we're talking about yet take advantage of that second site.
[Matt Rice]: So I think it's going to go back to the notion of what is the new footprint of the building overlap with. In this case, it's the C wing in terms of this piece that's coming out here. It's tough to see again on screen. It doesn't have the footprint there. But that's really the reason that's driving it. And the C wing does have the highest quantity of modular classrooms that are required. So I mean, it's something that we can think about as we go forward. It sort of goes back to Paul's earlier point in terms of trying to get things into an option that might be there, but aren't necessarily sort of reflected in it. But I mean, if this is one that moves forward, it's one that we could think about. Is there some way of trying to build some pieces new before we tear down the C wing to avoid some modulars? It may increase the amount of time that it takes to build the overall footprint. But those are the types of things that I think we can start to investigate on some of the options. On some of them, if we're just building straight on top of the existing building, that could be 1.1 option. It's tougher to sort of reimagine some of those things, but I think there are some options and some glimmers that we can see in some of these.
[Unidentified]: Okay.
[Luke Preisner]: Brian. So just to layer on top of what Matt just said, I agree there's a great reason to explore that side. I chose 2.1 only because it felt to me like it had a little more opportunity to build a bigger section without encroaching on the seedling, which does have a lot of attack. Obviously, the seedling needs to go, in my opinion. But I think, in my opinion, 2.1 and 2.2 are actually very similar. They're accomplishing the same thing. So either one could go forward. Again, I'm hoping you guys feel like it's flexible enough that, for all intents and purposes, it's the same option and they'll end up some up high, some down low, but we're pushing the foundry to the west and let's see what we can do.
[Matt Rice]: Is that a fair assessment of those two? So yes, I think they're very similar in terms of their concept. And the main difference between 2.1, 2.2 is really the quantity of stories that are in there, which is just easier to sort of flip back in this format between the five stories and the seven stories. It's just, it's a tighter footprint goes taller, but we couldn't investigate I mean, if it's a six-story option, somewhere in between, right?
[Luke Preisner]: Yeah, I mean, I think, honestly, it makes sense to go five somewhere and six somewhere and four. You know, there's going to be some give and take and push and pull vertically as well. We might end up with a hybrid of the two. So I would be happy taking either one of those four. I think they accomplish the same thing. I'm lucky as it pushes the goals. Paul?
[Unidentified]: One of the things that isn't
[John Falco]: really, we're not there yet, is what, you know, we talk about a seven-story building, a whole top story could be an administration and network or whatever, that would be a terrible choice, could be a play space outside, but it could be things other than academics, so that it's not effectively a seven-story building for kids to get from one place to another, although there is the option of us getting a, you know, getting a level sleep of views. But the issue of traversing a seven-story building to get from one class to another, like my own daughter literally rides out, this is not a seven-story building, between two classes because of the way the schedule works and how our classes work. So it's hard for me to comprehend how, other than with a huge advance in how we can do scheduling and computers aren't there yet, seven-story building where academics are distributed across the entire place. That really concerns me. You know, we're not going to have a longer school day with this place open. We have three minutes between classes or two? Three minutes. So it's already a problem. This is a bigger building. It's seven-story. It sounds like we're going to have students who are going to be partying every single day. That just doesn't, I think for us to go to the building, we immediately have to kind of figure out how to shape the role of our meeting and partners to look at four minutes before classes. It's just impossible otherwise. And I know that we have one chart that had like a sort of estimate of like student traversal. Well, we have one for this district, so.
[Jenny Graham]: But it's probably not precise enough.
[John Falco]: Right, for sure. And I mean, again, like a teacher or something and said, that won't be for students. And that number becomes sort of meaningless.
[Jenny Graham]: So I just want to like bring us like back, there is a motion on the floor to move C 3.4 forward as a finalist. Since then we've talked about C 3.2, D 1.1, And then it's C2.1, 2.2. Is there a desire to amend the motion to call those the finalist pool?
[Unidentified]: The numbers again?
[Jenny Graham]: 3.4, D3.2, D1.1, C2.1 and C2.2.
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: We voted for 3.3, I think.
[Jenny Graham]: Yes, that's already a finalist. Yes.
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: 3, 3, 2, 1, and 4, 2 are already finalists.
[Jenny Graham]: Yes, those three are already finalists. So we would be adding 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 more to the pool for finalists.
[Luke Preisner]: And just one clarifying point. When we talk about a seven-story building, it's not that you need one pool.
[Matt Rice]: Because we're going up the hill, right? for the 2.1 option and 2.2 that we're looking at, yes, because they are straddling the hill. You're still going to get some 4.1 to 4.7, but you're moving this way a lot, correct?
[Unidentified]: And can I also clarify, I already lost track, but I would lump them together, 2.1 and 2.7, 2.1 and 2.2. I don't think they both meet any goals.
[Jenny Graham]: I did, I did. I'm just trying to like keep everybody moving with the numbers as they fly. So if we moved, if we amended this motion, which is up to Dr. Galussi, it would then move C3.4, C3.2, C3.2 slash, sorry, C2.1 slash C2.2 And D 1.1 to the, to the like group of finalists, which would become 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 choices. And then we could maybe like, look at that pool and figure out where we want to go from there with a smaller set of things to consider.
[John Falco]: I count nine, not seven. I count eight.
[Jenny Graham]: I mean, very positive.
[Unidentified]: Well, we can, but let's do that with a smaller pool is my point. I'm sorry.
[Jenny Graham]: I just never actually, I would put B1.2 in just to go back and you're all welcome to say no, but B1.2. Is there anything else?
[Unidentified]: B1.2. Is that on the screen? No.
[Kimberly Talbot]: Does that hit the pertains to as many existing buildings as possible? I mean, it's obviously not the one that's the most, but I think it gets pretty close to this.
[Unidentified]: It achieves the things that the B1.1 doesn't, like daylight. The B1, B1.1 and 1.2 keep the entire building, just the special additions.
[Luke Preisner]: And what's the timeframe on that one? B1.2? Yeah.
[Unidentified]: 56 months? No, that's flawed. 54 months.
[Luke Preisner]: Brian?
[Unidentified]: My concern with 1.2 is that the ceiling in particular, which I find has a lot of issues, fundamentally structural, and in order to adapt it to anything that's actually meaningful, is the biggest offender in the building, and it's keeping it. So it was one of the problems that I thought was lost out. So I'd love to give feedback on how you got there.
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: like a quarter. Your teacher will say that.
[Unidentified]: One thing I actually, everyone gets their t-shirt.
[Luke Preisner]: One of the things I didn't think was highlighted well enough from the sim side is that you guys are just planning on basically driving a wedge down in the middle of the viewing And it's not always highlighted. I don't know if people have really understood what the impact was of, you know, putting a giant all the way in the middle of it. And I think it's a great idea to accept that it creates a courtyard, but I don't know how far you guys are planning on going down, how effective it would be at getting light into the middle of that building. That's not another reason I'm a big fan of getting rid of the big ceiling, but at the very least, if we're driving a hole in the middle of that, how deep would we go in? How effective is that?
[Unidentified]: Yeah, so I mean, the full structural analysis is sort of what's viable. We're not there yet. I think just from an overall approach standpoint, what we're planning on doing is taking down.
[Matt Rice]: courtyard down two stories so leaving it down like so we're in the back it would be like right above us so there would probably be some skylights that we would try to add to this space to be able to bring daylight to it but up above we really need there's so many classrooms actually that are surrounding it that need light and so that's from our perspective the issue just keeping the b-wing in its current condition among some other things as well but as a basic approach we'd just be dropping down two levels in
[Luke Preisner]: It looked from the model when I was looking at it, it looked like you guys had the press there. I didn't think it was going to get us too far, but I didn't know if y'all had visions of driving this up to meet it and, you know, what that means to the space that we're in now. So I was really fan of taking it down.
[Jenny Graham]: Any other comments? So I'm going to suggest that we maybe take a vote on these as finalists. I'm gonna write them on a single piece of paper and we take like a five minute recess so that we'll use the restroom and like regroup before we come back to the conversation. So if the motion as amended would be to bring forward C3.4, C3.2, C1.1, C2.1, C 2.2 and B 1.2 to the pool of finalists. Is that amendment acceptable, Dr. Berlusi? Yes, it is.
[John Falco]: So 4.2 of B is not in the list?
[Jenny Graham]: It's already a finalist.
[Unidentified]: Already finalists are C 3.3, D 2.1 and B 4.2.
[Jenny Graham]: But I'd like to give everyone a few minutes to consider this after we take this vote in a recess.
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: And before we recess, plus A. So really, those other five, six, seven, we have to narrow down to about one.
[Luke Preisner]: Can I point out that none of the options that were mentioned involves an instruction on the lower parking lot? D2.1. D1.1, sorry.
[Unidentified]: D1.1. Oh, D1.1 is it? Yeah. OK. Yeah.
[Jenny Graham]: Okay. I'm going to call on the screens and then we're going to take a 10 minute recess. Uh, Jenny Graham. Yes. Mayor Lungo-Koehn. Yes. Dr. Galusi. Yes. Marta Cabral. Yes. Joan Bowen. Yes. Marta. I'm sorry. Uh, Ken Lord. Yes. Libby Brown. Yes. Marissa Desmond.
[Will Pipicelli]: She had a hop up.
[Jenny Graham]: Maria Dorsey. Yes. Brian Hilliard. Yes. Emily Lazzaro.
[Will Pipicelli]: Yes.
[Jenny Graham]: Paul Malone. Yes, it's an overall. Yeah. Aaron Lopate. Yes. Luke Preissner.
[Unidentified]: Yes.
[Jenny Graham]: 14 in the affirmative, zero in the negative, one absent. We have our finalists. I'm going to write them on this piece of paper. Oh, thank you very much. We're going to take like a eight minute recess and we will be back at 920 to continue this conversation.
[Unidentified]: Five miles. We'll get to see what you're saying. I mean, you know, let me just say, like, they say it's nobody's occupation. I don't know. Yes, sir.
[Jenny Graham]: Okay. As a recap, A, which is code upgrade, is going forward regardless of anything we're going to do tonight. So let's not talk about it and move on to the things that we have some control over. So I think we are, as a reminder, we're required to move at least one D option forward and at least one B slash C option forward. And we have two D options on the table and one, two, three, four, five, six options between B and C. With refreshed eyes from the, Lovely eight minutes. Is there anybody who has any thoughts, comments, Paul?
[John Falco]: Yes, I'm going back to the grading sheet that we did at the last meeting. And B1.2 and B4.2 of the evaluation score are wildly below the others. And I realized that we've got was these are numbers that are gonna take some of them with a grain of salt. But, you know, I didn't think that exercise was just for hits. I thought those scores, evaluation scores mattered a lot. Evaluation of what, you know, there were things that came up really high, but I had completely discounted and I'm like, okay, well, those are really high. So they probably should get some value. I'm just pointing that out if we don't have those scores.
[Jenny Graham]: I do think, you know, the feedback overall that I've heard people articulate about V is they don't like any of them. Like none of them sort of draw people to the concept. And there's, you know, anyone who's worried about disruption, I think intuitively, feels like those B options are sort of brought to swallow. So I am wondering if we looked at those two B options, do we feel strongly that who should go forward or should we move to eliminate one of the B options as a place to start?
[Luke Preisner]: Luke? I don't want to address that. So I want a lot of discussion and I want to raise a different point. Okay.
[John Falco]: Paul? I think 4.2 is frankly one of the most expensive options at $875 million. And also frankly, it gets really bad scores across, it doesn't do well in, so I can't make a motion, but 4.2 seems like it wasn't a good option. Aaron?
[Aaron Olapade]: I have to agree with Paula. I just, I think 4.2, the length of time it was, a little under six years, it'll take a duration, almost the highest amount of modular buildings, like I mentioned earlier, and one of the highest costs just bring it comparatively to the other B. I do think that like many other members mentioned that there is some benefit or benefit to incorporate or consider a B option just so that we are being as careful as we can and the community understands that consideration that we're having. So I'm happy to make a motion unless there's other discussion about the B options to eliminate B 4.2 and just consider B1. points here. I'm going to ask for a discussion.
[Luke Preisner]: Hold on.
[Jenny Graham]: Hold on. We'll get to everyone, I promise.
[Luke Preisner]: Luke. So I think it's important to have a score on rubric. I am familiar with the evaluation matrix. I found it too complicated. It objected to the fact that we didn't actually make those scores. It came from our team. And they were informative. but it didn't come from us. Today, I felt like we sat through the most productive conversation that I've been party to as part of this committee. And we heard a lot of things, right? We heard about the pool, that's important. But we also heard about other things that are maybe equally as important. And I think from that discussion, we could probably distill some principles to formulate a scoring. Nothing overly complicated. The evaluation criteria spreadsheet, impressive, but it's too much to work through. There's just so many categories. And we could have little knife fights about whether it's a zero or a two until midnight. So I would perhaps advise or at least propose that we take some of the principles that we heard today and use those to downselect. So I heard that, we should include at least one concept that avoids modules, and I think that's important. I think we should have some consideration about first responders, because this building will serve over 1,000 people at any time. And first response community needs to be able to get to where they need to get to in the shortest amount of time possible. I think we heard that body carbon, and it is away, not only to be good to the environment, but also to avoid some costs, because making concrete in 1970 was far less expensive than it is today. So we heard that was important. I think we heard a few other things that our committee feel very important. And so I would ask that maybe we have a short discussion to maybe narrow down the principles that we want to use down select. We could use the ones I mentioned and add to them, or we could come up with a different set, but I would like to have that discussion and try to target like five principles that we all kind of agree are important and utilize those to get us down to five.
[Jenny Graham]: Is that a motion?
[Luke Preisner]: Um, well actually I'm fishing for anybody else who thinks along the same way and wants to say something supportive. Ryan.
[Unidentified]: Mine is actually just.
[Jenny Graham]: I mean, I think one of the things that is important to me about this committee is that there's 25 people who are dedicating their time and they all see value in different things. So trying to get to a place where we're like, What I hear when I hear about rubric, blah, blah, blah, what I hear is we're trying to make this not a decision. We're trying to say, well, we decided on these things, and now, therefore, we must pick these choices. And I think that discounts that everybody here bring some sort of different focus to the table and that's frankly why we push to have such a big committee. It is not easy to manage a committee of 25 and everyone who I tell that we have a committee of 25 is like, ish, that's a lot of people. But I think the beauty of having 25 people at the table is that we do all get to think about this same problem in a different way. So I'm not overly inclined to try to force us to agreement about what we find important, because I think we all have different things that are important to us. And it's part of why we assembled this group the way that we did, so that there were people representing lots of different points of view. and that we can sort of speak to all of that. I will say I totally agree that we heard lots of interesting things tonight. We did hear a lot from our pool party people and I so appreciate that they showed up. I believe they were given some misinformation about that we were gonna get rid of the pool tonight and we'll figure out like sort of where that came from and try to correct it. We also have heard lots of things from lots of people along this entire process. And I don't want to discount their input just because they didn't have the luxury to be with us tonight. So I think that's where we're all talking to different people. We're all listening. We're all hearing from different folks. And it's up to us to come to some kind of consensus. And for me, I don't think forcing us to a set of like overall statements is going to compel me to vote a certain way. So I don't need that. But again, if it's a motion, I will happily call the roll. I just, I think that is like another step that actually doesn't move us forward to the task at hand. So I just want to sort of offer up that thought.
[Luke Preisner]: So I'd like to make a motion. Okay. I'd like to make a motion to declare at least five principles, and I'll name three, and the motion's open to amendment, people can add to it, and then we can vote on it, and that'll be that. What I want to avoid is the perception of arbitrariness to our decision making. I also value everyone's opinion, and I believe everyone comes from a different perspective, and the reason that we sat here for two and a half, actually three hours, was to hear all that. And the value of bringing everyone together is it presents an opportunity to synthesize the prevailing ideas. So if something is repeated by multiple people, that makes it prevail over other things. And so I think the value of sitting here for three hours and talking about all this is that we have an opportunity to synthesize some key things that are important And those represent a foundation for making decisions and would not be an arbitrary sort of reaction from each committee member as their favorite four, but something that's based on discussion and logic and oriented toward a goal. So that would be the motion and the three that I would recommend is avoiding modular classrooms, positioning it as close to the street as feasible for first responders, and preserving as much of the original structure as is compatible with the educational type.
[Unidentified]: Is there a second? I'm going to use the appropriate public to make a comment on that subject. As soon as we have a second.
[Jenny Graham]: As soon as we have a second. Is there a second?
[Jenny Graham]: Come on up, Rick.
[Luke Preisner]: On the topic, I would say that the criteria of session is making. I like it because it takes the biggest rationale, which is not talking to people, being able to do a brief piece. It says to me why the decisions were made. One, I would also have the group to consider, not to say any of the scenarios, once you select those with a higher incident of non-funded SBAB content, not to say absolutely none, but on that spectrum, this one having a lot of non-funded SBAB content scope versus this one, I would suggest the criteria to move lower, because that's ultimately going to have an implication of cost, which I know you're not into the cost discussion much right now, excuse me, but it's going to play out heavily, because ultimately, all the design work, all the good and odd work, ultimately, we're going to have to sell this to the community. And when they see the numbers, they want to know that the financial accountability to the citizens was a fact.
[Jenny Graham]: I appreciate that. I do think modular is the very obvious place where non-reimbursable cost is very clear to us today. They will not reimburse for modulars. So those two things are actually pretty aligned. Beyond that, the amount of space in each of these options is the same. So if the reimbursability is like held constant, right? So we don't know about all of these options and we don't know it. But what we do know is the modular piece, the more modulars, the more non-reimbursable costs. That's to me the place where it's crystal clear.
[Luke Preisner]: But for example, expanding and having an additional auditorium there.
[Jenny Graham]: It is carried in all of these options. Is that reimbursable? 750 seats is, the additional 250 seats is not, but it is, all of these have overhanging.
[Luke Preisner]: It's just an observation to kind of have your radar up on it. If you have any big bogeys in there that are stroked, which we're not going to have nickel fought, although it might be nice to have, you might want to say, this is how we can temper down, tamp down the cost.
[Jenny Graham]: Thank you. Paul?
[John Falco]: Thank you. I just, Having been a member of a public body for nine years, I've never once made a decision that was either arbitrary or lacked rational rationale. So I just want to be offended for anybody else who might be. I've never been arbitrary in any decision ever. And I could explain every single bit, every rational reason for each of these 29 options without batting an eyelash. So I believe that all the members of this committee would say the same thing.
[Suzanne Galusi]: And I think I'm going to take what Paul said, what Jenny said, what Brian said. I'm not looking at courtyards. That was not something when I sat to do this work and the things that drove me, I'm not necessarily looking at courtyards. So I do think everyone came to tonight or in completing the straw poll with what is important to them and, you know, what in their gut they want to see as driving factors to making the decisions. And of course, I'm with you for your first rationale, but I'm not necessarily with you for the third one. So I think that's what's, I do think Jenny said it before, but I just think even though it's, I don't disagree with you that the rubric found like tedious and difficult to necessarily navigate. And I think that's why the way I approached it was the things that were important to me. And so those are the lines that I was looking at. That's where I kind of dug into the rubric. I don't know if we would ever get to like a place where we're all going to agree on just three or five things.
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: But to share. five most important things.
[Suzanne Galusi]: I don't think so. Maintaining the original building is not.
[Luke Preisner]: No, but you pick one exemplar for each principle. So one of them is, start with the first one. Of all of these concepts, only a couple actually need it. And you pick one of the two that are your exemplar for that principle. So that is carried forward to the MSBA, communicates to the MSBA and to our design and management team that it's important to us. Pick a different exemplar for the next one and so on. How are you getting it? Kind of my thought process.
[Jenny Graham]: I appreciate you bringing that forward. I think it's all things to help consider and think about, but I think to kind of Dr. Lucey's point, other points that have been said, if we all could agree on five different things and they all held the same value to us, we wouldn't be going on to hour number four. We could have all just kind of pushed a button on our votes and we could have gone like three hours ago. So I think there is a certain amount of just understanding what matters to us as individuals, because that's reflective of the community.
[Libby Brown]: Things value are a value to the community and everything that's been said here tonight and every meeting thus far, I have taken and considered.
[Jenny Graham]: And I don't think we need to go down the line of saying, here are the five things and here's how we all rank them, which is just say, why are we voting against this? Not to like, you know, either that works at this point. Would you like me to call this roll?
[Luke Preisner]: Sure. Unless there are any amendments.
[Jenny Graham]: Well, there are three criteria, first responders, modulars and embodied carbon embodied carbon. Okay. Jenny Graham. No. Mayor Lungo-Koehn.
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: It's just a pick five or those three are Those those three are supposed to help pick the five.
[Unidentified]: Yes. Dr. Galusi. No. Martha Rowe.
[Jenny Graham]: No. Joan Bowen. No. Ken Lord. No. Libby Brown.
[Libby Brown]: No.
[Jenny Graham]: Marissa Desmond is absent. Maria Dorsey. No. Brian Hilliard. No. Emily Lazzaro.
[Unidentified]: No.
[Jenny Graham]: Paul Malone. No. Nicole Morell.
[Unidentified]: No.
[Jenny Graham]: Aaron Olapade. No. Luke Preissner.
[Unidentified]: Yes.
[Jenny Graham]: Two in the affirmative, 12 in the negative, one absent, the motion does not pass. I believe we were discussing a motion about a removal of one of the B options. Aaron, can you remind us what your motion was?
[Aaron Olapade]: Yeah, my motion was to remove B4.2 from consideration. And again, to reiterate, I think some of the committee's consideration maintain at least one B for the overall consideration. I personally don't like the B options in general, but I do understand the want to consider them at some point. So we'll remove 4.2.
[Jenny Graham]: Remove 4.2 is Aaron's motion. Brian?
[Luke Preisner]: If I can just speak to that quickly. I think it's important to at least the two Bs, whether we like them or not. And I'm not saying they're necessarily going to move forward, but I see a lot of potential in both of them. Libby brought up one about the C-Ring and the Art Wings, the theater that we don't touch in one of them. And it also includes, one of these includes driving a hole through the middle of the roof here at the B-Wing. This one, before, sort of takes a different approach, takes out all that stuff that maybe isn't working so well for us, maintains some of the safety in the theater, working relatively well. Both people who were able to keep the gym, And I think moving both of those forward, because they actually attack it from different criteria. If we want to just drill down into, or at least eliminate some of the other ones, moving to the seeds, a lot of them actually have, I'd say, a lot of the same embodied potential in all of them, or a couple of them that we could put together and maybe eliminate some of them. But I think these two bees actually would be two different things to pay.
[Unidentified]: So I wouldn't suggest that we get rid of both of them. Is there a second to Aaron's motion? Second by Nicole to remove 4.2. Other conversation about removing 4.2?
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: I just have a question. Sure, sorry. No, you're fine through the chair. Just, I guess for the OPM team and the designer team, as it relates to the Bs versus the Cs, when we do have to make the tough decisions come next meeting on the 27th, is there one that is going to be, is keeping multiple Bs on the table potentially going to drive down costs once we start eliminating some space?
[Matt Rice]: So I can just add one point that the renovated space will get a higher reimbursement rate than the new construction space. So at some level, the more square footage you keep, the higher of the higher reimbursement rate you're going to get on that square footage. I think that that might be a question.
[Luke Preisner]: Thank you. And is that related to embodied carbon and just as a
[Matt Rice]: I think that it's sort of the genesis behind them giving additional reimbursement for renovation square footage is that they're trying to incentivize communities to reuse a resource when it's available. So from that perspective, yes. Thank you.
[Kimberly Talbot]: Brian?
[Luke Preisner]: So I would just then layer on top of that that using two B options, which actually would end up with very different outcomes because of how much we reduce and how much we take down, I think is pretty nice to balance it against the seams, which have very little, you know, it's just the pool, it's just the gym, but a lot more construction. And again, I think we can, a lot of the seams have the similar potential that Terry Pickerty rose off with, because they're so similar, whereas running two beams that have different approaches to the renovation component, I think it's not a bad idea.
[Unidentified]: Lisa, a question for the team.
[Libby Brown]: Are the rules different for the renovation of existing space versus new build? For instance, my understanding is something like cafeteria space.
[Unidentified]: I'm not saying we would want to keep all the current cafeteria space, but if we were renovating it, would we be allowed to have more cafeteria space or do all the same MSBA rules apply to renovated space? The rules all apply.
[John Falco]: Paul? thinking to that point about the higher rate of reimbursement for renovated space, but 60% of our $200 folks is not a better deal than 50% of $100 folks, right? One's gonna cost you 50 bucks, another one's gonna cost you What's the 100 and 200, sorry? No, no, but we assume that a renovated space from that point was just made, and it's very important. But to assume that a renovated space has a total cost that is the same as a new space is, I think, delusional. We don't know that. And anybody who's ever renovated their house thinks, I could have built half my house with this kitchen. So a higher rate, I'm assuming they don't fall from like 53% to 90%. No, they go in percent of the maximum.
[Matt Gulino]: Yeah. Yeah. It's not it. Yeah. It's all based on how much square footage you keep. So it will vary, um, from option to option, depending on that square footage.
[John Falco]: Massive increase.
[Matt Gulino]: No, it's not.
[John Falco]: No, it's not. Then to build a new one for a couple of extra points on the inverse. So. It isn't that we are necessarily going to pay less because we are renovating, but that isn't how it works. So 4% is quite a bit. It'll cost 40% more to renovate the square foot space, then you're losing a lot of money. I'm still happy with 4%. So I think that's an important point. Am I wrong? If I'm wrong, I want to know it.
[Matt Rice]: You're not wrong in terms of that. We're thinking about the magnitude of sort of what that additional reimbursement rate is going to be. It really shouldn't be driving sort of all the decision-making. It can factor into decision-making, certainly, but it's not going to be a completely diametrically different equation when we get done. It just means that there's going to be slightly more reimbursement rate for that square footage, but it's not a big number at the end of the day.
[John Falco]: bigger reimbursement rate, but that isn't answering the question. To reimburse this square, to renovate the square, it's $1,000. The building is $5,000. Who cares what the reimbursement rates are? They're not terribly different.
[Matt Rice]: The reason I'm just having trouble understanding that comparison is it's not that cut and dry in terms of the $500. to $1,000 in terms of the difference in the pool. And I think just going back to Luke's point, a couple hours back, in that the cost, the renovated cost per square foot is lower than the new construction cost per square foot, depending on what we're saving, right? And it's primarily gonna be structure in this case. For any piece of the building that we're looking at, it's really the most salvageable piece. And there is some cost savings to it. There's gonna be other costs that are driven though, in terms of the renovation, in terms of phasing. in terms of the modular classrooms that come in. So it's just not a very easy sort of like one-to-one decision in terms of trying to say, yes, it's more or less expensive.
[John Falco]: Renovations does not mean we take this room and make it into a lovely library with that, and just leave it on the walls. It means we get rid of the whole thing except for some pylons.
[Matt Rice]: And we might have something completely different in here as a usage.
[Luke Preisner]: It's invasive renovation. And as I interpret the space summary, it doesn't matter whether it's reno or new, our ed plan thrives a certain number of classrooms, which drives a certain space. And whether it's reno or new, it's the same space. Is that a fair interpretation of the same space summary? It's still pretty high.
[Jenny Graham]: Same square footage, yes.
[Luke Preisner]: So it's not like you're shrinking by going new. Right. Phil? Yeah, I hope I don't complicate this.
[Phil Santos]: I'm going to try hard. Reimbursement value just calculated on the amount of base that you're that you're Saving versus like is it or the different percentage applied to new build versus re for a bill, right? there's not two different values that are used like if you build a new wing is that 50% reimbursed and then if you if you if you reconstruct in another wing that's 60% reimbursed or it's just it's it's a way of to generate that initial reimbursement rate and then it's applied throughout your project where it is applicable. Does that make sense? Yeah.
[Jenny Graham]: It's done via incentive points, right? And so it applies across all policies.
[Phil Santos]: So it's just the first calculation and then the whole project uses that number. Correct. So it could make a big difference because then your whole project, if you got up If you would increase your reimbursement rate by 2% and your project's $800 million, you're saving a lot. In theory. But you don't, right?
[Unidentified]: Sorry.
[Jenny Graham]: Jessica Parks, please state your name and address for the record. Jessica Parks, 38 Court Street. I just wanted to say it's up to five incentive points for reuse, but it's a huge
[Unidentified]: and what a constant victory is.
[Jenny Graham]: So thank you. Thank you. There is a motion on the floor to eliminate 4.2. Okay.
[Zac Bears]: Sorry, I said I'm going to do this, but you're going late enough, and it's like a city council meeting. So, um, for the record, Zachary City Council President, um, 1 30 offers your number two.
[Unidentified]: Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: I just wanted to look on your face. I think it's important to you to recognize you seem to be indicating with it that it's not a significant, that this is not going to be, the reimbursement rate between having a significant amount of renovated space versus less is not going to be a major cost driver on this.
[Matt Rice]: It's very challenging to say that for sure right now because of the variables that I was trying to sort of list out to Paul, but there's tertiary impacts there that come on the amount of phasing when we start thinking about the amount of renovation that's going to happen, the amount of modular attachment that's going to drive, time considerations that are there. So you can say for a fact that it's going to have a beneficial impact in terms of incrementally increasing your reimbursement rate for the amount of square footage that you're renovating. The bottom line number is, I just don't, I can't sit here right now and tell you for a fact that yes, it's more expensive or yes, it's cheaper. Right.
[Zac Bears]: And it seems to be like you may, let's say it's significant reuse gets you significant incentive points, your reimbursement rates 5% higher because of it. and a bunch of modulars then. Yeah, okay. I just wanted to be clear about what you were trying to say. Okay, thank you for letting me explain that.
[Jenny Graham]: Thank you. Sorry, one more point about reimbursement and timing and when we will learn more about each of these options. In May, when we get cost estimates back for this narrowed set, we will have a lot more information to share with this group and we'll have a lot more information about what we'll take, left field, we'll take a stab at what the reimbursement rate is for a range so that we're not narrowing too closely, but for each option that's still on the table at that point before we narrow down. So there will be a lot more information on the next stage. So this is just getting us there. Okay, I'm gonna call the roll. On the motion to remove 4.2 by Aaron and seconded by Nicole. Jenny Graham, yes. Mayor Lungo-Koehn. Remove 4.2, no. Dr. Galusi. Yes. Marta Cabral. Yeah. Joan Bowen. Yes. Ken Lord. Yes. Libby Brown. No. Marissa Desmond. Absent. Sorry. Maria Dorsey. Yes. Brian Hilliard. No. Emily Lazzaro.
[Unidentified]: No.
[Jenny Graham]: Paul Malone. No. Nicole Morell. Yes. Erin Olapade. Yes. Luke Freisner.
[Unidentified]: No.
[Jenny Graham]: Eight in the affirmative, six in the negative, one absent, motion passes. B4.2 is removed. Okay, we are now at one, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight, nine options. Probably have a little bit more work to do. And I would like to make a motion or I would like somebody to make a motion on my behalf to remove C2.1, because C2.1 and 2.2 are very similar. I would go to C2.1 and, I don't know, take your pick of 2.2 or 3.2. I think 2.1, 2.2, 3.2, 3.3.
[Adam Hurtubise]: They may look really different.
[Unidentified]: We're all studying a very similar thing. So I mean, if you want to just pick one, I'm happy to just support that, but just let me go.
[Jenny Graham]: Let's start there. I just, when we're at this point, like I think we should be taking, kicking them off one at a time so that people can really decide how they feel about Detroit. Thank you, Libby. Motion by Libby to delete B2.1. Is there a second? Second by Brian.
[Unidentified]: Any questions or comments about that choice? Okay. I'm gonna call the roll.
[Jenny Graham]: Is everyone ready? Yeah. Okay. Jenny Graham. Yes. Mayor Londo Kern. Yes. Dr. Galuzzi. Yes. Marta Cabral. Yes. Joan Bowen. Yes. Ken Lord. Yes. Libby Brown. Yes. Marissa Desmond is absent. Maria Dorsey? Yes. Brian Hilliard? Yes. Emily Lazzaro?
[Adam Hurtubise]: Yes.
[Jenny Graham]: Paul Malone?
[Luke Preisner]: Yes.
[Jenny Graham]: Nicole Morell? Yes. Luke Pryson?
[Luke Preisner]: Who's this, Darren?
[Jenny Graham]: Darren. Sorry, I'm a little out of it. You're staying, you're staying.
[Unidentified]: Okay. You're on the negative one absent guys. We all agreed on that. That's good work.
[Jenny Graham]: Good work. We're at eight total still on the table. I heard what Libby was saying about getting rid of something of this slew.
[Suzanne Galusi]: I would want to keep C2.2 of that group, just because it is the only one that explores that other field space.
[Jenny Graham]: Can you go to C3.2 again? And C3.3 and C3.4?
[Unidentified]: 3.3 is already it. Totally it. Yeah, we care.
[Jenny Graham]: Yeah, that was just a thought. No, it's fine.
[Luke Preisner]: I think you're back to 3.3. 3.3 and 3.2 should be whittled down. 3.3, there's no connection between the gym and the rest of the building.
[Jenny Graham]: I think I'm hearing a bit of a quiet motion. Brian?
[Luke Preisner]: So I'm happy to get rid of 3.3. I think a lot of it can be accomplished through some of the other particularly 3.2, which I like.
[Unidentified]: So I make motion to remove that to get rid of 3.3.
[Jenny Graham]: I motion to remove 3.3, seconded by Mayor Lando Kearns. Is that right? Is that what I heard? Yes.
[Unidentified]: We have multiple voices, but we were first.
[Jenny Graham]: Questions, comments, Paul?
[John Falco]: That was one of the two that does not have modulars, which I thought we voted in as a totally not a conversation anymore finalist.
[Jenny Graham]: We just voted it. forward to this pool. Can I ask a similar question?
[Unidentified]: If we think that if we were to pull off 3.3 because it doesn't have modular, if we can get there with a 3.2
[Luke Preisner]: Is there a way? Because I don't, I don't now recall exactly how you were phasing it, but I feel like a 3-2 and a 3-3 are going to be within striking distance of modules and neurobiomers.
[Matt Rice]: So it's going to push towards this notion of the fact that, well, maybe we can modify one of them to get to someplace we want to go. So We can certainly look at it and try. We can't sit here and guarantee that, yes, we're going to find a way to do 3.2 with no modular. So I think that would not be sort of fair to the process that we've been going to in terms of evaluations. But if we want to do it, the group wants to do it based on aspiration, I think that's understandable. We'll just certainly work towards that. We can minimize modular. Which, over and over again, I think that's one of the things I heard. I thought previously you mentioned
[Luke Preisner]: If we have two without modular, one is new build, new construction, which is important, I think, if we put this on the table, maybe with no modulars.
[Unidentified]: But if we do, do we need to lean to something in the C realm that has no modular?
[Kimberly Talbot]: There's only two total that have no modulars. D, 3.1, and this one. Sorry, 3.3. C, 3.3.
[Luke Preisner]: And I'm wondering if there's a way to get there with a building that still connects to the old original construction and actually bring the face forward for the public, instead of hiding it behind maintenance and structure. I just have a problem with not having a public face as you approach this new program.
[Unidentified]: So I don't. And I don't love how they're separated. Correct. And that's Fox Week. I'll talk to our attorney, can we say keep it 3.3, but just. I think the 3.2 is the last phase as it wraps around the front. As long as you don't say courtyard. 3.3 is heavy on the courtyard. I'm putting a public face ahead of the modular right now, but I don't want to eliminate one with modular. I know the modular is important and it's an expense, I get it. But if we design this $800 million building, that's going to be here for, I hope, 100 years, around five years of time when there's modulars and a few kids. And I know it's not a few kids. It's a lot of kids. And again, it's my kids. But so short-sighted to be able to put the building on the back in front of this old crappy-looking gym because a bunch of kids have been inconvenienced for a couple of years. How many visits does somebody run somewhere else for a few years? I get it. I'm not trying to be insensitive. This is a lot of money and a really important building. So like perspective, I think, long-term perspective.
[Jenny Graham]: So is the motion still to eliminate 3.3?
[John Falco]: Can I speak? Paul? Whether we get rid of 3.3 or not, 3.3 is six stories. So I hope nobody's excited about that. That's a huge tall bill.
[Unidentified]: I can retract my 3.3 removal if it comes out of modulars and get it. So I can amend that to get rid of 3.4. What's 3.4? It's the second most popular.
[Jenny Graham]: It's highly rated one of all the files. Yeah. I like that one.
[Unidentified]: Yeah. It looks like we're kind of high in the building here. Does anybody else have?
[Michael Pardek]: So we're going to. I mean, have you said that. Do you think 3.2 and 2.2 are similar enough? I mean, in that big.
[Unidentified]: Yeah, you're right. Sorry. Hold on. You said 3.2. 2.2 does explore that field that you need, but I feel like they're both building sort of north and west. Yeah. So I felt like people in love with 3.2. 2.2 and 3.2. I like 3.2. I'm not sure, other than the fact that it doesn't attach, but that's probably fixable.
[Aaron Olapade]: Can we motion for a different one while people consider other options. There's a lot of C's. For the D options, I know there's some kind of consideration about the closeness of D11 to the street. It's six stories, which I think is just too much, especially it's all centrally located, so it's not even going up a grade. It's all just six stories straight up. So I think there's a question about just maneuverability for students. Safety, I think, is an interesting question for sure. It is more front-based priority or something to be more conservative of. But I think it's the most expensive build. It'll take a long amount of time, which I think is just, sorry, not the longest time, but it's one of the most expensive options. I apologize. So I think that I would, and also the modular buildings. So there's a piece of it too. So I motion to remove D11.
[Unidentified]: Sarah's second to remove D11. So, I could just say like I, I like being able to bring two new build options forward.
[Jenny Graham]: personally because I think they like explore very different to the point of like exploring different sites on the property. I think those two options do allow us to explore them. So I like for me, I like keeping two of them. I feel like the Bs and the Cs are sort of like gonna all like mash together over time and we'll come out with something that doesn't quite look like any of this is my prediction. But I'm not like super excited about removing D1.1, but I'm happy to call the roll if there aren't other questions about D1.1. Do you have a question about D1.1?
[Luke Preisner]: I would just like to argue that, and I think Luke alluded to this earlier, that it's kind of important to have something down-to-level for the approach from the public to all these things and keep that on the table just to explore it. use forward one that's down low and one that's up high.
[Unidentified]: Ready? I just want to get to the cost part because contrary to what you might think based on how much I wanted to keep fee in there, I think D1.1 has a lot of wonderful potential and I know the cost was like the most expensive, but I think to Sunny's point earlier and to all of our discussions about like the size of the building and the discussions that will come about the safe space summary, That is one of the major ways that the cost might come down. So if that cost number doesn't freak me out in comparison to others for what it's worth, I think it's just a lot of value, something we could continue studying.
[Suzanne Galusi]: Dr. Gallucci? I do have a couple of questions about this one, though, because this one's not on Edgeley Field. So I understood why some of the concepts had multiple floors, because you had to deal with the scope increase. This is six floors. without having to deal with the scope increase. And I would be curious, and I, but where do we park? Like, so the existing building is behind. I mean, there's some sort of phased approach here, but where do all the people park if we're building on the parking lots and all that's left are fields?
[Matt Rice]: During construction we're talking about. During construction. Yeah, so I mean, there's two options. One is we lose a field and we park on the field.
[Suzanne Galusi]: Um, or we can't, we don't have access up there.
[Matt Rice]: So just conceptually in terms, so we either find a field space and we park there because it has, it's available. Um, or we have to park offsite and we have to shuttling some remote access to the site. So it's a big challenge.
[Suzanne Galusi]: Okay. My, my last question, cause I'm just going to leave that one. My last question is. Does A have to be considered in the five options?
[Unidentified]: Yes, yes.
[Suzanne Galusi]: So we can't leave this meeting in six.
[SPEAKER_19]: Didn't you say it was like a round three to five? So what I meant was that A had to move over as part of the group.
[Suzanne Galusi]: And we can get as a group down to five plus A. I mean, I'm hearing that we have like one A and one B. But trying to get to either one C or one D is the challenge right now.
[Jenny Graham]: I think if we sent six, they would probably be okay with that.
[Matt Gulino]: Is that what I'm hearing? They essentially, the MSBA said we should narrow down or we're going to make you study all 29 options in TSR. So if we have to study six instead of five, I don't think that they're going to make a... Especially when we have rationale.
[Luke Preisner]: Right, yeah. And the fact that we have a budget.
[Jenny Graham]: Okay, we're still talking about removing the 1.1.
[Michael Pardek]: I know I had a comment about removing the 1.1. I feel against removing it is the only option that does still build on existing parking lot. It is the most expensive, which I think is bad, but it also feels like it has I would like to ask, is there potentially room to explore a D1.1 with the less costly decked over parking space if we want to sacrifice some field space and potentially with phasing that could reduce the modulars, which then I feel like would maybe bring it cost-wise closer into the neighborhood. And then also it would allow us to say, D1.1. So can you speak to those questions?
[Matt Rice]: Yeah, so I think I could say with a straight face more that we can definitely investigate that trade-off balance between field space and parking space because that's something that we can and should investigate for every one of the options that we move forward in the process because it's really about priorities and about sort of the cost of each one of those options that we would choose. In terms of avoiding modulars, we could probably do it what it'll do is just drive the height of the building beyond the six stories to seven, eight, whatever that number is, which I think will become sort of quickly untenable in terms of thinking about it. Cause that's really the only way that we can reduce the footprint is to try to get tighter onto the parking lot. And probably when people leave, whenever we get out of here, we just like walk out there and like stare at the parking lot and try to envision like this building, all of this program, plus a couple 10,000 square feet, 40,000 square feet. I think we even have maybe 80 more out there. I mean, you can just, it's going to start to really feel like a very tall building. Yeah. Does that make sense though, in terms of the responses to two parts of the question?
[Michael Pardek]: So the parking is an easier sacrifice cost-wise. Modular is less so, unless we're willing to build really tall.
[Matt Rice]: with this particular object.
[Unidentified]: We can still challenge the team, and you can come back and say, can't do it, but we can still ask.
[Matt Rice]: We can tell you to talk. If there's nothing against that, we can definitely do it for you and show you what that means, and we can talk about it. Lisa?
[Unidentified]: Yeah, I just had a quick comment. I'm concerned about six stories. Just thinking about student experience on a daily basis, navigating it from class to class.
[Libby Brown]: So it just seems like a lot stares.
[SPEAKER_34]: I'm concerned about that.
[Phil Santos]: But I think, like Paul said, it's not the whole building is all high school, right? There's a lot of other things. So you can definitely reduce that for the high school portion of it.
[Kimberly Talbot]: But I think 41-1, you'd have to have some. I don't think that both of those top floors could be all other administrative buildings.
[Jenny Graham]: I think that's something that we would have to explore. in any of these scenarios going forward?
[Luke Preisner]: Luke? And so what I'll say applies to this, but also others. The community has to vote. And there may be a lot of pushback when the numbers are refined for people. They see these, but they know they're going to be adjusted. But they're still going to be big. And there might be pushback that drives the budget down, which will mean that the space summary will have to change. and the reality could be the building won't be six stories because we can't afford it. So that's a possibility too. And I'll point out with the parking structure, I mean, it could be a field or it could be a big PB farm, but that's something we can all talk about later as we start thinking about operating costs and like budget, because budget will matter. And that is probably the biggest feedback loop on this whole process. I mean, we all have our opinions, we have our discussions, synthesize ideas, what have you, but the strongest feedback group is community. And, you know, I think through the Citywide Mailer, we'll get more awareness and more people talking about it. And, you know, I think that will have an influence on how tall and how long some of these concepts are.
[Jenny Graham]: I'm gonna call the roll on removing D1.1. Motion by Aaron, seconded by Maria. Jenny Graham. No. Mayor Mungo Kern. Yes. Dr. Galusi. Yes. Marta Cabral. No. Joan Bowen. Yes. Ken Lord. No. Libby Brown. No. Marissa Desmond is absent. Maria Dorsey. Yes. Brian Hilliard. No. Maria, you said yes. Yes. Sorry. Um, and Brian, you said no. Okay. Um, Emily Lazzaro. I saw that she had to jump off. Um, Paul Malone. No. Nicole Morell.
[Unidentified]: No.
[Jenny Graham]: Aaron Olapade.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Um, it's getting late for me.
[Luke Preisner]: So, uh, It's to remove?
[Jenny Graham]: Remove D1.1.
[Luke Preisner]: It's to remove, and what's the current vote count right now?
[Jenny Graham]: The noes have it? Yeah. All right. No.
[Luke Preisner]: One, two, three, four in the affirmative.
[Jenny Graham]: 9 in the negative, 2 absent, motion fails.
[Libby Brown]: So we have to kill 2? Yeah. I'm not understanding. It's been going on. I'm just making sure we're all understanding. You got it.
[Jenny Graham]: It's solved for B. B is done and dusted. We've got C left to consider. There is still a motion on the table. from Brian and the mayor to eliminate 3.3, although I think there was some confusion, could talk. So if you want to like rescind your motion, we can just like pretend it never happened. Or if you would like us to call it, we can do that too. But yeah, we have to make a couple of decisions on C. Yes, Brian.
[Luke Preisner]: I'll stick with removing 3.3 of the motion only everything shouldn't be at the back of her property.
[Jenny Graham]: Got it. So the motion and Mayor, you're still worthy of a second.
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: And that's our only option left with no modulars. Oh, D2.1 is. Yep, D2.1.
[Unidentified]: but there's a potential of being able to modify 3-2, so it looks more like 3-3. It's more accurate as the module is moving around.
[Luke Preisner]: They're very similar. I like the idea of having some new structure and visible, at least as part of your first view of the facility. 3-2 is a little tighter in that respect.
[Jenny Graham]: Mayor, are you still seconding removing 3-3? You don't vote any way you want.
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: Right. I saw that. We just go through these C's one more time from C2 down. C2.
[John Falco]: I heard somebody say when we were talking about C3.3 that we're going to build this lovely school and we're going to have this ugly GMAT process. We are not going to have an ugly GMAT process. Like that's going to get renovated. It's going to be theater floors, kind of match the structure and like- Overclad. Overclad it. Yeah. I mean, it's not going to be like this third building concrete ugly thing sitting in front. And this is just, this isn't a design as we have all talked about it as a design. Every one of us for months now, even though we all started out, we start designs.
[Kimberly Talbot]: Are you talking about 3.3? Yes. Okay.
[John Falco]: I just think that with respect to the many people who are keenly concerned about how much this is going to cost, this is the cheapest option. So, I mean, I'm not a personally, like that's not how I would make my decision, but it is the cheapest option we're looking at and still on the table. So, I mean, I just feel like How could we not do that? But we don't hate it for anything other than perhaps that it's not connected to the gym. We definitely love no classrooms for modular classrooms. So it's only four stories versus seven for the other seat. So it just, to me, it has a lot going for it. I obviously don't, I definitely do not like the idea that it's not connected to the gym, but that said, I mean, This is, again, this isn't a design.
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: It's not that it says we can't figure out how to connect it. Yeah. I rescind my second. Sorry, Brian.
[Libby Brown]: Can I ask a question for Nicole? Is it easier to turn 3.3 to look more like 3.2 or like the other way around? Good question.
[Jenny Graham]: How can we help you guys? I guess the other thing I'm thinking about is there's still 18 people left. Everyone's dropping like flies because this is a long process. And when we're done here, I think everything we're talking about says that 3.2. No, sorry, 3.4. 3.2 versus 3.3. 3.2 sounds more like what we want.
[Unidentified]: Sick story.
[Jenny Graham]: Except that it's connected to the gym. It's all the things. 3.3, somebody that looks at this tomorrow would be like, why did they pick that? How are the kids gonna get to the gym, right? So to me, the one that like brings some of the parts of the building forward feels like a bet, like if we're gonna have a jumping off point, it's I think a clearer jumping off point than a building that our butters will hate completely disconnected from the gym. Like how do you get to gym class? You know, like, and I get that we can make either of those options look like the other one, but for right now, the jumping off point, we're gonna have to climb that hill of like, why did you pick something that is disconnected from the gym? And so that's one of the things that I worry about in terms of like being able to explain this to the people who aren't here tonight and who aren't architects and aren't like really involved in all of this. Brian.
[Luke Preisner]: Another question for Mr. Romain. A lot of people are tossing around seeing 3.2 or 6 buildings, and I want to say that it's not. This is, I'm just assuming, but that it is very tiered all the way up. You can sort of see it there. It's thrown a lot of people off. It may actually be the lower option because it is split out and it does tear down a waterfall from the site. Yeah, I want to make that point that six stories should not, may not want to enter into your process. And when they're kind of dropped off, it makes a lot more sense.
[Jenny Graham]: Just an arrival of welcoming. So does Brian's motion to eliminate 3.3 have a second? Second. Yes.
[John Falco]: Again, I respect the rubric that this entire committee spent and a lot of time on coming up with it and agreeing to merely a man at the end of the, not necessarily, but close. 3.3 scores dramatically better than 3.5. And it is, in fact, the highest graded from everything in this entire 29 weeks. We've seen 3.3 score 226 versus 187 for 3.2.
[Unidentified]: Um, that's the design. Like if it's about orientation or it's about like how it engages with the fells, I don't, I can't find it.
[John Falco]: Sure. But like, this is real again.
[Unidentified]: It's real. The rubric says like not real thing much earlier.
[John Falco]: Like the rubric is going to, like, everything is going to change.
[Jenny Graham]: Everything about every single option is going to look different in June than it looks today, is my understanding.
[John Falco]: 3.2 got a zero for ease of maintenance. 3.3 got a five. Maximum use of photovoltaics, a zero for 3.2, a five for 3.3. If I didn't design these, we just agreed that this was gonna be the rubric, and I'm reading you the numbers that we all saw. C 3.3, the school disruption was the least. C 3.2 is a two. So, I mean, I'm just going back to the data. I'm not.
[Unidentified]: I think you'd be able to interpret the data. I hear you, but we're not going to build that exact thing.
[Libby Brown]: Well, it is. There's also 3.4, which is very close to 3.3. Yes. Similar ish.
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: So it's just like looking at a pool of four that we have to move to. So I think we're putting two head to head a little bit, not arbitrarily, but just understanding there's two others in that pool as well.
[Luke Preisner]: So we have the motion to delete.
[Jenny Graham]: To eliminate 3.3.
[Unidentified]: 3.3, and there was a second.
[Jenny Graham]: Thank you.
[Luke Preisner]: There was a second.
[Jenny Graham]: Yep, there was a second by Joe.
[Luke Preisner]: I'll move the question.
[Jenny Graham]: OK, here we go. To eliminate 3.3.
[Luke Preisner]: Is there a way to actually add a line that says that it should be more blend or there's a way to explore?
[Jenny Graham]: That's for the feedback form.
[John Falco]: Okay, good. That's not what we're sending here.
[Jenny Graham]: Correct. We have to send one of these. Okay, I'm going to call the roll. 3.3. Can you put 3.3 back up? Sorry. I can find it. There it is. Eliminating 3.3. Jenny Graham. Yes. Mayor Lungo-Koehn. No. Dr. Galusi. No. Marta Cabral. Yes. Joan Bowen.
[Unidentified]: Yes. Ken Lord. Yes.
[Jenny Graham]: Libby Brown. Yes. Marissa Desmond is absent. Maria Dorsey. Yes. Brian Hilliard. Yes. Emily Lazzaro is absent. Paul Malone. Yes. Nicole Morell. Yes. Erin Olapade. Yes. Luke Reisner.
[Unidentified]: Yes.
[Jenny Graham]: 11 in the affirmative. 2 in the negative. 2 absent. still counting correctly, this is excellent news. Motion passes, 3.3 is eliminated.
[Luke Preisner]: Can I make a motion? Luke? Can I make a motion to eliminate Starfleet Academy? Sorry, what's that?
[Jenny Graham]: Motion to eliminate Starfleet Academy. Motion to eliminate 3.4 by Luke. seconded by Brian, is that what I heard? Yeah, I know we're working on a very small sample size, but I think 3.3 and 3.4 were like the top two or some very high up there as far as which couple those plus and the small amount of general public, so just putting it out there.
[John Falco]: They were at the top. They were also the top two.
[Suzanne Galusi]: I was just going to say, we've already gotten rid of top choices. But as far as I know, you're not meeting the criteria.
[Michael Pardek]: I think, well, I know these aren't designs. I think it looks cool. And I want to say, if it goes away, I think that should be acknowledged. I also worry, though, that if you just had five minutes between dropping your kids off or something else, and you're excited about this, I feel like the curvilinear elements, such as what, I don't want to say it looks random, but the random massing between saving all courtyards do sort of finger things. If I had five minutes, I probably would have picked this one. And so I, I'm trying to say that I, that makes me appreciate more than many votes towards it, even as simultaneously, I'm kind of discounting it, knowing from our perspective, if this isn't really a sign, then 3.4 might not look this cool. That makes sense.
[John Falco]: Paul? Does anybody want to hear what our scores were? I won't read them. Nobody seems to care. I think it's not true.
[Jenny Graham]: I don't think that's true. I think we all care about a lot of things. So some people are willing to say, this is the thing. I care about the scores. That's what I care about the most. We're all here with different things that we care about. And I think that's fine. So if you would like to share the scores, please do.
[John Falco]: Okay, well, 3.4 was our number two in the scoring that we did. We'll get the five for community use and access to the pool versus the two that the other one wasn't, versus three going to. I'm just covering the highlights of the big differences. There's a competitive track and field on site, this is a five, the other one gets a zero. We just have one conversation. Paul has the floor. I found the most, the two most important of the ones that it maximizes our photovoltaic opportunities are still getting a zero, because we still do want to try and figure out how to make this building not just be a gigantic energy stock. And the easement maintenance, which I didn't understand until our last meeting where we talked about that. I didn't even know what all that meant. So the five versus the zero on that. Again, also, this one is four-story, the other one is six, although in the extension that it probably does that, it's not six, but three. And it's also $20 million cheaper than 3.3. Thank you.
[Jenny Graham]: Other questions or comments before we vote on the motion to incase 3.4, Maria.
[Libby Brown]: 3.4, one of my problems too is that horrible corner up at the edge of the pool and that the whole building backs up into that corner. And there's so little space there. So it's going to need to be, there has to be a need to get behind there at times because it's the end of the building. So while I like the concept, based on that, I won't vote to eliminate that.
[Unidentified]: I'm curious. That's an existing condition, right? Because that's how it is right now. So any version that keeps school, we have that same issue, right? Or do you think this creates exact sort of exit just because you're still creeping up on it? I agree.
[Jenny Graham]: Other questions or comments? Okay, on the motion to eliminate 3.4 by Luke, seconded by Brian. I'm gonna call the roll. This is 3.4, right? That's what we're looking at? Okay, great. Jenny Graham? No. Mayor Lungo-Koehn? To eliminate?
[Libby Brown]: No.
[Unidentified]: Dr. Galuzzi?
[Jenny Graham]: Yes.
[Unidentified]: Marta Cabral? Aye.
[Adam Hurtubise]: So tired.
[Unidentified]: No. Joan Bowen. No. Ken Lord. No.
[Jenny Graham]: Libby Brown. No. Marissa Gessner, absent. Maria Dorsey. Yes. Brian Hilliard. Yes. Emily Lazzaro, absent. Paul Malone. Yes. Nicole Morell? No. Aaron Lopate? No. Lynn Pricer?
[Unidentified]: Is it a tie?
[Jenny Graham]: We're crafting the t-shirt answers. All right. Yes. Yes. OK. 5 in the affirmative. 8 in the negative. two absent and still totals 15, which I'm excited about. So option 3.4 is not eliminated. Okay, is there a motion to eliminate 3.2? Didn't we? Well, we eliminated another one.
[Unidentified]: We eliminated 2.1 in favor of
[Jenny Graham]: 2.2. That's not to say we can't eliminate that one too, but then we would not be doing anything that explores that side of the site. Now it's between 2.2 and 3.2.
[Suzanne Galusi]: Correct. Can you show us 3.2?
[Unidentified]: That was 3.2 as well. 3.2, I thought captains compared to 3.2.
[Jenny Graham]: We did compare them, but ultimately 3.3 was what we voted on.
[Phil Santos]: I feel like we voted on two similar to 2.2 and 3.2. Now we're going to possibly cancel one of these out.
[Unidentified]: We are at seven total options right now.
[Jenny Graham]: So can we check in on whether 7 is an allowable number or not?
[Luke Preisner]: What will the MSBA say?
[Matt Gulino]: work.
[Kimberly Talbot]: It's not nothing more work, but it's just you don't want to dive deeper into fewer. Yes, the end of the day. Yes, I would just maybe take one more. If you can't do it, we'll go back and ask. But take maybe one more comparative look between 0.2 and 3.2 to see if there's something that could follow. Brian?
[Luke Preisner]: I'd like to argue in favor for keeping 2.2 and 3.2 because I actually think they explore very different portions of the site. And I feel like there's potential for 3-2 to do a lot of construction while we're still in session. And if you've heard the story from the instruction, I heard the best job of engaging with the fells, whereas 2-2 actually explores, since I'm going to mentor today, the western side of the site and further south. But I think they actually occupy different areas of the site, and we should keep studying them.
[Jenny Graham]: Can I ask a question about the D's? Which D built on Edgerly? 2.1. Is that considering B2.1 and B3.2 as They're very similar. Somewhat similar. Differences keep in the gym.
[Jenny Graham]: Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right.
[Unidentified]: Right. Right. Right. Yeah. that. Yeah.
[Jenny Graham]: I mean, I think they are to me like, yeah, to me, there's very similar, but so I don't know. I've opened to emotion. I think like we should, I think probably should figure out how to make one more elimination from this. So can we go back? Let's go. Maybe. Can you go back to the beginning and look at the items that remain on the table just so that we're able to sort of consider the full list, I think that would be helpful.
[Unidentified]: So 8.1, we all know that one. B1.2. C2.2. C3.2. Starship Academy. So D, 1.1.
[Luke Preisner]: I asked about, so with 2.2, your team conducted land surveys from mark to property. Did you check the, I'll say, the substrata in the area of that football field? Is it all rock? I know on the other side, they did a ton of blasting for the new development. Would a ton of blasting be involved in the football practice field as well?
[Kimberly Talbot]: We've only done one boring up there. The geophysical is coming in April, and that's the dragging of the plates across to, and that will give us that data about how much rock.
[Unidentified]: What's the elevation difference between that field and the whole section? That's 20, 30 feet.
[Matt Rice]: reasonable to climb up on the building like that, or is it just as vague on a bedroom? It's just as vague on a bedroom, honestly. Yeah, it's the same elevation, more or less, just sort of stretching out from there. Might be a little bit lower.
[Jenny Graham]: It's probably a little bit around. And Matt, can you also remind us, in our evaluation rubric, if we're looking at just the Cs, 2.2, 3.2, and 3.4, what were the relative scores of those three options?
[John Falco]: Oh, you have that, right? You want to read them off? 2.2 is 192. 3.2 was 197. And 3.4 was 224 seconds. I should point out of all the options we have left, only C3.4 is anything for solar. Did what? The only thing left is good for solar.
[Matt Rice]: keep in mind are where, how we graded on solar availability was the lower number of stories, which generated the higher quantity of footprint area. So that's, that's really what we're designing or evaluating the, the PV capacity on. So taller building just has less roof area. So that's the reason why C3.4, because it's a lower number of stories versus taller.
[John Falco]: C3.4 is the only four story building left. And We have three six stories and two five stories. Well, why are we still keeping 1.2B?
[Luke Preisner]: Reuse, reimbursement rate. Yeah. Brian? Can we just move forward with seven? I feel like there's enough. I mean, I'll make another motion to move 3.4, but it didn't go our last time.
[Unidentified]: So. I'll change my vote.
[Jenny Graham]: I mean, I think the only concern that I have is if we get to the MSBA tomorrow and tell them that we came up with seven and they say, nope, back to the drawing board, like we have to have another meeting by April 2nd and it has to be posted and it is incredibly complicated and pull that off, which is why we're meeting tonight.
[Unidentified]: I think they say yes, I mean, it's just asking the team to do, study more things in the same amount of time, but we're not gonna get as much information, I think. We can't study that many things at the same time. regardless of what the MSBA would expect, I think it's in everyone's best interest to have fewer or not. I haven't been helping enough, reducing, sorry.
[John Falco]: Paul? I know that we have, well, everything is beating dead horse at this point, but in that B1.2, it's worth noting, it got a miserable score. It has the distinction of getting a two optimally sized classroom spaces, as well as educational program flexibility, everything else is fine. And I know we want to keep it too, but it would be a terrible choice based on all the grading we get. A terrible choice. We didn't do the grading though. Okay. Okay. We know that, but we agree to accept the grade. So I know that we didn't go through each of the thousand cells here ourselves. side upgrades, but the professionals there. And, uh, I just think that's worth noting. It's also the longest of all the durations left, 54 months, just a huge difference. I was telling you it was in the spreadsheet. Brian.
[Luke Preisner]: I'd just like to point out that if we come in way over budget, it'd be nice to have an alternate.
[Unidentified]: Yeah.
[Luke Preisner]: is somewhere on the low end of the spectrum, that it's heavy on renovation and maybe a little more minimal on construction. Just, I'm not saying it's the right answer, but I do believe it'd be 1.5.
[John Falco]: We may be back at the drawing board if everything is dropping in scale too. I mean, it's $7 million less than C3.4. I think we're all going to be dreaming of the day where $7 million is going to take us by the time we get through this project. So, I mean, I talked to somebody who was a school committee member and is now a superintendent and in his school, his district in Andover, they were afraid to ask the voters. So they chapped $20 million off for final project cost and passed way over 50%. And that $20 million they shaved off would have made a huge difference in that school. What's that? Andover.
[Kimberly Talbot]: I thought that failed.
[John Falco]: state records for me. So I mean, $7 million to me is in no way shape or form a deciding factor here. I hope it isn't for anybody else. What is $7 million to the average taxpayer over 30 years?
[Luke Preisner]: I don't know, but it's not. I'll just make the point that $7 million, it's kind of an arbitrary number. And the Attleboro comparison, is like apples and pineapples, right? Or bananas. Because Attleboro costs like $300 million. We're talking about close to a billion dollars. Not actually that long ago. Attleboro probably opened in 21. I mean, it's 26. Most schools cost like $700 million.
[John Falco]: They've gone up 35% in the last three years. OK, so multiply 300 by
[Luke Preisner]: Well, 130. OK. Ken? I repeat my motion to remove C3.2. Motion to remove C3.2. Seconded. OK.
[Jenny Graham]: Are we ready to vote on this? Motion to remove C 3.2. Okay. I'm going to call the roll. Jenny Graham. Yes. Mayor Lungo-Koehn. Yes. Dr. Galussi. Six stories. Yes.
[John Falco]: Okay.
[Unidentified]: Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes.
[Jenny Graham]: Full morale.
[Unidentified]: No.
[Jenny Graham]: Aaron Olapade.
[Unidentified]: Um, no. Luther Kreiser. Oh, uh, yes.
[Jenny Graham]: Eight in the affirmative, five in the negative, two absent. Motion is approved, 3.2 is in the record. So we will be sending to the MSBA option A, option B 1.2, option C 2.2, option C 3.4, option D 1.1, and option D 2.1. Six options. We did it, guys. Is there somebody who is willing to make a motion to send forward option A, option B1.2, option C2.2, option C3.4, option D1.1, and option D2.1? by Dr. Galuski, seconded by Libby. Okay, I'm gonna follow the roll. Jenny Graham, yes. Mayor Longo, yes. Dr. Galuski, yes. Marta Cabral, yes. Joan Bowen, yes. Dan Hoard, yes. Libby Brown, yes. Martha Desmond, absent. Rita Dorsey, yes. Brian Hill, yes. Emily Lazzaro, absent. Paul Malone, yes. Paul Morell, yes. Erin Olapade, yes. Yes, 13 of the affirmatives here in the negative. Is there a motion to adjourn? Is everyone offline? Voice vote. All those in favor? Aye. All those opposed? They're off the committee.
|
total time: 56.38 minutes total words: 4942 |
total time: 22.23 minutes total words: 2139 |
total time: 4.2 minutes total words: 443 |
total time: 4.73 minutes total words: 561 |
|
total time: 0.82 minutes total words: 95 |
|||