[Jenny Graham]: I will start by reading the meeting notice and calling the roll. So, welcome everyone. It is April 27th, 6.30 PM, 32. Please be advised that there will be a full committee meeting of the Medford Comprehensive High School Building Committee in person at Medford High School Library at 49 Winter Street and via remote location. 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 is being recorded. You can call or log in on the Zoom using the following meeting ID. It's 917-8502-5669. Members of the public wishing to speak on any agenda item are encouraged to review the rules for in-meeting with the participation listed below. Members of the public are also encouraged to submit their comments in writing and many did in advance of the meeting to aid in the committee and its preparation. You can continue to send emails to mhsproject.medford.k12.ma.us and we'll forward them to members of the building committee, although they will likely not be able to read them here tonight. So we will get to you after. I'm gonna call the roll. Jenny Graham here, Mayor Lungo-Koehn. Dr. Galusi. Present. Marta Cabral. Here. Joan Bowen. Here. Ken Lord. Here. Libby Brown. Here. Marissa Desmond. Here. Maria Dorsey. Here. Brian Hilliard. Here. Emily Lazzaro. Here. Paul Malone. Here. Nicole Morell. Here. Aaron Olapade.
[Will Pipicelli]: Here.
[Jenny Graham]: Lynn Kreisner.
[Will Pipicelli]: Here.
[Jenny Graham]: Bob Dickinson.
[Will Pipicelli]: He's online.
[Jenny Graham]: Fiona Maxwell.
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: The owner should be joining on Zoom shortly.
[Jenny Graham]: Chad Fallon. Present. Dr. Kim Talbot. Here. Will Pimpicelli.
[Erin Prestileo]: Here.
[Jenny Graham]: Lori Hodgson. Here. John McLaughlin is absent. Paul Rousseau. Present. Phil Santos. Present. Hi, Phil. And Lisa Miller. Here. There's one right here. Phil, there's one chair over here. No problem. Okay, so 15 present, zero absent. We have a quorum. We have a big agenda tonight, so we're gonna try to move as effectively as we possibly can. The first item is approval of the April 15th building committee meeting minutes. Is there a motion to approve? Motion to approve. By Emily, is there a second? Second. By Maria. We'll call the roll. Jenny Graham. Yes. Mayor Lungo-Koehn.
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: Yes.
[Jenny Graham]: Dr. Galusi. Yes. Marta Cabral. Yes. Joan Bowen. Yes. Ken Lord. Yes. Libby Brown. Yes. Marissa Desmond.
[Evangelista]: Yes.
[Jenny Graham]: Maria Dorsey. Yes. Brian Hilliard. Yes. Emily Lazzaro. Yes. Paul Malone. Yes. Nicole Morell. Yes. Aaron Lopate. Yes. Luke Preissner. Yes. 15 in the affirmative, zero in the negative. Minutes are approved. Okay, so we're going to turn it over to SMMA in just a second. So as you all know, we in our end of March meeting went from 29 possible design alternatives to six. And since then, the team has been sort of taking the feedback that we all provided that evening as well as over the course of any number of public meetings and emails that we've been receiving and common cards that have come in in all kinds of different ways. And they are going to show us tonight sort of where these designs have evolved to. So I'm going to turn it over to them. But I just wanted to say in advance, thank you to the team. This next iteration of these designs, I think, is really responsive to everything we've been hearing. And you totally changed my mind about a million things when I got a chance to preview these. So I'm expecting everyone else to sort of feel the same way. Please take it away and we'll hold questions until the end. How does that sound?
[Matt Rice]: That would be great. Yeah, and I think what Jenny just ran through in terms of the how or sort of the why more so behind why these design options came to be and what was informing them is really up on screen. So I won't repeat those first two bullet items. But really, that feedback that we've been getting from all different sources has been tremendously helpful in terms of tuning what we're doing. We're not doing this in a vacuum or a void. We're developing things based on the feedback that we're getting from everyone. So please continue to give us feedback. And I'm talking both to the larger community as well as to the building committee. This is what's going to make sure that the school design, whichever of the six that we end up with, is really tuned and tailored to Medford specifically. As we've been taking all that input in, we've also been able to now get to this next level of detail and study that you'll see a little bit of those slides. So from our perspective, it's very rewarding to now have the opportunity to focus in on that additional level of detail. You'll start to see some different dimensions of the different studies that we've been able to now dive into. The other thing that we want to mention before we jump into everything is that we don't yet have updated costs for all of the six different estimates or the six different options that we've developed right now. That is because of a variety of reasons. One is that we're going to be likely voting to reduce some amount of square footage this evening. The building committee will be doing that. And that will have a direct impact on costs. We don't have the ability to sort of forecast what that is until we get there. We're also still waiting on the MSBA feedback from the PDP submission. And so there will be some impact on cost as we go through and see those comments as well and provide a response to the MSBA. And then the cost estimators have not gotten these updated drawings that we're going to be looking at this evening. This is really a precursor to this information going to the cost estimators. We want to make sure that the building committee and the larger community has the ability to see what will be going to the cost estimators this evening. Um, so that will be happening on Wednesday of this week. Um, and then we're expecting to get those estimates back, the updated estimates on the 20th of May. Um, so that's sort of the timetable that's laid out in front of us. Um, and without too much further ado, I'm going to turn it over to Michael Hardick to run through the updates.
[Michael Pardek]: All right. Thank you. So we're going to run through six of the options that I, uh, A1 is the code upgrade, B1 is trying to keep most of the existing school and add to it. And the others are addition renovations. Those are the Cs. And then the Ds are completely new buildings. So we're going to take a little bit of time with each one. And we'll start with the code upgrade. This is probably the simplest one to understand. This is the existing school we're in, bringing every aspect of the code. This is an estimated duration of about 54 months. It has additional modular classrooms that enables all the intensive, really reconstruction of these spaces, pretty much down to structure, and then rebuilt. That includes all new facade and things like that. So it's like we've said in the past, it's not a light touch. We're really coming in and building a brand new school within the confines of this existing structure. This includes renovation of all fields as well, and renovation of the existing pool. Can you speak up, please? Sure. And this one, of course, has a very intensive phasing to it. This is over the course of about about three phases. There's an enabling phase of site prep that will go into play phase one will kind of highlighted in blue there that's tackling the gymnasium. kitchen and the C wing. So that'll happen first, along with, you see this little M, that designates our modular classroom. So that's 56 modular classrooms located on the site to swing those students out of the renovation area. Moving to phase two, that is tackling the, right now is the CTE wing, and phase three moves clockwise around the plan. working on the science and the auditorium and arts land. All right, let's move into the first of these options. This is B.1.2. And this one is really taking this existing school and adding vertically all the program needed to meet the educational program. So it's an additional two floors on top of this building. This is all the aspects that we saw during the PDP phase. And as we've been going through the PSR phase, which you'll see in this slide here, we've been starting to bring these to life. So we're working with the educational program. We're working with all the intricate adjacencies between those programming spaces. We're thinking about daylight. We're thinking about site is a big aspect. We're also thinking about how students and faculty and the public access the school during the day, how it operates after hours. So all that kind of goes into the thinking of this scheme and really all the students. So you'll see that the upper floors have kind of orient themselves a little bit differently than the previous plan that's for daylight and to take account all those adjacencies that we're looking at. This again is featuring or featuring may not be the right word 56 modular classrooms on site. And we'll go into the site plan a little bit later. This has a two and a half story parking deck that's kind of slid under under one of the practice fields there. So these are the series of plans you'll see throughout. And I just wanted to maybe on this first one, highlight some of the colors. So the purple is arts. The pink is CTE. The yellow is like dining commons and circulation. And the dark red is kind of this, what we've been calling the other spaces, spaces of central office in early childhood. And green, that lime green is the media center. Anywhere where you see this kind of hatch on the north end of the site, that's indicative of earth. So that's unexcavated, that's below grade. We know the site has a nice slope to it. And all of these do a really good job of trying to navigate that grade change all the way down from the access drive all the way to the back of the site. So on this first one, I think a few of the key highlights are The front door would be located really on the west side, just outside the library doors today. That'll kind of point, a pointer to these spaces, and that'll lead through into the dining commons, which is really about the heart of the school. That would be a sky-lit dining commons. This would be on the lowest level there. Rounding out the first floor is really on the what is the front of the school now is kind of rebuilding the auditorium and arts wing and then locating some of those more public facing CTE spaces like culinary facing facing the south there. Moving up to the second floor more CTE along the back bar kind of in the same position they are today. We know that has as the site slopes up they all have ground level access back there. So those are those little tiny arrows, whereas the big blue arrows are kind of those more larger entries. Just moving up to the third floor. Third floor is the gym as it is today, just renovated. And you'll start to see some of these light blue spaces. These are more of the academic spaces starting to come into play. And it's not a kind of a wedding cake where it's CTE on the ground floor and academic on the top floor. We're doing a pretty good job of interspersing CTE with academics as we elevate through the building. And then in the middle here, we're kind of recrafting a courtyard that's allowing daylight to get into these north central spaces. And then the fifth floor, more academics in this L-shaped bar. So here you can see how that program is starting to unfold on the site. And we have Kate here from agency who may say a few words about the site design.
[Erin Prestileo]: Sure thing. I think the big picture here is that because the parking can be tucked into the parking deck, which sits below your existing practice field to the west of the school, That opens the arrival coming up Steve Miller Drive to be a little bit more green, a little bit more activated, still allows separate circulation for buses and cars for high school drop-off and early childhood care drop-off and circulation around the school up to Edgerly Field. And then vertical circulation back down through that parking garage to make a full loop around the school. point here is just to note that that vertical circulation provides that valuable way for cars to make a full loop. Emergency vehicles and service vehicles would still turn around to the northwest of the school. And then there's that separate drop off opportunity for buses, high school and early childhood care. And then we've been asked to think a little bit about what it would look like to eliminate the garage. And really, that's the same parking that you have today out in front of the school about 450 spots. Um, and then one fewer field, two fewer fields, sorry, because you've also lost the ability to have a full field above the garage. Um, so a little, a little less fields, um, but surface parking at the part of the school that we experienced today would be the option.
[Michael Pardek]: And then phasing of this option, again, it's three phases, uh, and 56 similar to the previous gymnasium and the C wing, academic wing being renovated, working our way through the CTE in phase two, and then tackling the science wing in phase three with a new build of the auditorium.
[Matt Rice]: I'm going to just add in here as well. In terms of the modulars, these first two options to put upgrade and then this B1.2 option are still showing the 56 modular classroom is being needed. We did hear and listen to all the feedback that we got regarding the modular classrooms. So when we look at the next four options, we've been able to come up with phasing scenarios that avoids the use of modular classrooms. But with those first two, there's just really no way to do that because we're dealing with the existing footprint primarily at the building above it or just renovating itself. So there's no way of avoiding it there, but you will see options moving forward, more options that have no modular classrooms involved.
[Michael Pardek]: All right, let's move on to C2.2. So originally this one was, if you remember, these kind of interwoven wings that were located on the western side of the site, taking over one of the upper fields and trying our best to avoid the existing school footprint. And by doing that, you could see here, previously we said maybe 56 modulars, but as we worked through it, we were able to reduce that to zero modular classrooms. So I think that's a huge improvement for this option. We've also started to kind of tidy up the, you know, the building was getting maybe a little elongated. So we've been trying, you know, with this scheme and others that always think about that, how compact can we make this very large building? So you'll see that scheme and trying to rationalize like all these spaces in between the wings we're using for outdoor space, either for CTE yards so that those uses can spill out. And there's always a really tight circulation that we're exploring. You see all of these active uses all the way around this building. So every edge is really being utilized and we're working hard to avoid these pinch points that could happen. Okay. So again, that hatched area is below grade. And here you see kind of a theme for many or a few of these options. That first floor is a very small floor. That's the early childhood center that has its own front door. So let's imagine that, you know, that program is served there and then the rest of the site slopes up. So you actually drive around and enter on the second floor as you're rising up and talk a little bit more about that when we get to the site, but you'll enter and the corner side to the right, again, more of these public facing CTE programs. And then you enter into a space that has a large stair that'll take you up to the third floor. And the third floor kind of being the, think about that as maybe the start of the most of the high school program. This has the gymnasium, the auditorium right off of that kind of yellow dining commons, and then there's CTE spaces in pink that are occupying this. As you move up to the one more floor to the fourth floor, see those white boxes? Those are the double height CTE spaces that require a little bit more floor-to-floor height. So those are just spaces that are double height, as well as the gymnasium and the auditorium, that lime green. Volume is the media center, so it's got a really nice prominent view, probably out to the Boston skyline, which we think would be pretty nice. Then working back on that wing, more academic programs and more CTE programs. All those spaces have accurate access as we wrap around the building. And then the upper floors become more academic spaces. that's the fifth and the sixth floor.
[Erin Prestileo]: So as Michael said, in this option, the site and the building are working hard together to step up the grade difference between when you arrive on site at Steve Miller Drive and the height of Edderley Field, right? So you can have those at-grade connections for CTE that he just spoke about. So as you arrive in this scheme, You're coming in and you again have a much greener approach to the school. You have sort of plantings and entrance to a below grade garage, which sits below that track and field stadium above. You can circulate around that to drop off and kind of get up to that higher level to drop off at the school, high school entrance, and then to drop down again to make the good connection for drop off for early childhood care. You can also circumnavigate around the building, again going up at an accessible grade to provide service access and ability to load into and out of the CTE programs that are at the height of Edgerly. Here you can see that you have the track and field with one field within it and then one preserved field up where Edgerly sits today. So two total fields plus a track. And here, just to note again that there is the ability to circumnavigate up to the highest levels here for service and access and to turn around at that upper level for service vehicles in order to provide service and emergency vehicle access all the way to the back of the school. And then those dedicated drop-off points for high school, for bus and for early childhood care, as well as the parking access really close to the street for getting underneath the track. Eliminating the garage in this case really means that you lose the ability to have a track, and you can still preserve one field with surface parking closer to the entrance to the school. Those fields and parking would be stepping down in grades, so you'd see some terracing and have some steps and seat walls to navigate to go up and down there.
[Michael Pardek]: Basic for C2.2 is two phases. First phase really looks at building this new building, attaching it to the west side, and then going back, demolishing the school, then adding just a little bit of program on the front of the gymnasium. So that we're not looking at, you know, when you're driving up to the school, not looking at a big blank wall. We've confronted that with program. C3.4. So this, as you remember, featured these kind of arcing volumes that were sliding past the gymnasium. This one as well, originally projecting 56 modular classrooms, and then working over the course of the last few weeks, getting modulars down to zero. So that's another benefit for any of these projects that are saving the gym, renovating the gym, the pool, and attaching on the west side. This one has really been, I think, developing nicely. We've gotten rid of some of those broad curbs and kind of reined those in a little bit and kind of gave it a little bit more breathing room in the program to allow daylight and access down the middle of the building as it wraps around the gym. So working from the first floor here, again, early childhood on the left, public facing CTE spaces on the right, and entering into the dining commons, which would have a large stair that would start to draw people and students up through the building, which has always been the challenge with locating and building here is how do we use the building, not have students just climb up three flights of stairs to get to their classroom on the first part of the day. But how do we make that more integrated into the experience? So you'll see the use of these stairways that are a little bit more generous than an emergency egress stair. Second floor features the gymnasium, features the auditorium, which are always highly used spaces, even after hours, and a media center tucked in the back. Then more CTE spaces around the west side, all with that great access. Third floor, again, more CTE spaces on the north side of the building, all with access and some of these double height spaces coming through. And as we elevate to the fourth and fifth floors, more academic spaces. And what we try to do here is create a loop of circulation. So there's no dead end to this. We can kind of circulate all the way around and through the end of the gym and back down around. And these white spaces, this negative space in between the gymnasium volume And these arcing wings, these are actually courtyards that both allow daylight and might allow some outdoor controlled learning in those spaces. Then up to the quick floor.
[Erin Prestileo]: So no need to belabor the site scheme here. Again, it's doing the hard work of stepping up in multiple grade. And you have parking tucked below a track and field stadium. In the foreground of the site, the road circumnavigates all the way around the building with a turnaround for emergency vehicles and service, and then two separate drop-offs for early childhood care and high school. In the next slide, again, you can just see the way that road is kind of circumnavigating all the way around the backside of the building, providing access to those at-grade connections up at the edge of the field level and the practice field level. And then, yeah, big picture, you know, eliminating the garage really does a similar move as the last scheme where you lose the ability to have a track and field. You can preserve one field and have surface parking that terraces down to that field. You're actually navigating even more grade in this scheme because of some of the existing grades. So there's a need to really step up quite a lot in that foreground landscape.
[Michael Pardek]: And a similar phasing diagram, building as much as we can on the backside of the site. Doing in phase two, a little bit of demolition of the ceiling and that to enable this front half to be built. All right, let's look at D1.1. This is building on the front parking lot. And I think some of the comments we heard about this scheme was it's really compressed as you're entering the site. So that's one thing that team really worked hard on this to kind of loosen up that that front entry. So you're not running right in right into the building. This one had 76 modular classrooms during PDP and we've worked really hard with the existing footprint to reduce that down to zero modular classrooms. It's like a lot of choreography on the site to make this happen, to have a building that avoids kind of overlapping with the existing building. So it gets within 15 or 20 feet of the existing building during construction. But we've worked pretty hard to kind of create made a diagram for this building where the ground floor, first floor here is predominantly CTE space, a gymnasium, an auditorium. So you kind of enter on the west side here into a dining commons. Then you have these four or five wings that are radiating off of this, the center part of the building. Moving up to the second floor, you see that's a little bit sparsely populated. Again, that's those double height CTE spaces that need a little bit more headroom. Here we're showing some central office and the second floor of the Early Childhood Education Center. So we kind of see that as maybe the podium of the building. And then as you move up to the third floor, that's essentially where the academics start to come into play here. And there's maybe some opportunities for some outdoor learning on some of these rooftops that face west. This one is really trying to be a compact school, partly because we're building on a very constrained site up there. And I think in the previous PDP, we had a six-floor school, but we've been able to manage this down to a five-floor school up in the front here. So we think that's a real benefit, not to exacerbate the verticality, but to figure out clever ways to do it within five floors.
[Erin Prestileo]: So as Michael said, the team worked really hard to give this scheme kind of space and brace as you arrive coming up Steve Miller Drive. And so you can see the way that the school has stepped back a little bit. That provides a little bit of room for drop-off and the plaza for the high school drop-off area and bus drop-off and ECC drop-off would be back behind the building where that childcare center is. You can navigate around the building by car and the parking is tucked in a parking deck below the two fields that are closest to the school. Here we have tucked a track and field stadium into where Edgerly is. It just barely fits with a little bit of retaining wall, but you can fit that program up there if it's desired. And then you can see all that grade gathered between where Edgerly Field and the new track field would be stepping down to the fields that are over top of the parking area. But here, again, you can see just that circulation, which comes around the backside of the school. As Michael said, there's just not a lot of space here between where the grade starts to fall off at the edge of your existing parking lot, and then also where the fells are dropping in and dropping water into the site on the east side. So the school is really occupying that little space there, and the road is navigating between that to provide access to all those spaces at grade. This scheme does have the advantage of a fully connected circular route for emergency vehicles, so there's no turnaround required, there's no challenging grade to navigate, and that full route can be circumnavigated and then still has the separated drop-off for the several different programs on site. Eliminating the garage just makes surface parking quite visible in that area behind the school, but you'd still be able to preserve one field there. So you lose one of your fields over a test surface park.
[Michael Pardek]: And phasing, so the three-phase process. So build as much as you can in the parking lot on day one. Demolish A-Wing or Science Wing. Swing all those kids into the new building. So you'd actually occupy the new building and parts of the old building for a time, you'd build phase two, and then you would remove the rest of the building. And we show this little pool building kind of where the number three is, so that would be the third phase. And then finally, we have D2.1, and this was a look to take a more linear approach of Main Street kind of approach to the school planning and have wings that sprung off that with yards in between them and courtyards. This again is zero modular classrooms and a separate pool building, which you see there, the blue square. As this one has evolved, you know, it's starting to dance a little bit with the site, the constraints, trying to open up some of these wings for better daylight use. And so they're a lot more functional. And as we move up through the building, kind of looks familiar to a previous game, but on the very first floor, the ground floor, the entry to the early childhood center, And moving up to the first floor, you'll see the freestanding school building out in the foreground, and then the front door to the right for these public facing CTE spaces, like culinary, and the remainder of the early childhood program and central office on the first floor. Moving up to the second floor, this is when we start to get into the heart A lot of the CT spaces around the north side of the site, all with really great access, all with many points and yards for working and pulling projects out of the site. This also features the auditorium and the gymnasium. So that's a common theme that you'll see is trying to get those big public spaces, especially on this one, to kind of be near the entry and near the ground floor so those can operate after hours. Third floor features, again, that light green is that media center with a view of the skyline beyond and around the back is some of those double height CTV spaces. And working up to the fourth and fifth floors, more academics, bars that are nicely placed for really good daylight and views. And then up to the sixth floor. So this one does a pretty good job of taking what is essentially, you count that little floor on the ground floor, it's a seven stories that get all the way into the back. But it does a pretty good job as you can see here of terracing up. So it's kind of matching the slope of the site. So you're kind of approaching the school that has a really good civic presence, it's not gonna be tremendously overwhelming with a seven-story wall in front of you. It's going to be a lot more nicely scaled.
[Erin Prestileo]: Yep, so this one shares quite a bit of similarity to the sea schemes where you're arriving to a site that is immediately more green and is sort of terracing off with parking below two different fields that step up to help you navigate some of that great elevation change as you get up towards the school. The road would circumnavigate around those fields, provide access to the swimming pool and sort of like rec center amenity associated there, and then provide access via drop-off lanes to both the high school and to the early childhood care center. The road continues around the backside, providing access to all those at-grade, high-level CTE programs around the back of the school, And in this case, because the school is moving away from the practice field, there is the opportunity to more easily connect back down to grade with the road. So again, service and emergency vehicles wouldn't necessarily have to do a turnaround here. They could navigate that grade and come back down around the West side of the school. So a little bit more flexibility there. You can see the way that the grade has to step up at the front of the school to drop off a little lower than the entry, and there's some opportunity to provide outdoor classroom space in that. And just a last note that eliminating the garage in the base scheme does eliminate one of those fields. And again, you have the terracing with some surface parking and then some, you know, ability to sort of stadium sit and rave looking out over a field.
[Michael Pardek]: The phasing is pretty straightforward. Here we're not touching the current school. We're building everything all at once behind the school. And then phase two would be the pool and the site work. So we made it through. Again, this is a little cheat sheet of the six options.
[Jenny Graham]: Thank you.
[Evangelista]: Are there questions from the committee?
[Libby Brown]: What do you want from us now? They're going to keep studying. We're not eliminating anything. We're going to give feedback about what you guys look at next in the next month. Yeah, I mean, I think that's a great question.
[Jenny Graham]: We do have a huge agenda tonight. So my suggestion, if everyone is willing to nod their head in agreement, we can send out another input form where you can provide some of that feedback. For the members of the community who may want to provide feedback, you can use that same email address. And we have a community forum coming up on the 11th, where we'll blow these pictures up. And like the second community forum where people can move around and interact with, I think there are people who are distinctly interested in traffic mitigation and parking, and there's really great information in here, which we covered pretty quickly, but there'll be an opportunity to do all of that at the upcoming community forum. So yeah, I just wanted to make sure there wasn't any question about how the team arrived at the designs that you just saw. In my mind, it's version two, but I'm sure it's probably version 10,000. Version two, then, this team has seen it. So are there any other questions?
[Matt Rice]: Yes, I would also just point out the fact that these will all be available on the website afterwards. There's a lot of information here. We understand that it's a lot to digest in the 30 minutes, even if we had an hour to go through it. It's still a lot of information. So I would encourage everyone to pull it down, review it, and sort of come up with the questions, and then submit them. It's probably a more reasonable, rational way of digesting and responding.
[Jenny Graham]: I also just want to say thank you for hearing everybody so clearly about both the pool, the modulars, and the placement of the building on the site. The other thing that I saw when I looked at this for the first time was that the things that people liked about designs that did not come forward were really obvious and evident in some of the version two work that was done by the team. And I think the site circulation and some of the site options are a little bit easier to digest with six than with 29, obviously. But thank you for mapping those routes out so the people who are interested in site circulation and traffic mitigation and those kinds of things sort of have something to dig into and think about. So I think it's like a really wonderful evolution of what we started with. So thank you for that.
[Matt Rice]: And maybe just one other last reminder. These are not a stopping point. These are not finished conditions or designs. We have ongoing meetings. We're going to be meeting again with first responders this coming Wednesday to get their feedback on these, which they haven't seen as well. So all that is still coming. This is still an evolution as a process. This is not sort of a stopping point for us at where we are now. It's really just a frozen moment in time that we can do our cost estimating again, make sure that we're calibrating what that number is, and then let everyone make those decisions moving forward.
[Jenny Graham]: Okay, if there are no questions, we will plow ahead. So item number four on the agenda offers some resolutions for, let's say written parity. So the first one, item A is offered by myself and Dr. Galusi. And just by a little bit of framing, what we were trying to do in this resolution was write down clearly what we want to see in the next round of cost estimating so that when the team brings these designs and whatever the space is to the cost estimators, they're clear about what they're bringing back to us in the middle of May. So there were a handful of things that we felt like were really specifically needing to be called out. So I'll just read them and then I'm happy to answer any questions that folks have. But at the end of this resolution, if there's discussion, if there's amendments, And then ultimately like a vote to move this forward that way the team can sort of start to operationalize this when they are preparing their package to go to the estimators. So be it resolved that the next round of cost estimating will provide cost estimate breakdowns as follows. For parking, in the base estimate it will include surface grade parking and note the number of allowable spaces and note that increase or decrease in playing fields spaces made available under such a design. Alternate pricing will be provided for a parking garage with associated soft costs and contingencies and note the increase in playing field spaces made available under such a design. And option C, alternate pricing will be provided for a field over parking design with associated soft costs and contingencies and note the increase in playing field spaces made available under such a design. For the pool, Base estimates for B and C options will include code renovation of the existing pool. Alternate pricing will be provided for a revised pool design that preserves the competition aspects of the current pool and adds pool features that promote learn to swim programming with associated soft costs and contingencies. Base estimate for D options will not include a pool under the MSBA guidelines with associated soft costs. Alternate pricing for D options will be provided as follows. A pool replacement that replicates the current size and features of the current pool. Second one is a new pool design that preserves the competition aspects of the current pool and adds pool features that promote learn-to-swim programming. Estimates clearly articulating whether the pool sizing is comparable to the current, larger, or smaller. And then three, the auditorium is that the base estimate will include a 750-seat auditorium that is consistent with MSBA reimbursement guidelines. Additional estimates with associated soft cost contingencies will be provided that have a 1,000 seat, a 500 seat, and an 800 seat auditorium. Item number four, preserve programs one through four, and six and seven, as initially outlined in the cost estimating spreadsheet, which is available on our website, unless a vote of this body removes a program by majority vote, which could happen later in this meeting. And then five, where possible costs associated with a zero modular approach and an accelerated approach that employs modular. So I think one of the things that happens when you use modulars is you have phases and that has its own cost. So I just want us to clearly be able to see that. So as we put this list together, we tried to pick off the things where there's like choices that we could choose to make as we go forward and specifically to ask that things like grossing factor and soft costs and contingencies and all of those things be sort of grouped together so that if the public is looking at these documents and they say, I want to get rid of this line, that when they say I want to get rid of that line, it's clear that the costs associated with that line are sort of all encompassed and that there's not dollars associated with that or complications sort of elsewhere. So just to try to say really clearly based on what we know what we think will be helpful from a cost estimating perspective for this committee to consider as we go forward. Any questions about any of those items?
[Unidentified]: Lisa? So is the program five, am I looking at it right, the community meeting space?
[Jenny Graham]: No, program five, I believe is the auditorium. So because it was like up on top or if I counted for separately, I left it out of that number. And those program numbers are listed on the cost estimate document that is on our website.
[Maria D'Orsi]: Other questions?
[Jenny Graham]: Is there a motion? Motion to approve. Motion to approve by Nicole, seconded by Emily. Is there any questions before we move on?
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: Through the chair, could you put up on the screen what programs one through four and six and seven are so everybody, including the people watching can better understand number four?
[Matt Rice]: You may or you're going to ask for that I unfortunately do not have it immediately at hand, we can work amongst the team and we can have somebody else just hop on the screen sharing a little bit once they're able to get it up on the screen here. If that's all right, just as we move forward.
[Jenny Graham]: I, I can read them out if you give me just one second. They are in the comparative cost analysis document that's on our website. Program one is the teen health center space. Program two is meant for community media. Program three is the community partner rental spaces. Program four is the welcome center and central offices. Program five is the community meeting space. Program six is the additional area for the 1,000 seat auditorium, which is 250 seats. And program seven is the early childhood center.
[Luke Preisner]: So based on that, do we want to amend, I'll say the numbering on point four. So programs one through four and six to seven with five omitted because five was being associated with your opponent's 20.
[Jenny Graham]: You're correct. So that should say one through five and seven. Thank you for that. Okay. Um, for those who Nicole and Emily, do you accept that amendment? Yes. Okay. Any other questions? Okay. I will call the roll. Jenny Graham. Yes. Mayor Lungo-Koehn.
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: Yes.
[Jenny Graham]: Dr. Galusi. Yes. Artika Brau. Yes. Joan Bowen. Yes. Ken Lord.
[Unidentified]: Yes.
[Jenny Graham]: Libby Brown. Yes. Marissa Desmond.
[Unidentified]: Yes.
[Jenny Graham]: Maria Dorsey. Yes. Brian Hilliard. Yes. Emily Lazzaro. Yes. Paul Malone. Yes. Nicole Morell. Yes. Erin Olapade. Yes. Luke Preissner.
[Luke Preisner]: I'm going to abstain.
[Jenny Graham]: 14 in the affirmative, zero in the negative, zero absent, one abstention. Motion passes. Okay. Item B, what I am hoping to do in item B is provide an approach to the rest of the meeting so that we can be focused on those things that have support across the committee and that we can clearly outline for the public how we would like to hear from them tonight. So be it resolved that the Medford Comprehensive Heisman Building Committee will adopt the following procedure to manage the more than 200 space change proposals. One, public participation will occur before the committee begins deliberation. Number two, the public may speak in accordance with the rules adopted by the committee at our 5-13-2024 meeting, which is that the public will be limited to three minutes per individual and will be limited to those matters on the agenda. Speakers may only speak once on each topic. The chair shall limit the comments to two minutes based on the number of individuals wishing to speak. The chair will announce the time limit before the public comment period at every meeting. The public will also be encouraged to submit their comments in writing by emailing them to the SBC account, which is medfordmhsproject.medford.k12.nn.us. Emails received will be auto forwarded to members of the SBC, which has happened over the course of the last couple of days. Once public participation is closed, comments will only be taken by members or from the members of the committee. There are three categories of proposals. Each category will be reviewed and voted separately according to the below instructions. Category A, these are proposals by the educational leadership team put forward by Dr. Galusi. Proposals in this category do not impede the educational plan and are the result of typical expected dialogue between the project team and the educational leadership team at this phase in the process. Any member of the committee can make a resolution to approve one or multiple proposals by stating, motion to approve items X, Y, Z, whatever those numbers are. If a motion has a second, the committee will be permitted to ask clarifying questions and make statements, a roll call vote will then be called. For category B, these are proposals by other members of the committee that do not impede the educational plan as outlined by the project team. All members of the committee were invited to make proposals. Motions for approval and a second must be made by a voting member who did not submit the proposal or proposals. Resolution to approve one or multiple proposals can be made by stating, motion to approve items X, Y, and Z. If a motion has a second, the committee will be permitted to ask clarifying questions and make statements. A roll call vote will be called. Category C. proposals by other members of the committee that would impede the educational plan as defined by the project team. All members of the committee who were invited to make proposals. However, the member comprehensive high school building committee does not have the authority to change the educational plan or put forward a building design that does not support the educational plan. Instead, members of the committee may request that an item be referred to the school committee for review and consideration as the next round of educational plan updates are made. Motions for approval in a second must be made by a voting member who did not submit the proposals or proposal. A resolution to approve one or multiple proposals can be made by stating motion to refer items X, Y, Z to the school committee for consideration. If a motion has a second, the committee will be permitted to ask clarifying questions and make statements. A roll call vote will then be called. As a reminder, the member comprehensive high school building committee adopted the below rules at our 513 meeting. Members may speak twice on any debatable motion for up to three minutes. Once voting begins, no voting member may speak other than to indicate how they are voting. So again, the goal is for us to move through more than 200 space change proposals this evening, first by hearing from the public, then we'll close public comment, and then we will take each category one at a time. And under this proposal, we also would be asking for somebody other than the submitter to make the proposal for consideration, which for me, as I put this forward, just signaled that there is support for the idea by more than just the individual who submitted. And there's 200 options. So I think we have to have a way to sort of prioritize. Any questions?
[Luke Preisner]: Luke? Not a question. I'd just like to make a statement.
[Jenny Graham]: Sure. So- Is it about this motion?
[Luke Preisner]: It's about this motion. Great. So to members of the committee, members of the community, I want to speak now before we kind of take these up to offer context that many may not know. So I'm here because I want to see a new high school built in Medford. I was a co-author of the statement of interest that brought us into the MSBA program Again that worked in 2021. We've reviewed prior attempts. We understood why they failed. Ultimately measure prevailed and we were admitted to the core program in 2023. This SPC has been working since then. I'm speaking as a parent of three children. I have one in primary school one at the middle and my oldest attends this high school. I want them and all of our students to benefit from a new high school that truly meets their needs. This one doesn't. Our primary and middle schools are relatively comfortable and effective facilities. The high school doesn't meet that standard. Today, tonight, we'll probably hear some strong views and some real disagreement. I think that's normal and healthy in a democratic community. I actually come from a formerly communist nation, and so I cherish the ability to honestly discuss things. So my hope is that we can express these views firmly but respectfully, avoid some of the rhetoric and revision that we see at the national level. We share a common goal, I think, and that's doing what's best for our students or city, even if we differ on how to get there. Our new school committee developed an educational plan that, in my opinion, departs from a nominal combined high school locational model. It combines school functions with broader community services, which is great, but that vision also arrives with a very large facility and a very large price tag. And we're now looking at a proposal that's approaching a billion dollars, which is unusual by, I'll say, American standards. So I think it's reasonable and appropriate for the community to scrutinize a project of this scale and cost. My feedback and motions on the space plan have been presented on the agenda in a way that may sound negative, but I think I would frame it differently. I think because of this process, many more people have now read the detailed space summary with its hundreds of proposed spaces, 415. So I think the public awareness is a positive outcome. And just, you know, over the past couple of weeks, we were asked to review proposed spaces and encouraged or guided to enter those responses in a digital format. So I approached that task with the same precision and diligence that I approached the SOI task. And so you'll see the cross-referencing of guidelines and the selected SOI priorities. We picked five and seven in my inputs. And frankly, where I felt that the spaces didn't align with one or the other, I recommended deletion or reduction to spur discussion. You know, I would like to align this project with the commitments that brought us to the program, but I'm not trying to undermine the school. I want a school. But I also want to maximize reimbursement and not unduly burden vulnerable residents in our community on fixed incomes. And, you know, I don't necessarily expect many of my motions to pass. I'm familiar with my track record, but I think it's good to talk about things. And this is a way to compel that discussion. So I think, you know, the school committee is kind of responsible for a proposal that is outside the norm and extraordinarily expensive. And, you know, it deserves serious and transparent discussion both here and there. I think robust, honest, respectful dialogue now will help us in 2027. And whatever the outcome is, I think meetings like this will ensure that it's an informed vote. So I yield the floor. Thank you.
[Jenny Graham]: So any other questions about what was proposed?
[Unidentified]: Is there any consideration as far as we're just going all night long or is there a cutoff time?
[SPEAKER_31]: I've been at seven hour, 10 hour speak on something.
[Unidentified]: It would be an interest to have this in front of the public at a certain point. The public is not really engaged in what's going on here, even if we're all here. So that's just a question. I don't know, can you either way?
[Jenny Graham]: Yeah, I mean, I think we can definitely commit to doing a time check around like two hours from now and figure out like, are we close? Are we not close? Do we have to schedule another meeting? Do we just have to sort of push through and keep going? Um, I do think it's important that we have meetings that are able to be like consumed both by the committee who has to vote on them and the public. So I think that's a reasonable thing to do is to check in and figure out like where we are and how far we are away. Um, I could see this moving very quickly and I could see it moving very slowly. I have absolutely no idea which of those extremes we're laying on before we launch. So yeah, we can do that.
[Unidentified]: Yeah, I think that works. I think the last time we were in a long meeting. Yeah.
[Jenny Graham]: Yeah. I think the heart, the problem with any sort of continuance of this meeting is the space changes assumptions. have to go to the estimators tomorrow. Is that right? Is it tomorrow? Wednesday. So what that means is anything that is not decided tonight will not get into the round of cross-estimating. It doesn't mean they can't still be considered. And there'll be lots of opportunities for us to consider other changes going forward. So I think there's plenty of ways we can do that. The hard stuff that we do have tonight is that we cannot notice another meeting. in order to get the information for the cost estimators. And I think what we really want is for the cost estimators to have something to work from, so that when we have our meetings in May, we have that sort of full cadre of information before we have to make another round of important decisions. So I guess that would be my only caveat to continuing the meeting. But we don't need that.
[Unidentified]: Thank you.
[Luke Preisner]: I'm sorry. Luke? On that topic, just you know, because we may go very long. We have like just pre-announced restroom breaks. So we started at 6.30. Can we plan on a restroom break at 8.30? Sure. That sort of thing. And then one maybe at 10.30.
[Adam Hurtubise]: But yes, yeah, I think that's fully reasonable.
[Jenny Graham]: We have not yet voted that we're going to adopt this procedure. So if there is a motion, please do that.
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: Before the roll call through the chair may ask a question. I know we have another resolution offered by myself, Chair Graham and Dr. Galusi. And I just want to know when that was going to be taken.
[Jenny Graham]: As soon as this one's done.
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: Thank you.
[Jenny Graham]: motion. So moved there a second second by Dr Lucy. I will call the role. Jenny Graham. Yes. Mayor Lindo Kern.
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: Yes.
[Jenny Graham]: Dr Lucy. Yes. Marta Cabral. Yes. Joan Bowen. Yes. And Lord. Yes. Libby Brown. Yes. Marissa Desmond.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Yes.
[Jenny Graham]: Maria Dorsey. Yes. Brian Hilliard. Yes. Emily Lazzaro. Yes. Paul Malone.
[Harrison Green]: Yes.
[Jenny Graham]: Nicole Morell? Yes. Aaron Lopate? Yes. Ruth Preissner? Yes. 15 in the affirmative, zero in the negative. Motion passes. IMC, offered by Mayor Lungo-Koehn, myself, and Dr. Galusi, be it resolved that the Denver Comprehensive High School Building Committee will dedicate its 527 meeting to review the following. Revised cost estimates of the six alternatives that reflect reductions move forward from this meeting. current and future capital needs for the city, the city's debt capacity based on current projections, potential tax impact range based on updated estimate and MSBA feedback and guidance based on their forthcoming comments on the preliminary design program report, which was submitted in February to help guide the decision-making of the committee ahead of selecting a single option at the 6-10-2026 meeting. Emily.
[SPEAKER_31]: Um, can you explain how, or, uh, I'm not sure who would be able to explain, um, how the city capital needs for the city, the city's debt capacity and how potential tax impact would be calculated at this point.
[Jenny Graham]: So would we be able to have an accurate estimate of applied financial renewal? So the city is working on those kinds of calculations and The information, my understanding, and I'll defer to the mayor, but my understanding is there will be enough to talk about in terms of like where we think we are. The final numbers in terms of what this will cost, how that will translate, all of those things will not yet be available because we still are dealing with really high level cost estimates, but it is the right time for communities to start looking at their sort of broader program of that service needs, et cetera, and starting to think about some of these things. So yes and no, they will not be final numbers for sure. But we had a conversation trying to be responsive to the people who are worried about how much the project costs so that we can provide some real vetted information that could help the conversation. so that we can move some of, so that like in my mind, we need to like strip some of the fear and the unknowns away, which is really hard to do at this phase of the project, because we're still like in a world where there's more unknown than there is known, right? So I think that's the goal is just to help people have that framing. So before we are making a decision about one option versus the other on June 10th, that we at least have that data element as input. Thank you. Mayor, did you wanna say anything else?
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: I'll just say that I think this resolution, it was my hope that we would be talking about these things tonight, but I am working obviously with the internal team and feel that 527 will be fine. It's just, I think these things are extremely important to vote on tonight that we will be given a presentation on 527 and that we have this full-blown discussion on 527 because the last thing that I wanna see happen is a debt exclusion that doesn't pass, that doesn't benefit anybody. But I think being realistic on cost and space and the amount of the debt exclusion needs to be talked about, so I did work to try to figure out, and I believe SMMA or left field did send us something. But by my calculations, if you're talking about a high school of 640,000 square feet, and you calculate what the MSBA will reimburse, again, the numbers aren't firm, but you're talking about a $625 million debt exclusion. And that's about two grand per average single family home.
[Jenny Graham]: Mayor, can we have this conversation when we can have a full conversation? Like, I don't think this serves anybody to sort of drop high level numbers on the table. And like, I understand the concern and I think it warrants a dedicated conversation with a lot of information. I don't think that's what we're going to achieve tonight.
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: If we- I think it has to be discussed a little bit because tonight we have, we're a committee wants to see the biggest and the best for our kids and our faculty. I'm one of those people, but it needs to be mentioned because I also put in space reductions, not because I don't want the biggest and the best high school, but I want to reduce space and in the end, reduce costs for all of our residents who live here and rent here, because the amount of this project is, is quite honestly scary to me. Number one, for it not to pass after we've done so much work, especially you Chair Graham. And number two, if it does pass and it's just slightly passed, you're gonna have a lot of people that are gonna really struggle to pay for these tax increases. So I'll just say it bluntly, we really do not have debt capacity to put much of this on the city's debt. We have capital needs from a new fire station, to roads and streets and sidewalks, to a rec center that is flooded, you know, was just flooded, to the Hegner Center, to needing to rehab Hormel Stadium, and the list goes on and on. So I will wait for the full-blown presentation in May, which I think is fine, because I know we can continue to reduce space. but I think people need to hear it before they vote. We have a 15 member body that doesn't wanna vote to eliminate space. I don't wanna vote to eliminate space, but it has to be heard. I mean, there has to be some level of just transparency of where we're at and how much is this gonna cost the average taxpayer or the average renter before we even take these votes tonight. So no, I'm not gonna give you the full presentation. was hoping to tonight that will wait till 527, but we do have some numbers and it's time to be open about that and honest because it's going to help this committee. It's not to scare anybody. This is just the facts. It's going to help this committee maybe vote to reduce some space now and in the future. knowing that we all want the same thing in the end, a new high school that meets the needs of all of our students and our faculty, but that isn't 640,000 square feet and isn't the most expensive in the nation.
[SPEAKER_31]: Emily? With respect to the mayor, we don't have the facts, we don't have the numbers on most of these designs, and we are sending these designs on Wednesday to cost estimators.
[Jenny Graham]: So I don't think it is reasonable or respectful of our residents to be fear mongering and throwing out numbers that are inventive.
[SPEAKER_31]: So I just think it's really important that what we talk about today is based on real estimates with real numbers and not things that we have created based on nothing. We are trying to make these decisions now and then receive estimates for the future. We cannot govern the city and build new things in a culture of fear and resistance to change and improvement and progress.
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: With all due respect, Councilor, the numbers are on each through the chair. The numbers aren't on all designs. It ranges from like 815 million to 900 million, and one can go and figure out what the MSBA will possibly reimburse. And it's about 625 million. I've figured it out. There's people on this committee that I'm sure have also figured it out, and there's residents who have figured it out. So it's like, I don't know how we can't be at least mentioning it. And it's not creating fear. They're facts. It's the reality we're in. And I just think I have the right to explain it to this committee and talk about it. We have a vote to take in 13 months that we need to pass for our students, but we also need to put the facts on the table for the residents. And this committee, I think, needs to reduce the space and in the end reduce the cost, still creating a wonderful project for our community at large, especially our kids, but it does need to be discussed.
[Libby Brown]: Jen?
[Jenny Graham]: Yes, I just wanted to make it clear about the MSBA numbers and reimbursement and what we know at this stage. We do not have MSBA feedback from the PDP level report that's been submitted. We do not know what their comments are. We do, we've been in touch with them, we expect those,
[SPEAKER_31]: in the next week or so.
[Jenny Graham]: But without that information, we really can't do any kind of accurate even guessing at the potential reimbursement rate and the effective rate as discussed in our last meeting. So I just want to be really clear that the MSBA has not provided any feedback yet. And there's a way to do your calculations on what's on the MSBA website and things, but that's not necessarily Medford High School specific information. So I just want to make sure that that's pretty clear. And that is what we're expecting to be able to do and have more in-depth input from them, be able to take a deeper dive into the spaces of how that relates to reimbursement costs by the meeting on May 27th.
[Suzanne Galusi]: Chair, could you just confirm when in the process this conversation typically is had across the Commonwealth? I would say like what part of the phase of work?
[Jenny Graham]: Yeah, I think like this would be happening right after you get the cost estimates for the PSR level documents. So that would be the May 20 numbers that we're getting back. Then you would take those numbers before the SBC votes to select the single preferred option. You'd have ranges on what would be appropriate for or what is expected on MSBA reimbursement. Those are ranges and could change by the time the schematic design documents are submitted, but it does give a comparison between options to be discussed. And the tax impact information and all of that would be ranges again at that end of PSR before a decision is made so they could compare across options. But it is very important to note that that number can change by the time you move through the schematic design.
[Unidentified]: So just... Thank you. Nicole? I just have a clarifying question. So I know we have discussions about space changes, eliminations tonight. When is the end of the time which we can make those decisions and reductions and changes? Because as I understood, you've said many times, anything we change or remove, that's it, it's gone forever. So I think I'm coming from the place where I don't wanna make these decisions too hasty because we have more time to understand the bigger picture, and we'll never get it back if we decide to get rid of it now. So if you could offer some clarity around that. Sure.
[Jenny Graham]: I'm going to turn that over to Jen. When is Pencils Down on space change? Pencils Down, we've talked with the team.
[SPEAKER_31]: It's end of October in time to finish up the documents, get those in a good place to to get accurate schematic design level estimates back in. Because when we do submit our SD report to the MSBA, that's the budget for the project. So that's why it's so important to get that information correct and to be pencils down at the end of October.
[Jenny Graham]: We kind of did talk as a team all trying to set up to look at, especially those items that will be broken out into the cost estimate for the PPP level, PSR level estimates, then we can have really in-depth discussions through November, October, we can get the messaging out leading up to those months so that the community is aware that we will be having those discussions. And that is the normal timeline for that sort of thing to happen on an MSSP project.
[Libby Brown]: Thank you. Thank you. Libby, did I see your hand? Yeah, I was basically going to say the same thing as my whole thing. It sounds like we have plenty of time to continue to reduce and tie that to more specific numbers. So I don't feel like this is the last chance.
[John Falco]: Luke?
[Luke Preisner]: Starting to go numb. So I just want to say I welcome the motion. I think the timing at the end of May, given what Jen described, is appropriate. I welcome a holistic. assessment of analysis of what the city's debt capacity is. I think the city can speak with authority on their capital improvement projects. They have a capital improvement plan. It's gonna cost something. Some of it's gonna be paid for by debt that's off the books, but some of it's not, right? It can be new debt. And then the high schools can be on top of that. So I think our OPM, informed by the MSBA feedback. We'll speak with authority on what I'll say the debt associated with, and it's probably wise to look at a range of things, right? Like make some assumptions so that we have at least three points. Look at what that debt looks like, and then add that to what the city's debt would look like based on their capital and business plan. And I think that's actually a best practice and a common recommendation from MSDA, from what I understand. So anyway, I welcome it. I'll second it when time comes. I think it's the right time.
[Jenny Graham]: Great. Is that a motion to approve?
[Luke Preisner]: If we're to second?
[Jenny Graham]: Someone wants to approve it.
[Luke Preisner]: Oh, I see what you mean.
[Jenny Graham]: Seconded by Luke. Are there any other questions? So this is saying that we will dedicate our I-27 meeting to those to that detailed conversation about costs. Any other questions? Okay, I'm gonna call the roll. Jenny Graham? Yes. Mayor Lungo-Koehn?
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: Yes.
[Jenny Graham]: Dr. Galuzzi? Yes. Marta Cabral? Yes. Joan Bowen?
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: Yes.
[Jenny Graham]: Ken Lord? Yes. Libby Brown? Yes. Marissa Desmond?
[SPEAKER_31]: Yes.
[Jenny Graham]: Ria Dorsey. Yes. Brian Hilliard.
[Maria D'Orsi]: Yes.
[Jenny Graham]: Emily Lazzaro. Yes. Paul Malone. Yes. Nicole Morell. Yes. Aaron Olapade. Yes. Luke Preissner. Yes. 15 in the affirmative, zero in the negative. Motion passes. Okay. Before we move forward into any sort of deliberation voting about categories A, B, and C, I wanted to welcome any members of the public who want to submit their comments in advance of that voting about any of these changes that are seen in item A, B, or C. Once we close public comment, we will move on to voting and we will not take public comment iteratively throughout the process as a way to make sure that we are being mindful of just how many hours we could be here to get this right. Are there any members of the public on Zoom? If you can just use the raise hand feature, that would be great. And in person, if you could step up to the very official piece of paper that says public participation. And if you're sitting here, the public can hear you on Zoom. And if you are not sitting there, then we can't hear you on Zoom. So anybody who would like to speak is welcome to join us there. But I see Ben Engler. on Zoom. I'm going to start with Ben, because you have a hand in the air. And if you could please announce your name and address for the record before your comment. And you have three minutes.
[ir8Km2ErkFk_SPEAKER_08]: Yeah, thanks everybody. I appreciate the opportunity to comment. My name is Ben Linville-Engler. I live at 34 Sunset Avenue, a parent of a current first grader at Nisitook Elementary School. And just wanted to comment a little bit on the decisions you all are about to make and some perspective that I have on it. I think, well, first I'll just like to say I appreciate the mayor's sharing of potential footing from a fiscal situation and also the thoroughness of Luke and others that submitted space summary considerations. I think we all really want the same thing. I had the opportunity to tour the high school a few weeks ago, given a tour by high school students. And I think there's absolutely a desire and a want from everybody here for a new high school. But I think that we absolutely need a new high school. And to me, there's a very big difference between what we want and what we need. And I think that really comes down to what is actually gonna pass in 13 months. And I think that boils down to cost. Right now, I would say in myself going through the documents, it's been very difficult to understand what potentially the state will cover versus what we as residents will need to be able to cover. And we have a proxy right now is the space summary. So I think that's the decisions that are being made right now is really on what are we willing to take out from a space standpoint, because we don't really understand what we can eliminate from a cost standpoint. And I think it's been really unclear from my perspective in going through this, where the state is really going to be covering things versus where we have to pick these up. And so I would ask that as we go through this in the future, especially as we go towards 527, is if there is a likeliness of here's something the state would cover versus here's something that the residents will need to cover. It'd be helpful to understand that because I think that could better inform, are we cutting something we might need to pay for versus what the state is likely to pay for? I think on this note as well, as we look at the over 200 submissions, probably 20% make up 80% of the costs, potential cost reductions. So I'd really recommend to this group to focus on the bigger items first, Because I think those are really where we can potentially look to save some costs. $850 million is a significant amount of money. If you cut it. $100 million is roughly 12%, $750 million is still a lot of money. And I think this is gonna be really, really important to ensure again, that at the end of this, we get what we need and not miss with what we want. So I appreciate everybody's time and consideration into this, but I do think we have to make some tough decisions based on realistic situations that we're in. And that I think really means we have to put some pen to the paper and start making some cuts, even though we have time through October. Thanks.
[Evangelista]: Thank you.
[Jenny Graham]: Is there anybody here in person that would like to speak? Please come on up to the public participation chair right here.
[Luke Preisner]: Welcome.
[Jenny Graham]: Welcome.
[Luke Preisner]: My name is Larry Williams, 128 Middlesex Avenue. I just met Dr. DeLucie at the Paul Revere Pride last week when she invited me to come in. I have a lot more to say, but we're excluded. Three minutes, I'll make it quick. Spent a lot of money already researching and doing all this, but I haven't heard anything about that. When this school was built, what, 60 years ago, it was a different world. We don't wake up every morning hearing of shootings at schools. There's one going in, one way out of this property. Has that been addressed?
[Jenny Graham]: feel that answer and we are surrounded by DCR fells on two thirds of our property. We have been in conversation with DCR as well as our first responders to vet out what those solutions might be, but it is extraordinarily complicated because we don't own the land or have access to it around us. So we are working with them to figure out like what does make sense. And we are meeting, I think as Matt alluded to with our first responders, later this week to talk to them about these designs and get some input from them from a public safety perspective.
[Luke Preisner]: But it was mentioned to me last week that they were thinking of widening the entrance.
[Jenny Graham]: That is one possibility, yep.
[Luke Preisner]: That's still one way in and one way out.
[Jenny Graham]: That is why we need to talk to our first responders. Yeah. Yep.
[Luke Preisner]: I think that's something that should have been done before all this. That would be a deal breaker if we don't have to be able to protect our kids.
[Jenny Graham]: We send 1,200 kids to school here every day with that same scenario. So what you saw tonight, in my mind, makes the circulation and the public safety access dramatically better than what we experienced today. It may not be perfect, but it is certainly a vast improvement over the school I send my kids to every day.
[Luke Preisner]: Well, the DCR isn't giving the property? Wouldn't they just say, yeah, go ahead, take it?
[Adam Hurtubise]: I mean, I would love that, but we are having those conversations.
[Libby Brown]: And is it possible that there will not be a second entrance? It is possible. Yes. I wouldn't want to hang my hat on that.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Doing the best we can here, Paul.
[Jenny Graham]: Sorry, Larry. Okay, online. S. Dillard. If you would note your name and address for the record.
[izVdDtzaCdw_SPEAKER_01]: Hi, thanks. This is Sunny Dillard. I live at 39 Charnwood Road. So this is the second time you've heard from me. So thank you for listening again. I also want to thank the superintendent and the team that supported her in reviewing the space summary to make decisions that I'm sure were incredibly difficult. I want to say that I support this project and most of the program, although the school committee chambers at first glance seem unnecessary. I'd like this committee to further discuss the community amenities in this project, just as the pool was. I'd also like to know what impact they will add, if any, on the district's operational budget. I understand that the Medford public schools in the community already benefit from many of these programs, like the Medford Family Network, Pre-K, and the district offices. Some newer programs seem like really great ideas. And as a whole, I'd like to know, have any of these programs been considered for alternative sites that would be more equitably distributed across the city? Um, at the beginning of this process, this committee considered alternative sites for that exact reason of putting the high school in a location that would be more equitable to Medford residents, especially knowing that the high school is in a far corner of the city and it's not easy for everyone to get to by any means of transportation. I'd like to see this committee not cut these programs, but understand their impact at this location by breaking out costs as will be done for other programs like the pool. with the intent that these other locations may be considered throughout the city because we know that these programs will not receive funding by MSBA and the city taxpayers will have to carry the entirety of that cost either way. I get the time value of money and escalation. Construction costs are so incredibly high right now. And we as a community need to be thinking more strategically about how to better utilize our existing infrastructure. Thank you for your time.
[Evangelista]: Thank you, Sunny.
[Jenny Graham]: Is there somebody else here in person? Please join us at the official piece of paper. Your name and address for the record.
[Nick Giurleo]: Good evening. My name is Nick Trollejo. I live in 40 Robinson Road. I graduated from this school about a decade ago. I'm only 15. I graduated number one in my class and been a lifelong student in the Medford Public Schools. I would definitely say I owe just about all my success to the great education I have through the school system. I just want to make a global comment here. I think it's a way to help you all of you kind of frame what we're looking at here in terms of space reduction. For me, I see this as, is this just a high school or is this a high school plus something else? And honestly, I think arguments can be made both ways as to which direction we should go with this. But ultimately, we do need to have discussions about which direction we want to go to this. We also have to kind of keep the overarching goal in mind, which is Ultimately, we're going to need the taxpayers and the voters of our city to get exclusion. So the question is, how can we make that happen? You want to go through worst possible scenario of putting a debt exclusion up for the voter consideration and having it fail due to concerns about costs. And I can tell you just many, many people have reached out to me and the overwhelming sentiment has been deep concerning about costs. And I understand there might be different points when we want to have that discussion, But ultimately, it's only you can do that. And this is a way here, I think, as we discuss space, making realistic decisions in terms of how can we make this pass? How can we make this happen? So I hope the discussions tonight are just very reasonable and rational. We don't resort to attacking people's characters and motivations. And we just look at what realistically can we do to make this happen, really approach it in a kind of a pragmatic way. That's fine. Thank you.
[Evangelista]: Thank you, Nick. Online, we have Zoe Mutzos.
[Zoe Moutsos]: Hi, this is Zoe Mutzos, 33 Johnson Ave. I just want to start by saying I already sent a letter in, and I'm not going to read that whole letter again, but I am listening to talking with everyone or hearing everyone speak so far, and I think we're all in agreement that we want these costs to come down. But I also want to encourage the committee to remember the work that you've put in already in adopting a plan. And we do have time. I understand that we need to bring the cost down for this. Absolutely. cuts that are made today cannot be put back in. And we have more time to get real numbers, not our best guess numbers to how much this is gonna cost. And so my point is saying this as a parent whose own child will likely never be able to enjoy the benefits of this school. I care really deeply that his education not be disrupted and impacted negatively. And I really appreciate that work to like get to zero modulars that's been done so far. And all of this is showing me that this committee and our architects and designers are working really responsibly knowing that we have to bring the numbers down and the costs down. And if we're listening and believing, and we have no reason not to, that by the end of May at that meeting, we will have real numbers. then I would urge caution in making large cuts now for a number that is really still just arbitrary. And we don't know. So don't go all wobbly yet. We have time. Stay strong. This is a plan that we all agreed to. And when you lose your North Star and your strategy so early, everything goes off the rails. So I really appreciate the fortitude and the guts that it's taking to stand up here. to everyone knowing that this price tag is way too high, but also, you know, let's let the process play out. And we have a month to get a bunch of numbers in, and I think we can all be patient and then, you know, continue the cutting from there if I understand that process correctly. So, thank you.
[Evangelista]: Thank you, Zoe. Here in the room. Your name and address for the record.
[Andre Leroux]: Hi, I'm Nick. I live at 62 Changer Street. I have three children, all of whom will attend this high school at some point, hopefully after construction is done. And I'll be paying for the high school for the rest of the time I live here, possibly the rest of my life. And I'm fine with that. I want the high school, in whatever form it takes, to be an excellent resource for everyone involved. I want it to be a good place to learn, a good place to teach, and a strong community resource for everyone in the city. So seeing this very long list of proposed changes, which I appreciate the comments that member Price made about spurring discussion, but in the context of what I've heard tonight, I think as other people have said, it might be, it's awfully early to have 260 proposed changes like this, especially ones that impede the educational plan It just doesn't seem to serve the purpose well. And it's also my understanding, as people have said, we have until October, really, for pencils down. This was kind of mentioned before. And this is an iterative process where we will be communicating with the MSBA for what's going to be reimbursed and what's not. We don't even have final designs. So suggesting that we remove the black box, from the point we're at in the process right now. I understand the need to be wise about our financial decisions. Like I said, I'm one of the people who's going to be paying for this place. Yeah, I'm totally cool with it. But this list kind of reminds me a bit of my grandfather, who was a very avid photographer, but also any picture. So he would occasionally buy a nice new camera and then shoot that on the film. which I don't think is what we want to do here. If we're buying something that's going to serve everybody and we wanted to do a really good job at that, we shouldn't be penny-pinching, save 50 bucks. Someone much smarter than me once said that a cynic is someone who knows the price of everything and the value of nothing. So I would hope that the people on this committee are not cynics and they know the difference. Thank you.
[Evangelista]: Any more hands on Zoom? Is there anybody else here in the room who'd like to speak?
[Unidentified]: Jessica Parks, 38 Quarry Street.
[Jenny Graham]: So I think everyone who went before me probably said what I have to say much more eloquently than I would have. But I think two things that I still would like to say are about And I, you know, I understand the intense pressure to reduce costs. I understand the reality of costs today in today's market. Someone had spoken about looking at big ticket items. And I think some of these proposals now remove the modulars. We have been carrying a cost of, I think it was almost 23 million for the modulars. That looks like we could potentially remove 23 million now from some of these projects, which sounds like a big ticket item. Is that the case? Is that still an accurate number? Do we even know if that was kind of a number we could carry? Or does that still need to have the costing as well?
[Matt Rice]: So that number is accurate in terms of what the modulars were roughly estimated at. It's about $400,000, I believe, per modular classroom, double story. I mean, that ballpark is certainly accurate. I will caution, and I think Danny mentioned it earlier as well, that because of the removal of the modulars, we're introducing phasing in some cases, which would extend things out, and then there's going to be additional escalation costs that come in because of that. So it's not unfortunately just like well we can take away the cost of the modules entirely. What we're going to be doing I think as part of one of the resolutions actually is looking at the cost delta in between having modulars and reducing sort of the construction duration or eliminating them and sort of seeing what the costs are there. So we'll have both of those cost models to move forward with and understand whether there's a savings there, whether it's cost neutral or whether it's costs negative in terms of moving forward. But certainly trying to get rid of the modules from an educational disruption standpoint is sort of a non-quantitative benefit that would come along with it.
[Jenny Graham]: And I think just thinking back through and thinking of that analysis that needs to be done along with all of the other costing exercises, sitting down and looking at 200 items of which included a significant amount of special education rents. No, I wrote in my letter about the increases in students needing special education services that are happening year over year in this district. I think it's 150% increase in students needing one-on-one aids that have come into the district in the past three years, and 300% increase in IEPs of students entering the district.
[Unidentified]: And to me, removing rooms that serve these students is not,
[Jenny Graham]: where we should be looking. Even if it seems that we don't need those services now, we likely will in the future, given the trends. So that's all I'm going to say. Thank you.
[Adam Hurtubise]: And that's exactly.
[Jenny Graham]: Thank you. Well done. There's no hands on Zoom right now. So if you want to step up.
[Michael Pardek]: Mike Mastroboni, 73 Spring Road. We're fired up tonight. see the updated designs, it's really clear that the team heard all the feedback and is taking that into account. Tonight was the first night where I really, really felt like things were, like, that that progress was, not that progress hasn't been made, or not, like, to hear the conversations that I've been having with people turn into real design. So I very much care about the impact of this project on my neighbors, on our taxpayers, I think we all agree on a successful debt exclusion vote. It's not an acceptable outcome, right? We agree on that. That being said, I'm pretty concerned about some of the amendments on the agenda tonight. What the building committee is being asked to do is to make hundreds of changes to the project before a preferred design has even been selected. I feel like that approach is making final decisions during the phase that's meant for this exploration, right, to understand what the trade-offs and the costs are. If we start removing elements now, whether it's cutting spaces, drinking core elements of the building, those effectively disappear from the process going forward. I think we heard that from a caller. That means they're not gonna get fully evaluated. It becomes nearly impossible for them to come back later in any meaningful way and live this in the Somerville High School project. So on the agenda tonight, a lot of the proposals to eliminate our, sorry, justification for a lot of the proposals are because they're not in MSBH guidelines. For me, MSBA guidelines are the floor, not the goal. They're not a vision for what Medford should be doing for its students. That is how you end up with a minimum viable school that's crippled by a thousand cuts. None of these amendments by themselves, although some of them are pretty significant, most of them are pretty small. The end result of all those is a smaller, less functional school than what our neighbors will actually need for the next 15 years. We don't need to be making decisions right now. I think that's pretty clear, and folks have been talking about that. Because the decisions that you all will make now are going to define what the school could be, specifically what it won't be for the next, you know, five decades. Obviously, you know, I think we heard before, some of the proposals have an impact on an educational plan. As a school committee member, I would urge caution about making any of those changes. the pressure on cost. Leadership in moments like this, it's not about reacting to fear and concern. It's about coaching folks. It's about making thoughtful decisions with a full understanding of those tradeoffs. So for me, the responsible path here is to carry all these spaces forward, get deeper cost estimates, hear from the MSBA. I think that's a really important piece. We have not gotten that feedback from the MSBA yet. I'm going to make these informed tradeoffs because Public schools are one of the few non-negotiables in local government. We don't have a choice to provide for our kids, our grandkids, our grandkids' kids. And we have to keep that promise or we're going to fail to meet this one opportunity that we have right now. So thank you so much.
[Jenny Graham]: Also right on the money. There's still no hands on Zoom. You want to step up to the official piece of paper.
[Harrison Green]: I'm Harrison Green to Ronald A. Road. As I'm getting more involved in this learning, seeing more online and hearing what everyone said tonight, the approach makes a lot of sense. It's not as... I don't feel the same tension that I feel in those more internal spaces because of the clarity that we can continue to make changes for another bit of time, especially as the we're bringing in another, what's the school that is?
[Jenny Graham]: We are proposing to co-locate the Curtis Tufts and our pre-K programming here. The Medford Family Network and Kids Corner and the Welcome Center and the central offices are already here.
[Harrison Green]: Some of those are also looking to expand in scope.
[Unidentified]: There are some, yes, in the pre-K Kids Corner space, yeah.
[Harrison Green]: So I don't want to risk those potential expansions, but I do think it's We know that there's these big numbers and out of context, they are extremely intimidating, but we understand that this process will likely get reduced some of those and the scope will be improved. So I think that's my ask from the city is to support the residents in giving that scope outside of the individual members of this group.
[Jenny Graham]: on Zoom land tonight, but please step right home.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, everyone. Zach Baer, City Council President, 430 Auburn Street, No. I was not the first in my class in upper high school, but I did go through. And so just know what I say a little bit. I think, first, I just want to say to the SBC and the project team, I really appreciate the updated designs. I think you got good direction at the last meeting. I think you created really strong updated designs that factored in a lot of and it feels to me like you're listening to the major concerns that the community is bringing up as we move through things. I have a bit of a different perspective on, than some people, I think some other people have articulated it really well about cost and what this building does. The vast majority of what's in the education plan are things that this building already does. And I think there's a just as big, if not a bigger risk to the final passage of a debt exclusion if we stop doing things that we do now. I think this education plan certainly has some things and then I think there was really some diligent work done by the superintendent and the project team to remove some things that would be really helpful. I mean, I think to potentially not have some really important things that would improve the lives of students on this campus, but understanding the cost is a real issue. I do think that a lot of the narrative around this is going to be X million dollars and it's going to be X thousand dollars a month at doing all of that before we have accurate cost estimates and a real understanding of what this project means is falling into Medford's classic trap, which is a presumption of failure, a presumption that we will not be able to negotiate effectively with the MSBA, a presumption that we will not be able to find other ways to fund a project, a presumption that we will not be able to do the creative work between now and October to make cuts that minimize impact on the program, maximize value to the students, And I think it just sets the vote up and sets the project up for a harder run at a dent exclusion. So I really appreciate the project team and the committee in sticking it out, trying to figure out how to say yes, not just assume that we have to say no. Because I think so many students will be faced with massive disservice if we do not. I mean, the biggest thing for me surface parking versus a field over the garage. Yeah, it's going to cost more, but you get two fields for 50 years versus a third of the site covered in parking that's mostly unutilized. And it's a big number, but if it's $100 more, you're on a debt exclusion. We need to be able to effectively make that argument to the residents and the voters. We don't just cut it because it feels like an extravagance. It's not. I think it's really important to the students. So there's many more examples. I'm definitely over three minutes because I'm not as good at the school committee. But yeah, I just really don't I don't want us to fall into that trap. I think there are ways that this city can figure out how to provide revenue to this project. And we don't just have to fall into this trap that MSP is going to give us the minimum reimbursement that we're not going to be able to figure out ways to fund this in other ways that the city is never going to grow because we're right there at the edge of, I think, a big growth spurt. And I really support the work that this committee is doing to preserve as much of the education plan as possible while considering, honestly, cost issues on the right timeline with the best information available. Now you're out of time.
[Jenny Graham]: Sure. Hold on one second. Did you want to respond? Yeah. OK, go ahead.
[SPEAKER_31]: I did just want to say, because of what President Perez mentioned, One thing that we can do as a community and as sort of leaders on this committee is that we can work hard to frame the conversation around how the debt exclusion is gonna work in the coming years. We have a lot of time to do that, but as we make these decisions, I think that's our responsibility is to make sure that we're presenting things to the public in a way that they can consume it and that they can understand what the benefits are that this building is a community hub in a lot of ways that isn't just a high school because it is like a central building for a lot of people in the city. And to deny that is, denies what it already is. And I think when we present that in a really positive way and in a way that is celebratory to the residents of the city, then it's gonna be more like a look at this opportunity that we've had to make something really great. And how exciting is that, that we get to be part of it, I guess, happening while we're here right now.
[Evangelista]: Thank you. Eileen Lerner is joining us on Zoom. Eileen, can you unmute yourself?
[Ilene Lerner]: Can you hear me now?
[Evangelista]: Yes. Name and address for the record, please.
[Ilene Lerner]: Oh yes, Eileen Lerner, 3920 Mystic Valley Parkway. I think there's a lot of fear in our country and around the world at this time, and we're all fearful. And we're acting out of fear to start reducing this and maybe hurting the people that are most vulnerable. That's unacceptable. And it's just like, you know, I think about my parents bought their first house for $9,000, you know, and what houses cost now. And I think, you know, in the future that the cost of this new high school, you know, will not look as outrageous as it does right now. And yeah, I don't think that we should, just capitulate just out of fear. Let's act out of optimism and get to work, you know, making that money happen. And I just believe we can do it. So that's what I had to say.
[Evangelista]: Thank you, Eileen. Somebody ducking up.
[Unidentified]: Susan Wilson, 97 Winchester Street.
[Nick Giurleo]: Susan, you're going to have to speak up.
[Unidentified]: Yeah. Okay. Sorry. Thank you. I think, you know, we get, we get one chance and these have been ones every 50, 60 years, and you have to plan ahead for what the world looks like to the extent that we can. If we do the bare minimum, like we barely can get by with now, that's not going to last 50, 60 years. We have to plan for what's possible and what we want and what we can possibly have in the future. And I think there's real costs that come with cutting at this incredible level. Like just because we cut all the special education rooms doesn't mean we cut our need and our legal requirement, let alone our moral and ethical requirement to pay for all of those students and the support that they need. Just because we cut all the possibilities of having pre-K, I mean, then there's a real cost. People will leave this town. I mean, I have three kids. They're all, you know, in the daycare years. That's a minimum 12, 13, 20K a year per kid. That's a ton. People will leave. That's a tax base that goes away. There are real economic costs to cutting money. It's cutting off your nose to spite your face, I think. And as everyone has said prior to this moment, we don't need to do that now. This isn't the time. There were moments to have that conversation when we developed an educational plan and what we have as a vision. There are moments to have that later once we have real numbers. We are not in that moment right now. I mean, looking at all of the incredible proposals and these like six narrowed down things, if we cut some of the things that are on the table here, Those designs don't make sense. I mean, we have this incredible vocational program, but that takes up tons of floors. What's these buildings even look like if we cut that out? And all of the early childhood entrances, if we cut early childhood, what do these structures look like? What a waste of everyone's incredible time and dedication up to this moment if we preemptively destroy all of those things. I don't even know what those designs mean. look like, and we have a month to do that. So I think there's plenty of reasons to talk about the money and how that all works, but this is not the time to make those decisions, because we don't have to, and I think we'll figure this out.
[Evangelista]: Thank you, Susan. I see a hand on Zoom. Justine Myers, we'll take her, and then we'll keep it.
[Justine Myers]: Hi, I want to thank everyone for all the work that's been done so far. I'm happy to see the change with modulars, for example. My comment is just in regards to the committee making sure that you're voting with the most vulnerable students in mind. So ensuring that we're not cutting things like special ed needs, gender neutral bathrooms. I see things like that on the list and just want people to consider those when voting. Thank you.
[Evangelista]: Thank you, Justine. Michelle? Hi, my name is Michelle Parks and I live at 23 Diane Road.
[Jenny Graham]: I'm a teacher and another public school that's about a year and a half ahead of my bird in terms of this process.
[Unidentified]: So I'm just asking the committee and the community at large, as I've lived it in my professional life, this process is incredibly thorough, incredibly rigid, and we have to trust it. I'm really asking we need not to make cuts before it's appropriate. We haven't gotten the actual numbers. We have a lot to understand around financing, and I understand the numbers are big and scary right now, but we're really not there yet. And I just know if you trust the MSBA process that it can work and we can get a school that will serve our students for the future. And I think that we can, I'm hoping that people feel more confident that the committee and the architects are listening to the community based on the changes that have been made. I certainly feel that, and I think we should feel that. And I just really can't stress enough how important appropriate teaching space is for student learning. The high school I'm currently teaching in is falling apart and it's a real, real effect on morale. And it's going to be this, if we put in all this money and we do not have appropriate space for teachers to teach, it will affect student learning. And it doesn't make sense to do it that way. So I really ask before, just to not make the cuts before we have to. I understand that we will have to likely make some cuts, but let's do the process as it is supposed to be done. And just remember that the student learning positions, our teacher working positions, they cannot be separated. And we have to remember that. Thank you. Thank you, Michelle.
[Luke Preisner]: Jenny, can I ask a similar question? Sure. So there's a lot of bathrooms and restrooms on the list. My understanding is those can come out of the grossing factor. Is that an incorrect? understanding? Like what is the grossing fact that is it just hallways?
[Matt Rice]: So no, so the some of the toilet rooms are specifically program spaces. It's typically surrounding the special education programs when there's a dedicated instructional need to have dedicated toilet and associated with it. I would say it's not the majority of them. Most of the general use toilet rooms throughout the building, whether they're All gender toilet rooms or whether gender toilet rooms are going to be coming out of the grossing factor, but it's not, it's not an either or necessarily. And generally the ones that are with special education are net program areas. Sure.
[Luke Preisner]: And not to dwell on special education or gender neutral, because those aren't actually topics in my mind. There were like 45 or 50 bathrooms in the individual space summary. Is it incorrect for me to reassign them to the grossing factor? just as a general, regardless of what special programs.
[Matt Rice]: I'd say what we have listed in the space summary for toilet rooms that are in the net usable category are typical in terms of what we've seen for other high school programs, both on special education side, there may also be some on the CTE side as well. that were listed as net program area versus growth. So it's not atypical from how we typically design, how we typically see the MSB reimbursing in terms of square footage, in terms of what's in the space on the right, from a toilet room perspective. It's fairly standard. OK.
[Unidentified]: All right. Thanks, Sam.
[Evangelista]: Are there any other comments from the community? Sophie, online.
[Sophie Ricks]: Hi, can you hear me?
[Unidentified]: Yes, yes.
[Sophie Ricks]: Yeah, this is Sophie Rick 70 at Codding Street. I sent a long email earlier today, but it was kind of under the wire, so I'm not sure if anyone saw it. I guess I just basically want to agree with the comments that I've heard most recently. saying to please slow down, please don't do these cuts tonight. I know we've just been talking about bathrooms a few minutes ago, gender neutral bathrooms and cutting bathrooms in general, I think is a really bad idea. I sent a link as well in my email earlier. I hope people have a chance to read it even if they didn't get a chance to before tonight. I also think cutting things like OT and PT spaces is short-sighted. The, like, penny-wise, pound-foolish phrasing I just think really applies here. When we're cutting, like, 25 square feet over and over again, hundreds of times, it really does add up. And this really is, like, the one chance to get it right. I want it to be done well. Also planning on paying for this for the rest of my life. I'm not planning to be leaving Medford. I don't want to have I know that this is. Crazy high budget, but, um, I don't think this is the time to be making the cuts. Thanks.
[Evangelista]: Thank you. There anybody else who would like to speak?
[Jenny Graham]: We'll take. Comments from the Comments from the public. Going once, going twice. Yeah, come on up.
[SPEAKER_32]: My name is Xiaoping He, 49 Watson Street. I'm a little bit late learning about this high school renovation, but I'm here just to support the swimming pool. I don't have any kids, but I have been a resident for 31 years here. I'm from Texas, and I love this community. But the swimming pool is something I discovered maybe, I don't know, five, ten years ago. Before that, I was looking for things to do here. I really couldn't find anything. It's very hard to find. The high school swimming pool actually is open to the public. It was really hard. I used to go to Lexington to swim. That would take me like two hours each time. So with the swimming pool, I was very happy, and I found really a community here. And also, I know the swimming pool is really good for the students, not only for the regular residents. Because kids these days don't do much physical activities. And this is one thing that I think everybody should learn. And it's a life-saving skill and the whole thing. And so I hope I understand all the cost and things. just if we can and keeping the swimming pool will be good for the community, good for the students and the students will feel very proud that their school has a swimming pool because you know the whole the whole city around here we don't have much spaces there are not many good swimming pools around and it's really good for the winter time for people even young people or the elderly to come here and do some physical activity. So I hope this will go through. And I hope also we have a good high school and proud to pay lots of people. Thank you. Thank you.
[Evangelista]: Any other members of the public who would like to speak?
[Jenny Graham]: Seeing none. then a closed public comment. And we are going to take a 10 minute break. It's 8.36. So we're a few minutes behind schedule for our break. But we're pretty good, all things considered. So we'll be back in 10 minutes. So 8.46. And we'll get started with Rubey. Thank you.
[Maria D'Orsi]: No, I have no idea.
[Unidentified]: go ahead and get started.
[Jenny Graham]: Okay, we are moving on. So category A, as we have talked about before, these are space change proposals presented by the educational leadership team that was like formally assembled to support the visioning work that ultimately led to the space summary. And they are very often and usually the people who go through these refinement activities to make sure that we are being responsible with space and putting forward sort of changes and modifications. So I'm going to turn it over to Dr. Blusey, who is representing all of these space changes on behalf of that team, just to give us a little summary and framing of this section because they do that all come from this my team.
[Suzanne Galusi]: Yes. All right, thank you. I'm not going to read line by line, but I do think it's really important to just summarize a little bit of the approach we took and how we went into this. I'm going to, I really loved Zoe from the community participation, which she talked about, please don't lose that North Star. And I feel like that has been the approach that the MPS leadership team has taken throughout this whole entire process. And that North Star is the educational plan. And it is our vision for how we want to educate students and how we want teachers to be instructing in this space. And that is exactly what we used to engage in this work. So first and foremost, I think it's important for people to know that this was a collaborative process. So central office worked very closely with school leadership, as well as departmental leadership, as well as those community partners that are also represented in this space summary and in the educational plan. All of this was done in conversation in lots of meetings, and sometimes on phone conversations, whatever, but it was done in a collaborative spirit. So the team that really did a lot of that work that's here, I know that there are active members on this team, but I do want to say that that's Marta Petrall. She is the principal. It's Chad Fallon, the executive director of CTE programming. Dr. Kim Talbot, our Assistant Superintendent for Academics and Instruction, Joan Bowen, our Director for Student Services, Ken Lord, our Chief Operations Officer, Will Picicelli, our Communications Director, and then loads of community partners and all of our department directors. So what we did is we just looked at the space summary And we kind of took like a three hour approach. So we looked for things that could be repurposed. We looked for redundancies and we looked for, yes, maybe it's penny wise, pound foolish, but we did look for some small reductions that could be made, all of which would be farthest away from students and impacting what that instruction would look like. We really part of the work for us, and someone also mentioned it for the community input, We strongly believe we don't know necessarily what education is going to look like, what those demands are going to be 25, 30, 50 years from now. We're looking at the quote unquote new schools, our K-8 buildings, those were 25 years ago. And so how we were teaching and how students were learning was different. And so it's important for us to really be looking at spaces that can be flexible, multi-use so that they can keep up with the growing changes, needs, demands of educating students and community, you know, needs throughout the city. So with that said, I just want to make sure our recommendations are aligned to our educational plan. And in keeping with those three buckets, I'm just going to call out a few things. One in the, repurpose space. A lot of the repurpose ones that you will see on our space summary had to do with looking at like tech labs, innovation labs, yes, the black box theater, but really trying to make spaces that are multi-purpose that can be used for a variety of reasons without changing the amount of space that is, but really looking at how can those spaces be used? So in one of the examples, there was a science resource room, which would be shared. It's not necessarily to reduce that, but we talked about using, taking the quote, engineering and robotics lab, and just repurposing that into an innovation lab, excuse me, a 12th science lab, so that that's more of a shared space that could be used for science purposes, for special education resource purposes, but that is still a science space. So it's not necessarily reducing, but it is repurposing for our community. Another example of repurposing would be the digital photo lab. That's important for our growing arts program. So it's not to delete the digital photo lab, but right now in the space summary, it counts for two maker spaces. So let's keep one maker space, but let's have the other one be this photo lab so that we are reducing a little bit of that square footage. It's not that we're cutting the photo lab, but we don't feel that we need two maker spaces at this time and repurposing the use of one of those for the art photo lab. We did notice a lot of redundancies around office space. So yes, there were a lot of offices that we maybe were reducing just by like 25 square feet. But I think what's very important to us as a leadership team and as the way that we work and we want to see our teachers working and we want to see our students working is in a collaborative manner. And so we prioritize conference room space over office space. So you did see We went through a lot of the offices that are in central office. We don't need large offices, but we did prioritize conference room space. And you don't see many reductions there because those spaces are well used for how we function today and how I really hope we are still contributing to collaborative work output as not only a school system, but as a district and as a city. So I do want to take, I want to also clarify if I caused confusion, one of the other places for redundancy that we called out here for maybe not just repurposing or reducing, but also evaluating, and that is the use of some toilets. So please, if it was me that caused confusion, I am not saying that there is only one gender neutral bathroom in this project. What we were trying to do here, and someone kind of raised it earlier, and in lots of conversations with Joan and her staff, there are some specialized programming that really need a bathroom within the program. But not every special education program needs a bathroom within the classroom. So what that line is, is for the programs that really need it, project transition and access, let's keep a toilet in those classrooms. But the other specialized classrooms, those bathrooms can just be moved into the grocery factor. They can be shared by students with adjacencies and fall ways. They don't have to belong in classrooms. The other one is looking to evaluate some 12, I believe, out of the 19 CTE shops calls for a bathroom. We really want to look at what the desi regulations are there. If they have changing rooms, do they also need to have bathrooms where I think there could be some adjacent bathrooms that's shared that would work just fine, but also, you know, bring down the cost in a reasonable way. In terms of the other spaces, I would say that I maybe just wanted to call out a little bit is I think maybe in terms of the ECC, we do not look to reduce any of the spaces other than storage. We did look to repurpose some of the use. I wanted to explain that part of what will be so beneficial for the Early Childhood Center is just the sharing of resource. So for people, if you're just tuning in, the Early Childhood Center does include Medford Family Network that's currently housed here. It does include Kids Corner currently housed here. It would bring back, I think that's a distinction, our preschool programming, which originated in this building and then was also brought into when the newer schools was part of the outside schools. And then for space reasons, those have been kind of consolidated into just two buildings right now. What this would be able to do is house everything together. It would pool resources. It would share resources. There'd be much more efficiency, not only in the way it's operationalized, but in the way we're able to service the community with staffing, with supports, with resources. And yes, it does account for some growth. So right now, Kids' Corner, I wish you could tour Kids' Corner. There are really four total spaces for Kids' Corner, and they're serving birth to age five. Four spaces. So all the toddlers are really in one classroom that's divided in the middle. And we're at a capacity where there's a wait list, and we can't fill it. because we don't have the space for that. Kids Corner services all of our municipal employees that want it, if they're not on the wait list. It's teachers, it's municipal employees. We have fire, police, city workers. We also have students. And we have students that use Kids Corner so that they can continue to be educated and graduate with a diploma. And those things I think are very important to the core values of Medford. I would love to see that capacity grow a little bit. Kids Corner does also serve as some community members. So beyond municipal employees, beyond our students, they also have space for community, but it's limited. And so this would allow us to grow that. I think we all know the benefit of MFN. And I don't know a place where I would hate to see these programs be unhoused. But I do think that we could reduce some of the storage space because there'd be lots of places in which resources are going to be shared. I'm happy to answer any questions that people have specifically about any of the items that the leadership team have here.
[Jenny Graham]: So this is category A items one through 33.
[John Falco]: Is CCSR going away?
[Suzanne Galusi]: No.
[John Falco]: OK, great.
[Suzanne Galusi]: But it does not need its own office.
[Luke Preisner]: All right. That's the distinction. We're not disbanding that program, right?
[Suzanne Galusi]: No. That called for an office. So that was just the office space. The students actually, I think, do they meet in this space or in the back room? Yes.
[Unidentified]: Elaine?
[SPEAKER_31]: Can you, through the chair, can you clarify which of these feel like something that you could, that you actually just want to ask questions about, and which of these feel like you would safely ask us to vote on tonight as a Coddle?
[Suzanne Galusi]: That's a great question. I would say, first and foremost, a lot of the evaluating are around the CT. programming, just with the toilets and the office space. I think we have down there to evaluate the office space and the toilets that are attached to, I believe, 12 out of the 19. So I would like to see that continue in an evaluation. I would say I probably would also want to evaluate, because right now the pop-up shop gallery that we feel can be embedded throughout the building in conversations that we've had with directors. The food pantry that's in there is not associated with MFN. The food pantry that's in there is part of, right now, what is called Mystic Exchange. The Mystic Exchange is a closet. Cabral can talk more about it, but it used to be called the Hope Chest. It's a closet where people anyone in the community can bring donations and students in a discreet way can go and shop at Mystic Exchange. And so there is clothing around prom time. There's prom dresses in there. So it's a nice, it's a nice resource for our students. Within that space, there are some like food pantry type items that I think we could keep in a combined sense. one discrete location for students rather than having two discrete locations for students. So the food pantry in there is just to consolidate it because we thought that was like another redundancy. I would say, I am happy to have feedback, but I started by saying we prioritize conference space and I'm fine to vote on office space reduction.
[Unidentified]: I guess if it's, sorry, go ahead. Can I make a motion to have the items that Superintendent Pelosi does not want us to vote on be like separated from the items that we would vote on for tonight? You can. Can we talk about just the things that are like ready to ready to go and then we can talk about the other things maybe as a separate discussion.
[SPEAKER_31]: So it seems like what we need to do is make sure that we can serve this stuff to the cost estimators with some degree of clarity. And if there's stuff that needs further discussion or something that we need to talk to, somebody needs to talk to the architects about, somebody needs to look at testing regulations,
[Unidentified]: Things like that, this is sort of a, feels like maybe a high level list of suggestions, but that aren't necessarily things that you would want already to be taking off the table completely.
[SPEAKER_31]: That maybe this is not what the motion would look like, but could we have like one, five, 12, like those get pulled, you know?
[Suzanne Galusi]: Okay. I might need a little time. I wasn't like planning on separating it. I know for sure we could, I just want to double check this, this, the numbers, but for sure we could remove the CTE spaces. Um, or am I misunderstanding where we meant to be voting on, on cutting these things today? Yeah. Yeah.
[Jenny Graham]: So, but it sounds like we did like, like, that's not really what we, I don't know. That's not what the intention was. If I can offer a suggestion, I think where there are things that we feel like we're okay, that these things are gone forever, now is the time to take those votes. And I think there are objectively lots of people in the community who think we should do a lot of that tonight. And then I think there are people in the community who think we should do none of that tonight. suggesting that we do some of that tonight. Um, and so the question is what's the sum of it. Yeah. And if you look at the 33 items that Dr. Galusi has shared. Yeah. Um, if there's like, I think you certainly could put forward motion that says I want to accept Dr. Galusi's recommendation on items one through 20 and not on items 21 and 22. Sure. Like you could formulate emotions that way, but we would need you to specifically, I guess I want Dr. Glue to tell me which one she wants. Um, yeah, sorry. It's too specific because I'm not the, I guess I'm not.
[Suzanne Galusi]: No, I, I totally understand that. I think, and I'm happy to like, if there's other questions or if there's points of discussion, I think, you know, there were six music rooms. We felt that three would be completely sufficient to fill the need, right? Music practice, thank you for that clarification. The practice rooms. We were very mindful of doing those things as you kind of go through here, like there were three wellness rooms. We didn't necessarily say we just cut the wellness rooms. The conversation we had was that within each house, So Medford High School is broken up into houses. There are three of them, MHS. Within each house is an assistant principal office, it's a school counseling office, and it has a space in there called a restorative space. Those spaces can be for leadership and teachers to have restorative circles, affinity spaces, maybe spaces for prayer, but they would be multi-use spaces for student needs. We said, we don't need wellness. That's like a duplicate. That's another redundancy, but it would be great if those restorative spaces were a little larger so that you could have, if you need be, like a restorative circle or more than just, you know, free people that fit in a tiny little office. So everything that's on here came from very meaningful conversations. I'm happy based on a lot of the feedback, even with the black box. theater. It's not that we went are getting rid of the black box theater, but we had conversations that we felt that one of the innovation labs could serve the same purpose as a black box theater. I'm happy to maybe talk about the auditorium seating. We did have a meeting where lots of theater experts were able to I learned a lot from that meeting coming away with it and just about like how voice carries the intimacy of a performance space, but also preserving the opportunity to say that two full classes and accompanying adults could fit in the auditorium so that Marta and her team can have assemblies, gather large groups and still have a performance space that's worthy of a wonderful experience. I'm happy, though, if people heard the resolution that maybe something like that comes off so we see what the costs are for 1,000 seats, 800 seats. That might be, to your point, one that we could remove with the CTE evaluation just to see what the cost would be. The other one was there was a separate CTE co-op We have worked really hard this year, the past two years. We are one school. And so there is a college and career space in this space summary and in our educational plan. We're actually starting that next year. So there'll be a college and career center that will also have CTE co-op. within it. So we're one school, we need one space. So removing the CTE co-op space, yes, is a reduction, but it's really like we're looking at repurposing that because it's going to be part of the College and Career Center. So I would say that something like that stays in. There were two transportation offices. We don't need that. I guess the only other thing I would say is just to see what the costs are, maybe we are not combining the OT and PT room for me.
[Libby Brown]: Did you have your hand up? Well, it sounded like, Suzanne, you actually felt like you were comfortable with all the office, you know, reshaping, like keep conference rooms, cut offices, make, you know, bullpen, et cetera. And so I was just trying to go through and highlight which ones are those sort of, not controversial, not really affecting ed plan, I don't think. And if we could just like identify those, I'm close to it. I might not get them all right. We could say at least like a motion to accept those. I mean, I trust you, your judgment there. If you're comfortable with those, I'm comfortable with those. It was an elaborative effort. I wouldn't say, well, I'm sorry. Your collective teams, yes. And that's a, that's a big chunk. And then it's either be lead getters to be deferred to later discussion or further study, or we get to talk about them individually, but I would think that's like the majority of them. I could take a stab at the number and then you can confirm them. Okay. Let me take a shot at it. All right. I'm going to go for number four, seven, nine, a little bit more than office. But so I think you said for good is to keep her removed.
[Jenny Graham]: to accept the removal. So you start again? Yes. 479. 15 through, hold on.
[Libby Brown]: Yeah. It'd be 25.
[Jenny Graham]: Then 29 through 33. It might be a little editorializing for me in there. But 15 through 25, 27.
[Libby Brown]: And we're 29 through 33. I left out 26 because it had a lot of different spaces in one item. And that felt like maybe those deserve separate discussion, but.
[Suzanne Galusi]: Well, could I just make one comment about 26, because you raised it, because in the space summary, it's written as central office storage. And I do want to call out that it is not central office storage. It is our humanities book room. But it does, I believe, and correct me, project team, but I also believe it connects to a space that is not used right now. It is kind of used.
[Zoe Moutsos]: It's a partition?
[Suzanne Galusi]: It's used as another storage space. It's not usable. It's in that much disrepair. So the 2,700 square feet of that is our humanities book room for our humanities department. Yeah, we do. Is MFN storage too? I'm kind of confused about it. So MFN, so when we look at ECC, Kids Corner, I believe, had about 300 square feet of storage. MFN had 900 square feet of storage. And I'm not saying MFN doesn't need storage. They need storage. But I don't think they need 900 square feet of it. There were three separate spaces. I just said they could consolidate down to one, 300 square, I mean, my office is 300 square feet. Yeah. And I don't think, you know, I don't think we need anything more than that with a lot of shelving and bins, you could actually still fit strollers or things in there.
[Libby Brown]: So, um, but they found like 230 and then they're proposing 700 and then the proposals to cut it to two and hold on to 300. Yeah.
[Suzanne Galusi]: from a map now, right? So it's still in games. Yeah. Yes. Yes.
[Jenny Graham]: Yes. I'm going to read the numbers again for folks. That's what he said. OK. 4, 7, 9, 15 through 27, 29 through 33. There are seconds on that motion.
[Michael Pardek]: I have a comment. I would not support grouping those together. It feels like seven, potentially nine, are program-related for students. That's the practice rooms.
[Libby Brown]: Yep.
[Michael Pardek]: And the maker space.
[Libby Brown]: Yep. Yeah, they're a little different.
[Michael Pardek]: I suggest taking those out, because then those are more than half.
[Jenny Graham]: Yep. OK, Libby, are you OK with that amendment? Yes, of course. OK. Okay, so we have a proposal for items four, 15 through 27 and 29 through 33 by Libby, seconded by Aaron. Any questions about that proposal? Sure. So the motion would be to accept the space reduction outlined in items four, 15 through 27 and 29 through 33 of category A. Thank you.
[John Falco]: Paul? This is for the project team. I'm assuming that there's no requirements that everybody has a window in like office space and stuff. Is that correct? By reducing the numbers of these things, does that make it easier? Like as a school committee member, I think, why can't we not have people in closets? And like I find warrants every week in the accounts payable, and it's a closet. It'd be a closet in any world. And I mean, those people that work in there don't see the light of day ever. Before I get to work, that's the end of it. So by reducing the numbers of these units, do we increase the likelihood that we'll be able to figure out how to make sure people get white? Or does this have no impact at all? Because when I think about the size of your space, it's like if your closet, this is your whole office with a door. That's very different. This is your whole office with a door and you have a window.
[Matt Rice]: So I think mathematically, maybe yes, but I don't think it's to the point where we could make a quantifiable judgment to say that, yes, we're going to have 10% of the offices more by that reduction to have more windows in them going forward. in theory and concept, I think yes, but I don't know that would ever realize itself in a meaningful way.
[Suzanne Galusi]: But I do think to your point, that's why we had lots of conversations around the bullpen aspect, so that we don't have all of these tiny little offices with walls where people can't talk to one another to actually do their work. So you see here, like our HR office, our finance office, what you just mentioned, they would be how they are now in like a bullpen style so that they're able to work together and not feel like they're just in a cubicle. But I would say too, from Malone's point, in keeping this very clean, then we should probably remove 29 as well. That's not an office space, that's an educational space. And do I, I mean, in full transparency, I think we have to remove 27? Because I think, do I have to remove 27?
[Unidentified]: That's a question.
[Suzanne Galusi]: I apologize.
[Jenny Graham]: So I guess, I guess in other districts, what we typically see is if the school has done so much work behind the scenes with the project team in the schools,
[SPEAKER_31]: with the community partners that that recommendation, there has been a ton of work and thought put into this recommendation.
[Jenny Graham]: Normally we would see it all move forward as one to see if it is something that the school building committee would consider and move forward as a recommendation from the schools, just because this does reflect what was in the ed plan. It does right size what is intended by the ed plan. So I guess just, I guess it's more of a comment that that's normally what we see instead of trying to decipher all of these little things that have been so thoughtfully worked on behind the scenes by Dr. Galussi and the school team.
[SPEAKER_31]: Emily? Is it almost as if we're trying to cut things before we even know what everything's going to cost because we haven't done the first step yet? where we estimate the cost of things? I think it's in the wrong direction. No, I think there's three different buckets that we have right now. I think A is work that we already see done at this stage. A is the right sizing by the school to get the spaces that they need to do the work to teach the students. And those are usually proposed by the schools.
[Jenny Graham]: it's just right-sizing what needs to happen inside the high school or the high school, the function.
[SPEAKER_31]: And then there's the B bucket, which again, doesn't hit the, you know, doesn't impact the educational plan, so it can be considered.
[Jenny Graham]: And then there's C, which impacts ed plan and, you know, isn't necessarily, the ed plan itself is not the purview of this committee, so it needs to be referred out. These A options, I guess, a typical project, it wouldn't, we wouldn't dive into the nitty gritty at the school building committee level. We wouldn't, you know, ask the educators to do the work based on their programming. And I can tell you firsthand, it was a lot of work that was done and a lot of conversations to get to this point.
[John Falco]: Thank you. Obviously, I was involved in this work, and I kind of wish I could have been involved in the seats of the auditorium. I mean, sitting on 26,000 seats, people sitting there with no microphones at all, and I can do just fine. I don't know if it's the greatest thing. But, so I'm just struggling to hear that 1,000 seats is just a challenge. Also, like, even for the current one, everybody's mic'd up. So the voices to travel, I'm struggling to comprehend. And I wasn't involved. So I'm not saying I don't trust that the people we had were able to say that was necessarily large and was a problem. But number 14 around the auditorium seating, I feel like I would have to have a lot more information. I'm not a voting member, so it doesn't matter what I think in that regard. But that's a big deal. So that's the one in particular, and we also had a motion earlier to get pricing for those options. If this would come next, it would supersede that. That's correct.
[Jenny Graham]: So we do have a motion on the floor with a second from Libby and Aaron to eliminate for 15 through 27 and 30 through 33. So I think it might make sense to call that motion and start to like whittle down the universe of what we're trying to do all at once. And then we can, we can keep going. So I'm going to call that motion unless there's any questions about that motion.
[Suzanne Galusi]: Well, 27 is in and I feel 28 should be in or they both should be out. Libby and Aaron.
[Aaron Olapade]: 28 wasn't included to begin with.
[Jenny Graham]: I know.
[Aaron Olapade]: It's 27 though. But I'm wondering why. No, you're saying 27 should be removed?
[Suzanne Galusi]: Either 27 gets removed, or they both should be in.
[Aaron Olapade]: What's the other one, 28?
[Jenny Graham]: Yes.
[Aaron Olapade]: It wasn't included. It was 29, I thought. 27 and then 27.
[Jenny Graham]: But I think what she's saying is they're a pair. Yeah. Either they're a pair in or a pair out. Yeah, so that's up to you all, because you made the motion.
[Libby Brown]: If you've talked about this in work, and you mentioned If you had that function still in the project? That's how it is now.
[Evangelista]: Oh, yeah.
[Unidentified]: So I'm kind of being in? Okay.
[Jenny Graham]: So four, 15 through 28 and 30 to 33. Any questions?
[Unidentified]: I don't mean to belabor this, but I mean, just to Jen's point, there's been so much work put into it. I'm a little reticent. I mean, I'll vote for it, but I'm a little reticent to go through and like, kind of onesie twosie something that a lot of comprehensive work was putting in.
[Jenny Graham]: I think all we're doing is starting that process. I don't think we're saying we're not going to do the other things. I think we're saying like, are we make some board progress and then consider what's left instead of trying to consider 33 items all at the same time.
[Unidentified]: Okay.
[Jenny Graham]: So there's nothing to say we can't take another motion once we take this vote.
[Unidentified]: I think it's a bit of a precedent setting. I mean, if I change and say I propose we accept all of them, does anyone have any problems with that?
[Libby Brown]: Or could we maybe accept the auditorium? I guess I guess over
[Jenny Graham]: Well, we can do that or we can just let's just go forward and then we can take the next loop through. Okay. I'm going to call the roll. Jenny Graham. Yes. Mayor Lungo-Koehn.
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: Yes.
[Jenny Graham]: Dr. Galusi. Yes. Marta Cabral. Yes. Joan Bowen. Yes. Ken Lord. Yes. Libby Brown. Yes. Marissa Desmond.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Yes.
[Jenny Graham]: Maria Dorsey. Yes. Brian Hilliard. Yes. Emily Lazzaro. Yes. Paul Malone.
[Nick Giurleo]: Yes.
[Jenny Graham]: Nicole Morell. Yes. Erin Olapade. Yes. Luke Kreisner. Yep. 15 in the affirmative, zero in the negative, motion passes. So that means we have accepted the recommendation on 4, 15 through 28.
[Unidentified]: and 30 through 33.
[Jenny Graham]: Okay. Are there other motions on any additional items in group A?
[Suzanne Galusi]: Can I just frame based on the conversations that we're removing for further evaluation, three, five, six, and 14.
[Jenny Graham]: So that is your motion to move items one, two, seven through 12 and 29.
[Suzanne Galusi]: No, I'm saying numbers three, five, six, and 14 to Emily's point are no longer Right, part of, yes.
[Jenny Graham]: So then what's left is one, two, seven through 13 and 29. Is there a motion to remove? Oh, we already did. One, two, seven through 13 and 29.
[Unidentified]: Brian? I have a question, just a clarification on one, and then I would like to mention that there might be a 12-size lab that's being purchased. Clarification for me is if the, like this is only a couple of scenarios where the products in the canary lab is relocated, and that space is available for a 12-size lab. So the science and engineering lab would be repurposed into a 12 science lab. And then there's an innovation lab. So then there was like the, I think there was in the space center, there's a language lab that is going to be
[Suzanne Galusi]: repurposed or renamed into an innovation lab. And in that space, as well as like maker spaces, you would be able to use those spaces as multi-use spaces for lots of reasons. It could be for what people wanted for the language lab. It could be spaces for robotics and engineering. It would just be more of a multi-use space that I think would be more flexible.
[Jenny Graham]: It is for classes for students not in the robotics lab.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Yeah, that's right.
[Jenny Graham]: There's no space to take a robotics class here today if you're not in the program.
[Unidentified]: It would be great. It's not CTE.
[Jenny Graham]: it would create that burden for kids that don't want to be in the CTE program, but want to take a class that would require that kind of help. Thank you. I wasn't even thinking of the shock.
[Suzanne Galusi]: Sorry. Yeah. Oh, I'm glad robotic parents. This is non chapter 74 space.
[Andre Leroux]: Okay. Paul? If I understand this right, I'll make a motion to keep considering. means we won't vote to reduce the space. Is that correct?
[Michael Pardek]: Or do I just say, let's leave it be?
[Jenny Graham]: You don't need to make that motion.
[Michael Pardek]: I don't need to make that.
[Jenny Graham]: Nope. But we could make a motion that accepts the elimination of 1, 2, 7 through 13 and 29. So if we're like all saying those suggestions of like keeping them, what's left is 1, 2, 7 through 13 and 29. And I just heard the mayor make that motion. So 1, 2, 7 through 13 and 29 by Mayor Lungo-Koehn. Is there a second? Second. By Nicole. Are there any questions about that? OK. I'm going to call the roll. Jenny Graham, yes. Mayor Lungo-Koehn.
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: Yes.
[Jenny Graham]: Dr. Galusi, yes. Marta Cabral, yes. Joan Bowen, yes. Ken Lord, yes. Libby Brown, yes. Marissa Desmond, yes. Maria Dorsey, yes. Brian Hilliard, yes. Emily Lazzaro, yes. Paul Malone, yes. Nicole Morell, yes. Aaron LaPate, yes. Luke Preissner, yes. 15 in the affirmative, zero in the negative, motion passes. So I'm just going to call out again that the items that remain that we are not eliminating just yet are group of three, five, six, 14. Is there anyone who would like to make a motion on any of those items?
[Unidentified]: Jenny, do we, without any further study, do we have to make an explicit motion?
[Jenny Graham]: They're in this case already. Paul?
[Michael Pardek]: This is more of a project team question. About 14, the auditorium. In previous resolution, we're asking for multiple cost estimates for 1,000, 800, 750, all of those things. I actually think that 800 seats would have some benefits.
[Andre Leroux]: Although it would be reduced in total capacity, I think it has benefit in terms of the experience for students that are using the space that, let's face it, most times it's not going to be full capacity.
[Michael Pardek]: But I'd rather keep everything on the table related to performing arts until the last possible moment.
[Andre Leroux]: Do we gain anything by voting to reduce the auditorium to 800 right now in terms of probability of a good outcome? with funding or with you being able to do your jobs to look through different scenarios or should we just leave it there?
[Michael Pardek]: Do you see any risk leaving that thousand seat auditorium in consideration?
[Jenny Graham]: As an option. It's not in the base.
[Matt Rice]: it's not going to dramatically impact sort of our ability to say that we have one option versus another. We're looking at a thousand seat auditorium versus an 800 seat auditorium. I think the benefit would really be in sort of the commitment that we're trying to make it smaller upfront. So if we want to go through the costing exercise first, before making that commitment, that's certainly a path that we can go down, or we could go down the path of saying it should be smaller. And if you perceive that way, I think that's really the decision. It shouldn't necessarily come back to limiting us at this point in the design process over the course of the next month or so. Thank you.
[Unidentified]: Brian? I think it's for the project in Mosul. Are we saying that 800 is sort of the magic number for our in versus the 750 that the FDA is reporting for us?
[Suzanne Galusi]: Dr. Glunz, do you want to answer that? Well, I think part of the conversation that we had was that right now there is a little more than 1,200 students. This whole plan is for 1,395 when you all total adults. We couldn't, even with 1,000 seats, you're not going to fit the full student body. So a lot of, and I, also yield to the experts in the room, but a lot of this came down to the experience of performances in that space, and then the usability for the leadership. And to be able to fully get two grade levels at a time with associated staff was really part of the conversation, yeah. I mean, I hope you want to add on.
[Maria D'Orsi]: Yeah, totally. Rick Paul. Paul Malone.
[Michael Pardek]: I think that's a good summation. The other thing that I would say that came out of that really productive theater project was that if the overall auditorium is slightly smaller, but the square footage for all the various support spaces, storage, and other things can remain healthy and large, if there's other alternative ways to do performing arts that are not just the one big auditorium, that a smaller auditorium would actually get more utility and more use that's adequately supported
[Andre Leroux]: serve many, many roles throughout the school year. But those roles have places where they don't have homes that are not taking up that most valuable on-stage visible schedule.
[John Falco]: I just wanted to make a comment about if we had 15,000 students in the building, we could still only have 700 seats in both classes. So Jesse doesn't have a recommendation.
[Adam Hurtubise]: They just don't care.
[Michael Pardek]: It's like two full classes, but
[Matt Rice]: If the classes get really big, it's not like the teachers have to wait long. Just clarifying the size limitations, Paul, just from your comment. So MSBA guides the sizes of the auditorium, not desks necessarily. And so 750 seats is what we can build to and get fully reimbursed as a maximum. We're allowed to build to a maximum beyond that of 1,000 square feet or 1,000 seats. But the square footage associated with that jump from 750 to 1,000 would not be reimbursable at all. So that's sort of where the thresholds come in. And in no cases can we go over 1,000.
[John Falco]: Let me talk about seats. Yeah, in my mind, I'm thinking the seats. But what about the rest of, you know, I mean, you have a little tiny auditorium where there's like a little tiny stage. huge number of seats, or five seats, but the part of the theater that's not seats. Is that a separate thing calculation-wise?
[Matt Rice]: It is, yeah. It's a separate set of square footage, net square footage, usable square footage for the stage, or... Right, for auditorium storage, typically for things like green rooms, we end up using music spaces that are made adjacent to the stage so that we can get some multiple uses out of them. We don't get dedicated green rooms where we're not dressing rooms. There's not some relationship between our rooms. No. No.
[John Falco]: That is a good point. Yes.
[Matt Rice]: Right. Yes. And the stage is 2,500 square feet as opposed. Is it in the space summary at all?
[Luke Preisner]: Yeah, all of these things are in the space summary. 415 lines.
[Jenny Graham]: Are there any other questions before we move on from category A? Okay. Category B, these are space change proposals that do not impede the educational plan, but we can vote to remove them tonight. And a resolution would sound like making a motion to approve items 1, 2, and 3, or 5, 6, and 7, whatever it is that you're putting forward. Are there any motions on the floor?
[Luke Preisner]: Can I say something, Melanie? Sure. So I would like to make a motion to table B and C until we have better cost outlooks.
[Adam Hurtubise]: I can't hear you.
[Jenny Graham]: So the motion by Luke, in all seriousness, is to put on the table all the items in categories B and C. And there was, I heard a second by Libby. I heard a lot of seconds, but.
[John Falco]: Oh, you can't joke about that.
[Jenny Graham]: I'm joking. Is that true? You can put me down. OK. Questions, thoughts, comments? Will.
[Will Pipicelli]: This is a private team. What's the difference if we don't eliminate any of these? How much more work is that for you all to do? How does it affect the work that you need to do?
[Matt Rice]: The cost estimating effort, it's really more simple math on the building right now. And that's why I'm saying over the course of the next month, it's not something that I think we will suggest that it's okay to put off until the end of October, as Jen was mentioning earlier. It really wants to happen once we have the more accurate cost numbers that we're going to get and present at the May 20th. building committee meeting. So it might mean we're just kicking the can down the road a little bit in terms of having that more intensive discussion, but it will provide a little bit more accuracy in terms of the numbers that happen then. But we definitely do want to get to the point sooner rather than later of having these substantive discussions on reductions.
[Will Pipicelli]: But we would get these more estimated numbers back about these things and then vote to actually remove them at the next meeting.
[Matt Rice]: Harmon Zuckerman, PB – David Ensign, PB – He, Him, His): Or the 20th that was the next meeting, the 20th.
[Jenny Graham]: It is. So I guess I would offer maybe a suggestion on how we could go forward. Um, we can just like we put some resolutions on in the early part of the agenda. It's, it's, it's immensely helpful if we want to make motions for them to be on the agenda in this like really clear way. because that allows the public who wants to come and understand what we're talking about to know that this is what we're going to talk about. And for everyone in the room who has to vote on this stuff, have the advance notice to carefully consider. So what we could do is I can just create a resolution submission form where at any time over the course of the next, you know, however, like, I mean, through October even, but like, you know, more urgently, like if there's something that you go back you think about and you're like, you know what, I really do think we should think about this group of things that we should eliminate them. You can put forward a specific discrete resolution that says these are the things I think we should think about removing. And then we can take those in like a rolling fashion instead of these like big blitz creeps of space reductions. So that's another option. And I can outline that for the committee in terms of how to submit those resolutions. You're all welcome to submit resolutions. It just hasn't been a lot of reason for people to do that so far. But I think that could be the other alternative is like, we don't have to do these like sort of big events. Instead, we could take them as they become relevant to the group. So that's another option. I see Mayor Lungo-Koehn with her hand up. I just wanna take her comment.
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: Thank you, Chair Graham. I think I'd be okay with tabling most of these, although I would like to remove something that's just very glaring, which is the school committee chambers and office space. I just don't think that's a large, large chunk of money. And I think it would just set a tone to do some of this work tonight, and that would be a starting place. And then just my other comment would be, I'm okay with tabling these, I think it should be after the 27th when the committee and the community get a full financial presentation as it relates to cost, capital improvement planning, debt capacity, et cetera.
[Jenny Graham]: We would probably have to find another meeting date between the 27th and the 10th, which we can look for. I believe you're referring to the community meeting space. mayor. Um, and that is already carried as a separate line item cost. So it is already something that is separately called out and costed. And I just, we, we actually had occasion together to go to a community meeting space in Walden last week for an award ceremony. And what was beautiful about that space in its multipurpose way is it was completely accessible to the public for the purposes of an award ceremony, did not interrupt school operations. It was completely like available to the public and to the school in a like very collaborative multipurpose way. And we are desperately hungry for community meeting space here in Medford. And in fact, we got public comments in our email. If you haven't read them already, I would encourage you to do so. About that, like we don't have these spaces in Medford. We're not land rich, like there's not four spaces. If you try to book the one room at the library, it's booked months in advance. So for me, like, I don't see the harm in continuing to carry a community meeting space forward and envisioning it in a maybe a different way than it's currently envisioned. But if we eliminate it, now it's gone forever. So I just want to remind people that that option exists. It is listed as a separate option, and it will be costed as such going forward.
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: I think I was fine with tabling that one. I'm talking about any school committee dedicated space.
[Libby Brown]: There is no school committee chamber. It's actually, it's just inconsistent in the actual Excel. It does say school committee chamber still. So yeah, it's thinking if it's, if it's been rebranded as always at school.
[John Falco]: I mean, as always at community. Sure.
[Libby Brown]: Sure.
[Jenny Graham]: It's just in here. It still says school. It was incorrectly labeled. And it has not been corrected everywhere.
[Libby Brown]: Yeah.
[Jenny Graham]: So that's, that's, that's what that's.
[Libby Brown]: I'm curious if, you know, the space in Malden is, I don't think we should produce this or remove it, I'm just curious. Because I think the person who wrote it about the space at the library being booked, that's a great space. It's like a thousand square feet. Yeah, it's quite small.
[Jenny Graham]: And I think my point is, the Malden space is much bigger than that, but it's probably smaller than what was proposed here. There's an evolution of that space that we could entertain or we could stop entertaining it.
[Maria D'Orsi]: But we can talk about it later. Lisa? I just would like clarification from the mayor what all recommendations outlined by SNMA means. It's a big ticket item, and I wasn't sure what that meant.
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: Maybe SMMA can speak to that. There was a three page document that they produced that had, I would say, 30 plus reductions based on their expertise.
[Matt Rice]: Yeah, so I think that document was the basis that the district worked with to come up with their list. So the category A items I don't know if it's exactly one for one all the way through there, because I think the district was a little bit more creative and thoughtful about what they were looking at. But there's a high degree, high percentage of overlap in between those original items that we put together, and then what the district ended up putting forward as the category A items.
[John Falco]: Thank you. Yes. I just want to comment on the school committee office. The mayor has an office, the city council has an office, As some people might be surprised, the school committee is an actual functional part of our government that should have an office as well, not just because they have one, but because we have a need for one. And as for the community space, I have heard conversation of why don't we just reuse space? I'll tell you why. You cannot legally ask for an ID to enter a school community. So if we have it in the building somewhere and we have the security guy, it's a high school, asking for IDs, that's go. That's off the table if there's an official public meeting. So this meeting here even, frankly, the guy at the door shouldn't be asking anybody for IDs to enter our high school. That's crazy. I think just like with the City Hall, you unlock the door and anybody can come in. That's how public bodies function, legal keeping, active functioning. So that's why I think this space as a life protection building that is exterior facing, somebody unlocks it and anybody can come in. I don't want that for the high school. That's not a safety measure. I think we should just unlock the front door and say, hope somebody doesn't come in that we don't want. I think it needs to be public accessible and legal because we can't just change the law because we think it's uncomfortable and we want people to sign in or get their ID, because that's not allowed for public deals. So that community space involving was really quite good. You're welcome. It's like on the edge of the building, but it's also accessible from the inside of the building. But of course, block those doors when it's an actual public meeting space.
[Luke Preisner]: Luke? Yeah. With the space summary, not only does school committee chambers and offices and conference rooms appear multiple times in the space summary, actually it's part of the narrative saying that it's there to support school committee operations. And I personally object to bringing those municipal facilities into the school. I feel like that's a separate discussion. That's between the school committee and the community. And if they want to ask the community for their own dedicated space, fine, but don't do it by conflating it with I'm scheme. So personal objection. I think if you want to rebrand it and call it something else, I will ask that you'll have to revise the space summary, which is a public document. It's available on the website. Anybody could open it right now and read why there's a school committee chambers, school committee conference rooms, school committee office. listed in all these case summaries. So I would ask that you informally revise that document. And not just like arbitrarily rebrand stuff on the fly.
[Jenny Graham]: Well, that request was made a while back and it got missed. So we will correct it. One last thing. One last thing. One last thing.
[John Falco]: We've got to move on to this one. The school committee has a meeting. The school committee is not the majority of people at work. It's practically all the staff, all the administrators, principals. And so we talk about it like it's a school committee meeting, but it's literally half the people on this side and most of the people on this side who are there till nine or 10 o'clock at night and come back at six in the morning or seven in the morning. And so the reason for co-locating the high school was very intentional. It wasn't because the school committee wants a competing space. It's because the people who have to serve us while we have our meetings are sitting in city hall. They can't do their regular work at their offices. And I think that that is, you know, a school committee member. I have on many occasions been like really feeling awful. We have to do our business. I mean, while Marta and all the other principals are there, they're going to be driving for everybody to live to be at school at 7 a.m. the next day. And that was major motivation for the co-location. I'll just say that.
[Luke Preisner]: So just as a point of clarification then, did you just say that no matter what you call it, it's still gonna be intended for the school committee?
[John Falco]: No, no, that's not what I said.
[Luke Preisner]: Well, you said that you very intentionally placed school committee space within the high school because of the relationship between the school committee and the district staff. And you cited the example that in order for your committee to develop the business, district staff need to travel for City Hall. And so very intentionally placed a school committee space as part of the high school to avoid the travel to City Hall, allowing them to stay in their office until their meeting. from that, I infer that no matter what you call it, whether it's community space or, it's still very intentionally for the school committee.
[Jenny Graham]: I'm just, that's a point of clarification. Okay, let's move the question.
[Adam Hurtubise]: So the motion was to table items in categories B and C by Luke with a second by Libby.
[Unidentified]: Okay. I'm sorry, just for clarification about the motion itself. So it's tabling not to a date certain under the understanding that they'll be submitting.
[Luke Preisner]: We're taking it after we've seen the city's numbers and stuff. Okay.
[Jenny Graham]: Jenny Brown. Yes. Mayor Lungo-Koehn.
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: Yes.
[Jenny Graham]: Dr. Galusi. Yes. Marta Cabral. Yes. Joan Bowen. Yes. Ken Lord.
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: Yes.
[Jenny Graham]: Libby Brown. Yes. Marissa Desmond.
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: Yes.
[Jenny Graham]: Murray Dorsey? Yes. Brian Hilliard? Yes. Emily Lazzaro? Yes. Paul Malone? Yes. Cole Morell? Yes. Mary Lou Pottage?
[Unidentified]: Yes.
[Jenny Graham]: Luke Preissner? Yep. 15 in the affirmative, zero in the negative, motion passes.
[John Falco]: Jenny, do you second that motion? Libby.
[Jenny Graham]: Libby, thanks. Okay. Our next meeting is on May 20th. We'll be reviewing cost estimates of the six alternatives. and continued evolution of those designs on May 27th. We will continue reviewing those cost alternatives along with the motion that we passed earlier tonight around the cities, around the cost impacts of the project. On June 10th, we will still plan to select a single preferred option. And on June 18th, we will move approval of the preferred schematic report for submission to the MSDA. We have some upcoming community meetings. There's a sustainability meeting on Wednesday this week. There'll be an update at the school committee meeting on May 4th. On May 11th, there is a community meeting. On May 13th, there's a Butters meeting for our direct neighbor of Butters. On June 3rd, there's another community meeting. And then on June 15th, there's a community meeting in anticipation of any changes to the end plan. Is there a motion to, oh, Luke.
[Luke Preisner]: Walk on topic. So as reward for tabling things, I'm not staying here till, I wanted everyone to just grant me a couple of minutes to revisit something that I think a community member brought up. I don't think it happened today. My memory is a little shaky sometimes.
[Jenny Graham]: Is it on the agenda? Because if it's not on the agenda, we cannot think about it.
[Luke Preisner]: What are we going to do about the Curtis Cuff space? We have an empty building.
[Jenny Graham]: Well, it's not empty yet, but that'll be part of the city's financial update on the 27th.
[Luke Preisner]: Could we ask SMMA to look at potential uses for that?
[Jenny Graham]: That is happening on the city side.
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: I'm not necessarily the Curtis Tufts, so I'll second that motion.
[Adam Hurtubise]: I mean, I'm not a public elected official, so I don't know the rules, but that is something you need to talk about.
[Luke Preisner]: So how do we answer when they ask us what we're going to do when we bring all the Curtis Tufts kids?
[Jenny Graham]: They will ask us that. I raised that to the finance task force, and that is a matter for the city to take up. So I think we'll need an update from the city on that. Motion to adjourn. Motion to adjourn by Emily Lazzaro. I'll second. Seconded by Erin Olapade. I'm going to call the roll. Jenny Graham. Yes. Mayor Lungo-Koehn.
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: Yes.
[Jenny Graham]: Dr. Galusi. Yes. Marta Cabral. Yes. Jill Bowen. Yes. Ann Lord. Yes. Libby Brown. Yes. Brenda Desmond.
[Maria D'Orsi]: Yes.
[Jenny Graham]: Maria Dorsey. Yes. Brian Hilliard. Yes. Emily Lazzaro. Yes. Paul Malone. Yes. Nicole Morell. Yes. Erin Olapade. Yes.
|
total time: 49.34 minutes total words: 4151 |
total time: 6.76 minutes total words: 472 |
total time: 6.22 minutes total words: 627 |
total time: 1.86 minutes total words: 231 |
|
total time: 3.41 minutes total words: 101 |
total time: 0.24 minutes total words: 30 |
||