AI-generated transcript of MCHSBC Monthly Meeting

[Adam Hurtubise]: We want to go ahead and get started. Is the microphone on? Yep. Okay. Y'all can hear me on Zoom?

[Jenny Graham]: Not sure they can hear us on Zoom.

[John Falco]: They should be able to, it's on.

[Jenny Graham]: Yes, we can hear you. Okay, got a thumbs up. Welcome everyone. 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's library at 489 Lincoln Street via remote location. The meeting can be viewed live on Medford Public Schools' YouTube channel through Medford Community Media, which is your local cable channel, Comcast 9, 8, or 22, and or Verizon channel 43, 45, or 47. The meeting will be recorded. Participants can log in by using the following information. The Zoom meeting ID is 964-527-52614. I am going to call the roll so we can go ahead and get started. Jenny Graham here. Mayor Lungo-Koehn present. Dr. Pelosi here. Marta Cabral here. Joan Cohen here. Ken Lord here. Libby Brown here. Marissa Desmond here.

[Adam Hurtubise]: Maria Dorsey here. Brian Hilliard. Emily Lazzaro. Paul Malone. Nicole Morell. Aaron Lopate. Luke Frasner. Bob Dickinson. Here. Fiona Maxwell. Here. Chad Fallon. Dr. Ken Talbot. Here.

[Jenny Graham]: Sophie Bezzelli. Here. John McLaughlin is absent. Paul Rousseau.

[John Falco]: Present.

[Jenny Graham]: Phil Santos.

[John Falco]: Here.

[Adam Hurtubise]: Hi, Phil. And Laura Miller.

[Jenny Graham]: So we have 11 present, no 10 present, five absent. The meeting is called to order. The first item on the agenda is approval of our minutes from the April 27th building committee meeting. Is there a motion to approve? So moved. By Maria. Is there a second?

[Adam Hurtubise]: Second.

[Jenny Graham]: By Aaron. Any questions before we call the roll?

[John Falco]: Um, so I was going to object in their current form because the agenda for memory and for pages and these minutes are much shorter.

[Michael Pardek]: Can we amend the minutes to include the full agenda?

[Jenny Graham]: We don't normally do that.

[Michael Pardek]: Well, um, I think this is meant to go to the MSBA, uh, and, uh, they want to know what our minutes were, have many, um, space reductions proposed. And so our agenda from that night was well over 50 pages. If we send minutes that are seven pages long, it kind of indicates that there was a meeting that didn't include 50 pages of proposals.

[Jenny Graham]: Well, the agenda is publicly posted, so it is not changing. So what is your request?

[Unidentified]: My request is to amend the minutes to include the entirety of at least the content of the agenda. which was the pages.

[Jenny Graham]: I'll second that to show that those items are tabled. Okay, before we need it, we have a motion on the floor. Are the people who made the motion Maria and Aaron willing to accept that amendment?

[Aaron Olapade]: Are you asking, you want to put the pages work also in the original agenda?

[Unidentified]: No, it's in the original agenda.

[Aaron Olapade]: And you want to take it out?

[Unidentified]: Correct.

[Aaron Olapade]: Okay.

[Unidentified]: I want to add it for the minutes.

[Aaron Olapade]: Okay. And why, so that because it's the sentence case, he'd want that to be in the official record.

[Michael Pardek]: Okay.

[Aaron Olapade]: But if it's already public, though, so why would we, if it's already public, then why does the, I guess I'm just trying to understand like the reasoning behind adding to the minutes if it's already mailed.

[Kimberly Talbot]: I mean, we don't send them agendas or minutes. The idea is the minutes reflect the content of the discussion.

[Michael Pardek]: Yeah. of remaining space proposal reductions. And if we delete them, then that's almost like deleting them from the form and record of the meeting. In the form and record agenda, there's a preview of what the discussion should entail. So minutes come afterwards, and they kind of record what was discussed. And we changed many of those reductions, our proposals. Um, but they were part of the loop. This is just in the interest of transparency.

[Jenny Graham]: Everything is available online. So you all have a choice. You can either accept a friendly amendment or not. That's up to you. And if you don't, then this motion has a second and it can go forward independently.

[Libby Brown]: I did, I'm not sure that I agree with anyone in the agenda.

[Jenny Graham]: Okay, so then we will take the role of the approval of the agenda meeting minutes, and then we will handle the second. Motion that's on the floor. Jenny Graham. Yes. Mayor Mungo Kern. Yes. Dr. Galusi. Yes. Marta Cabral. Yes. Joan Bowen. Yes. Ken Moore. Yes. Libby Brown. Yes. Marissa Desmond. Maria Dorothy.

[Adam Hurtubise]: Yes. Brian Hilliard, Emily Lazzaro, Paul Malone, Nicole Morell, Harold Honey, Luke Price.

[Jenny Graham]: Nine in the affirmative, one in the negative, five absent, the meeting minutes are approved. There's a second motion on the floor to add to the meeting minutes the contents of the agenda. Raised by Luke, seconded by Mayor Lungo-Koehn. I'm gonna call the roll. Jenny Graham. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. 10 in the affirmative, zero in the negative. Four absent. Five absent, sorry. Motion passes. Item number three on our agenda is to talk a bit about the deed restriction that was sent to us by DCR and the impacts of that deed restriction. So I'm going to turn it over to the project team so that they can provide an update on what the discovery was, what it means for the project, what the options are. And then there is a motion on the agenda that we may choose to take up. I felt like it's important to write it out so the community can understand what's happening. And we may or may not choose to do that once we have heard from the project team. So I'm going to let Matt take it away.

[Michael Pardek]: We'll let Ellen take over.

[Kimberly Talbot]: Good evening. Let's talk about your site. So a little history back in 1967, to allow for the building of this high school, there was a land swap done between the Metropolitan District Commission, that is now known as DCR, Department of Conservation Resources, and Mississippi. So in that deal, there were swapping of various parcels, which you'll see in the next slide. And along with those parcels that were conveyed by, say, now DCR, there were some restrictions on use. What could be done on those pieces of land? Specifically, no buildings. They were meant to be held for athletics and recreation, which is DCR's mission. Um, that restriction does have a 999 year term to it. And if you can do the math in your head, add it to 1967. And so we've got some challenges with the site as we now know. The next. So the green highlighted areas are the parcels that were conveyed by DCR to the city. Um, The city gate to DCR is not really highlighted, but it is to the northeast. And again, those are areas that are restricted from building buildings into that. As part of the feasibility study, the team did bring on a land survey team, and many of you talked about the survey quite a bit. It was a tremendous undertaking. more than four months of work that included both research, a ton of field work, and then a lot of confirming work. And what happens in the early part when they started onto the project back in November, they pulled all of the information and they started with the plans. The plans helped them map out a way to approach the field work, which again took months of time. Those plans help them to locate monumentation and do all of the drone work, the field work, etc. A draft survey was provided to us in February. And once that work was done, they turned back to the written deeds. And that is where that language around the restriction sits. So the SIRTE team was not aware of it themselves until end of February, early March is best we can ascertain from talking to Brennan. However, in the meantime, we did learn from DCR, we've been having good communication coordination with DCR for the past two months. DCR was the entity that brought this to the project team's attention on April 28th. And of course, you're all well acquainted with the process of winnowing down the 29 PDP options to six in March. You saw some development. of those six options at the meeting on April 27th. But of course, now that affects those options that you last saw in April. So the three options that are not affected by the restriction are A1, the code upgrade, essentially the bounds of the existing building, B1.2, and D1.1, which builds on the southern portion of the site. next and then the three that do impinge on restricted areas are c 2.2 c 3.4 and d 2.1 which is you know so what the team has done since and also informed by what we heard between meeting last monday of strong preference for the C options, which allow you to keep your gym and pool and renovate them. We've gone back to the drawing board, literally, and worked with those two C options to modify them to work within the bounds, I'll call it. And we'd like to show those to you this evening.

[Jenny Graham]: Before we move on, does anyone on the committee have any questions about the deed restriction before we look at these alternatives? If they would like the project team to answer. Nicole? I just noticed the language and maybe that's just error on the side of caution.

[Unidentified]: I said the yellow shaded areas are what is currently understood to be, could you explain why there's like hedging language there and not like this is what it is?

[Kimberly Talbot]: As in no buildings. HAB-Charlotte Pitts, Moderator, Secretary for Public Safety and the Court. HAB-Charlotte Pitts, Moderator, Secretary for Public Safety and the Court. HAB-Charlotte Pitts, Moderator, Secretary for Public Safety and the Court. HAB-Charlotte Pitts, Moderator, Secretary for Public Safety and the Court. HAB-Charlotte Pitts, Moderator, Secretary for Public Safety and the Court.

[Jenny Graham]: HAB-Charlotte Pitts, Moderator, Secretary for Public Safety and the Court. HAB-Charlotte Pitts, Moderator, Secretary for Public Safety and the Court. HAB-Charlotte Pitts, Moderator, Secretary for Public Safety and the Court. HAB-Charlotte Pitts, Moderator, Secretary for Public Safety and the Court.

[Unidentified]: HAB-Charlotte Pitts, Moderator, Secretary for Public Safety and the Court.

[Kimberly Talbot]: HAB-Charlotte Pitts, Moderator, Secretary for Public Safety and the Court. HAB-Charlotte Pitts, Moderator,

[John Falco]: Nothing is up on, I believe it's a building of some sort?

[Michael Pardek]: There are structures on it. There's a shed as well that's out in the back border across which is on the strip. So there are some potential areas that need to get addressed.

[Unidentified]: Lisa, was parking allowed on the areas covered by the state?

[Kimberly Talbot]: My understanding is no, there's been no buildings. Uh, there isn't, there is language about the access, allowing access road. And actually it's a good question about parking. That should be clarified. That's a land use, run into the picture and we can better understand and hear.

[Jenny Graham]: I need you all to like wait to be recognized because there's a lot of people here and I want to make sure that everybody is getting We are getting into all the people with all the questions. So who has the floor?

[Michael Pardek]: So can I ask about the status of the onboarding land use attorney?

[Kimberly Talbot]: The project team has developed a scope and our understanding is the city may have at their disposal an attorney that would be right for this work. We don't yet have that person on board, I don't think.

[Michael Pardek]: Yeah, we have reached out to her. She has all the documentation for the deed restriction. We did also reach out to three other independent land-use attorneys just to bring them into the loop on what was going on. But we feel it's best to go through the city's land-use attorney just, you know, they know the area better. They, you know, understand the community. that's the path that we're moving forward right now. And they do have that information. So hopefully, you know, we'll follow up shortly and start to understand what, you know, potential paths forward there are for the actual restricted land.

[Suzanne Galusi]: Mr. Chair, Madam Chair, thank you. Sharon is from Portland and Gage. And again, she does have all the information as of this week. and confirm that she has the time to help us with this.

[Jenny Graham]: I just want to point out to this committee that we have funding obviously in our fiscal year 26 budget, but last night there was talks of cutting the legal budget for the city of Medford for fiscal year 27 by the city council. So I just want to point that out in hopes that that does not happen as we really want to continue to develop Medford Square, work on this apartment and many, many other things. So can I ask a point of clarification? Would the charges from Copeland and Page be absorbed by the city, or would those be transferred to the school prep building project? I've decided yet. I think we're in an emergency kind of situation where we need a land use attorney, so that hasn't been discussed.

[Suzanne Galusi]: But one way or another, we can know if it was being asked for the city to help out in any way.

[Jenny Graham]: being assessed to be eliminated for fiscal year 27. And any expenditure by this committee would come to this committee for approval before our expenditure.

[Michael Pardek]: Luke? I know this topic has received a lot of discussion from the public and the public sphere. Will the public have an opportunity to speak on this topic before we move on to the next topic?

[Jenny Graham]: We will happily hear from the public, but I wanted to pause to give the committee a chance to ask questions before we continue. But when they are done with their presentation, yes, we'll be happy to.

[Libby Brown]: Maria? This is something I'm totally not familiar with. Is there, have you seen land restrictions like this overturned?

[Unidentified]: Are we going down a road that hasn't been blocked out before?

[Kimberly Talbot]: It's fairly common, actually, on school projects. Of course, knowing sooner would have been much preferred. And actually, I'm going to turn to Erin to talk about the process. She's very familiar with the Article 97 process, too. Yes, so open space is protected in the Commonwealth, but it requires legislative action to

[Suzanne Galusi]: to remove it because you have to swap land in another place in the Minnesota. There's risk associated with that. There's time and there's fee associated with that too. But land swap is also a trigger to comply with the state regulations for the META regulations. And so there's additional soft costs associated with completing land swap. I think The question that our team has is, what has happened since this deed restriction in 1967? So there's some research that needs to be completed by the attorney. That's going to be a critical step in understanding what the options are going forward. That is a question we have as well.

[Jenny Graham]: So the other salient points are that the mayor, the superintendent, and I spoke with the state delegation, all four of them. dropped basically everything to come chat with us last week. They made some immediate outreach to DCR to understand from DCR like what, and to just be able to confirm like what a path forward might look like so that we could assess that impact and bring that to all of you. DCR was like very helpful and forthcoming. They spoke with all of their pool folks and like the unanimous agreement is that an article 97 process would have to be done. So our delegation is very confident that if Article 97 process has to happen and legislative action is required, that they could get it done. They believe they could even get it done by the end of session in July. However, I don't think the rest of the process could happen nearly that quickly. And the sequence of events is something that I have asked them for clarification on. They've been wonderfully cooperative. and supportive as has DCR. So there are potentially paths forward there, but we don't know that for sure one way or the other at this point. And in the legislature requires a voice vote of two thirds of the legislature. Any other questions? It's a roll call vote. Yeah, Nicole. Thank you, Kenny. So understanding where we are and what has happened

[Unidentified]: The path forward includes using only the design that we narrowed down to and the new iterations that are going to be shown to us.

[Jenny Graham]: There's no option. I'm not saying I want this, but just trying to understand what the process is. There's no option for going back to that 29 and figuring out ones that have a different overlay on the land that we may have ruled out and now we want to bring back for obvious reasons. I think that's up to the committee. I think we may want to look at these options before we sort of reopen that can of worms. What would be impacted is our timeline because the estimating has already been completed and includes these like alternate designs. Like if we went back to something that we had previously discarded, there would be some like catch up work that would have to be done on that option. And it could impact essentially our timeline, our decision making timeline. So we have to sort of keep that in mind. It is absolutely an option that this committee choose to vote on. You all received from me maybe an hour or so ago a letter from SNMA CEO with a pretty detailed rundown from her perspective of what has happened that has led to this point. I received that from her this afternoon and have shared it with you all. So if there are questions about that, I'm going to point you to Helen and Matt. and you can feel free to reach out to them via email to get any questions answered. It is a needy document, it is a needy timeline, but it does sort of lay out the timeline and sequence of events as she knows it. Why don't we take a look at the options that you all have created since this news to start.

[Michael Pardek]: All right, I'll take it away. So we're going to look at alternatives for C2.2 and C3.4, the two on the left. And the first one we'll introduce is C2.2a. And here you can see the large image kind of in the center left, that was the original C2.2. And just a reminder, some of the aspects of these that maybe differentiated it from some of the other options were renovating the gym, renovating the pool, making use of those assets. I was also looking for space on the site that could accommodate a large phase one of the project. And the goal with a large phase one was to essentially minimize or eliminate modular classrooms, which we heard Robin clear. So the goal was always to find open space on the site to make that happen. So that's why we were looking at actually field and looking at that hillside on the Western part of the gymnasium and trying to avoid much of the existing school as we can't put it on the first two phases so that the school could remain in operation while construction activity takes place behind the school and on the side of the school. So you can see on the image on the right, we've started to take all the things that we really liked about this scheme, all the adjacencies that we learned about in the previous study, all the need for access for some of the CTE spaces that need ground floor yards and things like that. and started to manipulate it to be within the deep construction zone. So that's why you see this pretty hard edge on the Western and Northern side of the site. That's the building starting to pull away from Edgerly Field, pull away from that hillside and start to kind of reorient itself still around the gymnasium. And I think one thing to point out with this is that the educational vision is really still intact. which was the most important thing. And you'll see, I think a lot of the differences actually happen with some of the site components. You'll notice the original, you know, there was room for a track, football field, and front yard, but as the building gets pushed around, that becomes a lot more challenging spatial than was the, that moves toward the east. There's a possibility of perhaps on Edgley Field now with this new option to locate a football field track. It's still pretty tight there. We're not there really to make that happen, but at this level, it looks like it could work out there. Last question before we move on from this one. So earlier, I think in the fall, there was an aerial survey with Mark Porter. I recall there was also like some kind of remote sensing to characterize the composition of the ground. I know this new footprint occupies a parking lot and maybe some courtyard. I wanted to ask if the soils there were characterized and already deemed suitable for any foundations and digging that would have to occur to find any rock. What were your findings in these new areas?

[Suzanne Galusi]: I think generally the soil is as suitable as the other soils on both of these building areas. Once we have a preferred alternative, we head into schematic design, we may supplement these geotechnical explorations with additional borings or what have you based on where the actual building is going to go to confirm our assumptions. But I'd say for all intents and purposes, soil conditions are about the same in both of these.

[Michael Pardek]: I think what's valid, right, is that generally across the site, about four to six feet down, you hit rock almost everywhere, aside from that area that's under the B wing, towards the front that used to be a quarry and sort of a trash dump historically. And so that's where it goes deeper. I think one of the nice things about this option and the C3 bullet bar option, as we move away from that deep restricted area, we actually move away from the hillside and the rock. So there should be less cost and less effort associated as we pull away from, say, the football practice field, and we're building up in the lower portion of ground as a boat that didn't get itself into that. Aaron?

[Aaron Olapade]: I have a quick question. It was something that another member mentioned earlier about parking and just like access roads. Are access roads separated from parking when it comes to just like, is that, is that, yeah, that's the first question.

[Michael Pardek]: I mean, parking is not specifically addressed in the deep restriction access roads are. So we know that access roads are okay. I think it's a fair question to ask about the parking. And I think we will look at that with land council just to understand and probably discussion with DCR as well.

[Aaron Olapade]: Thank you very much.

[Michael Pardek]: So following on that, is there a single width on access roads so that you could incorporate a parking? the access road. There's no width indicated for the access roads in the deeper direction. All right, let's move. Let's keep moving on this. And again, zero modular crossroads. That's important to note. Parking, although you don't see parking on this diagram, those fields all have either the option to be surface lots or to be a parking deck with a field on top. That'll be the same for both schemes. Again, this is a renovation of these. Should also mention that, you know, though we're kind of manipulating the footprint of the building, we're not increasing the height. This is still a five-floor building. And we'll just quickly walk through the plans. That first floor is early childhood education. very similar to what we saw last time, and that occupies kind of the lowest level. Anything in that hatch area that's just indicates that that's a low grade underground, so it's kind of digging into the hill. As you elevate up to the second floor, which is still, there'll be a driveway that gets us up there, so you're able to walk in, so it's a walkway. That's the main entry school to the left, a little bit of early childhood education on the second floor, central office, and then you'll have a lot of your public-facing CTE. It's there in the pink on the right side of the entry courtyard. That's things like the cafe, restaurant, cosmetology, I think television and film. You'll access kind of a grand stair that will take you up to the third level, and there you'll enter this dining common space, which is indicated in yellow to the left will be the auditorium, and beyond that, the art swing, and then the gymnasium, fitness, and health education, kind of indicated in orange. As we keep elevating up through the building, in terms of the more academics mixed in with Few more spaces again, as we're going up the hill toward the back, have automotive and other CTE spaces that we'll have access off the back. And the upper floors, again, a mixture of CTE spaces that don't need ground, ground floor access, and where I live.

[John Falco]: Paul? While it says six, four, there's really only five. Yeah, we were kind of in that little potion stand. That was kind of rubber zero. And with this new design, in fact, it would be old one. Well, more with the new one. Not having the ability, do you think during construction, restrictions of the restrictions, so you can't probably use the field for construction equipment and all that stuff. We also couldn't turn that into parking. So if we have so much existing parking now, are we going to have to re-design shower buses? It doesn't look like a lot of room for existing high schools to be in there, to build a new one, and to have 425 parking spots.

[Michael Pardek]: I can offer that we have seen in terms of temporary utilization of site, even deep restricted sites, that is something that typically we're allowed to do. There may have to be an approval process with it, but it should be a short approval process. And that is just something that is common when these types of scenarios arise. In terms of the overall site logistics, managing construction laid out area, parking for the workers that are coming, fields as well, trying to manage all that. We're not quite there yet in terms of understanding all those moving parts and pieces. It'll help when we have a construction manager on board with the team to make all of those decisions a little bit more valid in terms of moving forward. But it's certainly going to be a challenge. And some of those things that you mentioned could be on the table as part of the solution, just don't know the full answer yet. Thank you. Can I have one more question?

[John Falco]: So the field in the back, whatever it becomes, field on the side, whatever it becomes, Can those be part of this project? I mean, they're existing fields. They're nothing to do with building a new high school. We're literally on limits. But we don't want them the way they are. We want to spend a fortune for whatever it costs. So how does that qualify as being part of this project?

[Kimberly Talbot]: You know, the restriction of language is quite limited. It says athletics and recreation. So those things qualify.

[John Falco]: Right. But I just thought, like, why would the MSBA count it?

[Michael Pardek]: It is part of the project. The city owns that property. It does have a deed restriction on it, but it is part of our overall property area for the project. So it would be no different than any other school project that has a property line around it and everything within the property line is part of the project moving forward. There's certainly site caps on reimbursement and things that we'll get to because we have a large site, but there's nothing unique about sort of the deed restriction from an NSBA funding or participation perspective. It just seems odd to me that an SBA would be like, here's a field you have.

[John Falco]: You want to have essentially the same field when you're done. Why would they participate in that in a mid-person role? And maybe we don't know yet. They will say, sure, you can do all this, but I don't know. But it's just a concern anyway.

[Michael Pardek]: So one more question about restrictions. So, uh, we are considering, um, geothermal, um, uh, energy solutions. Are those, uh, on 13 increase? So I would say that we need some input from land council there as well, but we do have precedent projects where we are putting, um, geothermal wells below article 97 land, and that has been deemed to be acceptable. I think we have to run out that scenario here. confirm that as well, but I think there's a good likelihood of that being completely viable. And is it clear from the history that those parcels were in fact needed to the city for the purpose of athletic groups? Is that clear from the language? It's just that restriction that, yeah, fields and are allowed to be there. It's a very... It's a big terse. Yeah.

[Kimberly Talbot]: For recreation and athletic purposes. I have a question about, so this design and the next one, keep the current gym. We're not spaced underneath the gym. I know that currently there's renovations being done for the plumbing program.

[Adam Hurtubise]: What's

[Libby Brown]: what's happening with the space. It may have been there, and I just missed it as it went by, but it's a large space.

[Michael Pardek]: I think the current plans have it slated some for storage, some potentially for mechanical room within the building. The existing mechanical room is the piece that sticks out to the north of the pool and makes that turn around the northeast corner of the building, so perilous as it goes. So all of our plans, aside from the A option, are looking at taking that down to improve that traffic circulation around the corner. And we're going to need a new mechanical room in the building. There's not a lot of great things that you can end up putting below the gymnasium or down in the natural light. So mechanical rooms and storage is a good one. We'll look and find where there's other things to go down there as we move forward in the process. But it is certainly a subset of programs that want to be down in that space. And it is large. Brian? I just have a question. I know it was on the original screen you guys had. You guys weren't shy. the side field about having this sort of loaded access, because I thought you were kind of cutting into the contours. And you've got it also for the edge of the field for the CTW top. But in particular, this one looks like you shy away from having, you can keep it up on top of the access points, but you don't have it on this one just because of the contours falling off, or is that a different state? I think what's actually going to happen, I know that when the earth is showing sort of going up to the building, it sort of seems like we're still into the hillside. What we'll probably want to end up doing is filling in land there so that we can have that access to the side along the football field that's there. There's also the potential option here, which was really more challenging in the previous version of C22A and C34A, which is that 360 road for first responders as well as service going around the building. here because we have that sort of long length, we can actually come down along the building. So I think what we're going to be trying to manage is having that road dropping while also trying to maintain as much access high as possible into that side of the floor. So I presume the program sort of follows it. If you need access, the program follows. So robotics is one of the potential. It fits up there because they don't necessarily need outdoor access to be able to get vehicles in and out but they don't necessarily have like an outdoor yard space that they're building in on top of the deeper section. So I think we'll be looking for programs that are like that and that have the desirable adjacencies that maybe are in that particular area. So just a couple of aerial views of those plans. You should look a little bit familiar with what we saw last time we showed these. And then we can just touch on the phasing really quickly. All of these have a phase and story. So like I said earlier, phase one, you know, attempts to build as much as we can on the side and the back and renovating the gymnasium pool at all at the same time. Then portions of the existing school get demolished and then come in and build essentially the rest of the new school come back in, abolish the remainder of the building, and do all the site work that's there. So it's like a three-phase process. Let's visit C-34A. Again, on the left side, that was the original proposal. It kind of had these flames that flowed around the gymnasium. Again, we liked this one because it had a lot of the same things that we liked about the previous one, building on the side of the hill and then treating the addition around the gym in a slightly different way. And this one was a little bit even more of a compact school as it was focusing a lot of the building around the gym. So what we've done with those, curved wings is just gently bend them back to avoid that restriction and shorten the length of the north and move around square footage a little bit. So that's the biggest change with this one. So it's an evolution of the plan on the left. Again, you can see the front yard of the site. just like the last one, it's a lot more compressed than it previously was. And then more of that, more of edgerly fields is utilized for perhaps a track football field up there or a lower two fields or whatever it's not. So again, zero modular classrooms with this option. Parking essentially in the front of the building, either below those fields or surface parking in place of those fields. Renovating to the pool. And we'll walk up the first floor here. Again, with early childhood on the left, public basin CTE spaces on the right. Walking into the dining or commons area. dining auditorium will also be right off of this main entry. That's that purple volume on the left and a few other support spaces. As we move up a larger stair, the second floor has the gymnasium, media center, and more of the physical education spaces in orange out back with more of those seating spaces that will be that need public access of the site, those that are on the west side. Then we go up to the third and fourth floors here. These are mostly academic environments that are really a full loop. There's no dead ends in the scheme. They all kind of wrap around that gymnasium. There's a couple of opportunities for light courts or light wells. between the gymnasium and the building. You can see that aerial view. There's a nice shot of being probably even a little bit more compact of a school than the previous student. Which I think is a benefit for, think about that three minutes travel time and process for our students.

[Jenny Graham]: Questions about this provision?

[Michael Pardek]: So looking at the footprint and focusing on the geometry, the access roads, what we see here, is that fixed and renewable or would there be possibility of creating a loop around the athletic fields in front of the property so that someone could either taunt entering, take a, I'll say a left, shortest distance this way, drop their kit off, and then wrap around and exit by going around the fields. I feel like that kind of geometry from a traffic flow perspective is helpful. creates an offer that's kind of like a catch basin for the flow. Is that a possibility? Or are we looking at something that's kind of immutable because of regulation? I don't think anything's immutable at this point in time. But I'll let Aaron chime in. We had this same conversation a little bit earlier today.

[Jenny Graham]: Yeah, I think there's work to be done on the circulation. I think the goal when we design circulation is for flexibility. We like to prioritize those students riding buses and give them closest access to the building entrance. But we also need to keep in mind the volume of single passenger vehicles that come to the site two times a day.

[Suzanne Galusi]: So I hope we can continue to work and refine this. And yes, there's still be changes to accommodate things like better.

[Adam Hurtubise]: Other questions from the committee before we. Okay.

[Michael Pardek]: Amazing, this is essentially the same strategy as the previous one. Build as much as we can on day one, renovate amazingly cool. and then start pulling down strategically portions of the existing school building. The rest, phase two, including the project, third phase.

[Jenny Graham]: Okay. Any questions before we, or comments before we talk about paths forward? questions about that forward.

[Kimberly Talbot]: Are we replacing three options with the two?

[Jenny Graham]: So the motion that's on the agenda, let me just read it so that everyone can hear it. I know it's hard to see. After talking to the team about what these options were, I put this together so that we could fall anchor to something. If we want to call this, we can. We don't have to. But I thought it was important to put it on the agenda so that the public had some awareness that we might be making some changes. So whereas the project team recently learned about a deed restriction that limits the ability to build on parts of Edgeley Field and the football practice field, lifting the restriction would require an Article 97 process. And whereas Article 97 process would not be completed prior to the scheduled selection of a single preferred option on June 10th, 2026, be it resolved that the Medford Comprehensive High School Building Committee will formally eliminate C2.2, C3.4, and D2.1 from further consideration. Be it further resolved that the Medford Comprehensive High School Building Committee will formally adopt the modifications represented in C2.2a, C3.4a for consideration. It also resolved that the project team will align cost estimates to these newly adopted modifications, 2.2a and 3.4a by the 527 meeting without incremental. So to answer your question, yes, what this motion says is we are eliminating D1, sorry, D2.1, and we are replacing C2.2 and C3.4 with these revised options. And that would, we would still have our phone upgrade, we would still have our B option, and we would still have one D new build option, which is what the MSDA requires us to send. That is what the motion says.

[Adam Hurtubise]: Questions?

[Libby Brown]: Debbie? So we're still going through, I want to understand, are we still going to go ahead and look into article 97 minus options?

[Kimberly Talbot]: So say we proceed, we pick, one of the C options. Go forward, we can still find out if there's a wiggle room later in case we need it, or instead we won't bother trying.

[Jenny Graham]: No, I mean, we have to, we still have to pursue some of that, some portions of that for a variety of reasons, not just about this, but also there's like ongoing conversation about the secondary egress to the site. And that is not anything that has to be decided before we pick a single option, but it would absolutely require article 97. In my mind, what I want us to do is like have a bigger picture of what requires article 97 so that we're not sort of stopping and starting multiple times to sort of get where we need to go. So yes, we can certainly make these choices. And if we get, we have a path forward that allows us to sort of shift that deed restriction or lift it in exchange for something. all of those things can happen as the project goes through schematic design up until a certain point when the building has to actually be locked into place. But I think we're talking about that as October. So there is still some time to vet and to pursue that if we want to.

[Michael Pardek]: I don't want to ramp the agenda. So I would suggest Um, delaying any vote on this until after we discussed PDP feedback. I did read the partial set of feedback that was shared. Um, I got through the whole thing. There's only one section that's underlined and it has to be an option. Um, I imagine we'll talk about it when we get to that part of the agenda. Um, I think that should, what that says should be part of the consideration of what we're carrying forward. I think if we voted on this now, in the absence of that, uh, are you making a motion to take the agenda out of weather?

[John Falco]: Yeah. What does that mean exactly?

[Jenny Graham]: It means we're going to suspend the rules like people when we post an agenda, people expect that we're going to move in that order. And so when you move out of order, like the committee has to vote that we're like fine with that change of the order of the in sequence of the agenda.

[Michael Pardek]: Um, so just, uh, clarification, I guess process. Um, so by me recommending that we defer this until later, um, suspending the agenda.

[Jenny Graham]: you're suspending the rules to take an item on the agenda out of order. And that matters to the public who may be listening or may be planning to tune in.

[Aaron Olapade]: So- Yeah, I don't want to do that.

[Jenny Graham]: Yeah, it would just be a motion to table this. It's totally fine if that's what you want to do. I don't think it's necessary personally, but it's totally fine too.

[Unidentified]: I mean, I don't fully understand. Okay.

[Jenny Graham]: Yeah, it's just Robert's ones of order. It's procedural.

[Unidentified]: All right.

[Michael Pardek]: I guess I, as you can see, I'm nervous because I don't fully understand all this. Yeah.

[Jenny Graham]: Yeah. It's Robert's it's Robert's was a border. And I know that's like sort of another thing to like learn as you're part of these public bodies. So I totally get it. Not a problem. We can, we, but we have to like take a vote and follow the rules so that when somebody comes, you know, behind us in six months and says, I wanted to be able to provide comment about that thing you were going to vote on and you took the agenda out of order. And I didn't get to that. There's record that we're like knowingly and consciously making that decision.

[Unidentified]: Can we ask if anyone's here to comment on this?

[Jenny Graham]: We can, so we can take comment and then you can make a motion, but it sounded like you wanted to sort of switch gears right now.

[Michael Pardek]: No, I'm unsure. And now that I'm learning about the consequences of what I said, I do want to get people to show up because it's really good turnout. If anyone's here to talk about this specific item, I want them to have that opportunity. So I am not going to make a motion. OK.

[Jenny Graham]: Perfect. Just hold that motion if you change your mind in the future. Was there somebody else that had a question?

[John Falco]: What? No, I'd like a little. Sorry.

[Michael Pardek]: Yeah, go ahead, Brian. Does that sort of feel like maybe a layer on to what you were saying that if we are considering that we'll see options, maybe they read back into those spaces if the land swap works or things like that. But to me, that's no different than keeping things on the table.

[Jenny Graham]: I think the difference, and as I crafted this, is that there is no D2.1 path forward as an alternative. So we would be knowingly adopting an item that absolutely positively requires article 97 versus adopting a revised version of something that could maybe revert back to that original symmetry Right. But if it can't, we still have, we still have an option. The problem with V2.1 is it is entirely on the field. There is nowhere to put it that it would exist if we had to like really live within the bounds of the de-restriction.

[Michael Pardek]: I guess my only thought is if, you know, Article 97 says, you know, hurry, then yes, we can get that. We can do this. then I would just be a little remiss if we didn't have an option that took full advantage of that.

[Jenny Graham]: I never hear people talk about article 97 in a hurry. I'm not an attorney, but as soon as you say that, I know it's a struggle. And they sort of whiff, right? But certainly, if there had to be legislative action, the goal would be by end of July. It would not be an advancement. And so again, we could do that, but it would have timing impacts for the project that we'd have to talk about.

[Michael Pardek]: So I guess the question is, is there a way to move forward with it on the table? And if it's a timing impact, then just go with it.

[Jenny Graham]: We could choose not to eliminate it tonight, but I also like in all the feedback of all the options, There's not a lot of popularity of that option either for me. And so as I've listened to everybody and I've seen how people like sort of react and prefer to these things, like for me anyway, like there's like nothing worth keeping there, but that's just my opinion and I'm one person on the committee. So we certainly could do that too. That is absolutely an option.

[Michael Pardek]: Like I'm just sort of looking for feedback. Yeah, sure.

[Jenny Graham]: Nicole, did you have anything? Yeah, I was gonna say, I do wonder if that, like, and I totally hear what you're saying, I just wonder if that would just be safe for people who are not as dialed in to be seeing something that may very well not be an option being carried forward. Right. Are there any members of the public here in person or online that would like to speak? If you're online, please use the raised hand feature and we will get to you. you're here in person, there is a public comment chair and we do need you to sit in it so that the people online can hear you. Folks are asked to give their name and address for the record and comments are limited to three minutes. Is there anyone who would like to speak?

[Unidentified]: Matt? Thank you.

[Jenny Graham]: Nick, your name and address for the record, please. Sure.

[Michael Pardek]: Good evening, everyone. My name is Nick Troleo. I live in Forty Rock, Sonoma. So I'm very deeply disappointed with the restrictions we've missed. This is a really serious mistake. I think it's important that in moving forward, you know, obviously we want to kind of keep things going, but we also want to recognize what went wrong up here. And sure, going forward, something like this doesn't happen again.

[Unidentified]: The reason I think this is influence.

[Michael Pardek]: I'll quote for you, advisory number 45. At the preliminary design program phase, all site for the lease should be presented with potential development restrictions identified. The MSBA requires a summary of the process underway to identify all potential issues and steps that are to be taken to resolve. So obviously we didn't comply with that and it's a problem because the MSBA the enabling statute, regulation, as well as the advisory guidelines, pose risk of losing support of the project. So it's really important that we recognize these limitations moving forward. In terms of moving forward, though, honestly, I think this isn't really a legal decision. I think it's more just a political decision. You know, what are we doing here? Article 97, or try to modify the designs? I think the motion actually is pretty simple. So I'm kind of leaning towards that, but honestly, you don't know. accountability, though, for this mistake. I want to see full transparency. I'd like to know precisely when we would perform the restrictions. I heard Gabriel reference earlier, which is helpful. But I ultimately like some sort of report from this committee discussing what went wrong here and proposing steps to make sure mistakes don't happen. was a mistake. So for example, two designs, those here that are new, two alterations, how much time and money was spent making those alterations? I think the public deserves their transparency. And I think we also need to try to restore trust, trust this committee, due to this terrible mistake. I really hope everybody just acknowledges it, moves forward and tries to do something reasonable to keep this going. It would be ultimately mediocre, which is, again, students of our city learning facility.

[Unidentified]: Thank you.

[Adam Hurtubise]: I'm not seeing any hands online. Is there anybody else who'd like to speak? Hi there. Hello.

[Kimberly Talbot]: I've been charged 31 headwinds. I basically just have a comment that with everything that's been going on and people are talking about project deadlines, mistakes have been made, And my concern is we're rushing too quickly without really looking at everything. It seems like even people on the committee have questions, but around the public, we don't really know what to ask. I think the dates that are here should be moved as we look at more information.

[Michael Pardek]: A couple questions for the architects. The modular, right, modulars, they're about a thousand square foot. A modular classroom, yeah. Probably closer to 700 to 800, somewhere in that range. They can be in any size, but they're limited by their trailer weight. Right, right. Like a trailer 24 by 36, it's about 900 square foot, maybe 960. Let's call it 1,000 just for ease of moving around. 52 of these modulars, right? In option A, where would those modulars go? we go way back, we literally looked at a couple different locations on the site where you could just physically place them before you get to any of the considerations of where would you want to place them. So there's a limited number of areas. And I think we were looking exclusively at a two-story modular situation because of all the various competing site interests on a very packed site, the fact that we still have to educate students here while construction is ongoing. So that drove us. I would say the most viable site, again, ignoring all other considerations, is on the parking lot to the south Because it's the closest run for utilities coming into the site, it's the easiest for access around and not disrupting. It does take away the most viable parking area on the overall site. As a downside to this, there are some other options as well, but it's not completely blue sky in terms of where we can position it. That option works with the neighbors at the moment, right? Sorry, the well so I'm picking up on another school committee member talked about, can we actually, you know, use The protected spaces lay down space. So unlike make, but the modular because they're going to be around for a while. They can't in, you know, in the earlier schemes. They'd have to, they'd have to comply with that the prescription. I think we need land council to weigh in there. I mean, they are temporary buildings by nature. They're not something permanent that's getting there. We haven't gone through that exact situation in our experience, but I could see it actually going one or two ways pretty easily in terms of how the discussion played out because they are temporary as opposed to permanent structures. And so let's go with the idea that they're on the parking lot to the south there. Have you all thought about of building a structure, like a steel structure, and then putting the modulars on top so that you preserve the parking. And then you put the modulars on top of a steel structure. So you would park underneath the modulars. Yeah, so no changes to the parking lot. You would put some columns up, throw some beams around, pour some concrete, put the modulars two stories on top of this deck, let's say. So we haven't considered that approach in particular. I think there would be a, there's a cost sort of price point to jump up there. You just have more stairs and elevators and that type of thing. It's not impossible, certainly, but we haven't necessarily considered that particular scenario. Right. Bummer.

[Jenny Graham]: I was just getting to some good stuff. Well,

[Michael Pardek]: I'll have to come back later. Can I come back later tonight? How often can I come up?

[Jenny Graham]: Please feel free to email your questions. They're good ones, and we're happy to answer them. Please feel free to email your questions. But people are allowed to speak one time on each topic.

[Unidentified]: Got it. OK, cool. Last thing.

[Michael Pardek]: I just want to say, I think that the option A and B are still probably the most sustainable from an embodied carbon standpoint. And that would be the greenest option. So if we're concerned at all about being green in our progressive city, those are the options we should be really looking at. Thank you.

[Jenny Graham]: Zoe Muzos online.

[Libby Brown]: I'll take it for one second.

[John Falco]: If you want. Are you guys waiting? Sorry. Can you hear me?

[Jenny Graham]: We can.

[Zoe Moutsos]: Okay, so we moved those 33 Johnson have apologies for my bad connection I think my kid is like streaming something enormous right now. Anyway, I just, I have two questions but first I wanted to thank the, the full team here for like quickly like creating a like alt versions of c2 or whichever ones they are and c3 4a whatever the alt versions that we saw because i think that was really i thought we were going to be down to looking at just three options and we actually still have five Um, that are very doable and, you know, some of them to me look really amazing. So I appreciate the quick work. I know that you are all under a lot of pressure and this is a very tense situation and I am looking forward to hearing, you know, how we got here and making sure. that we move forward and nothing like this happens again. So anyway, thank you for that. I wanted to follow up on a question I think Paul had brought up and then ask another one. One is just when you do the bigger presentation next week with the money, the presentation, Um, if, if it is appropriate for that meeting or a meeting soon after, could we get a little understanding of what the parking situation might look like during the build? As I've said before, my kid's not going to have the benefit of this amazing building, but he's going to be going to school there. We're going to be going to sports events there and orchestra events there and just events there in general. So we'd like to get, I think the community might like to hear kind of what the world will be like while we're building the building. And then also sort of understanding. what is going to happen to the playing fields that are there now while the new building is being built? So will they be playing more at Hormel? Will they be playing in Playstead? What might that look like? Just kind of a fuller picture of the life of those groups of students who are going to be learning and playing and the community during the build. Thank you.

[Jenny Graham]: Um, so I'm going to let the project team feel most of your question, but, um, yes, I agree that there is a need for. That kind of conversation about life and construction in general. I don't think it will happen in June because we're still talking about many options. So there would be like many lives to talk about, but as soon as there is a single option, I think that becomes like much easier to plan for and manage, and we can definitely dedicate a meeting to that. So. I'll let Matt jump in as well.

[Michael Pardek]: Yeah, and I'll just say, Zoe, that it's completely understandable that everyone wants to know that information as soon as possible. And it's just that we are a little bit early in terms of being able to provide good, credible information that will help people understand how the site is going to operate. All the things that you described, though, are potential that are on the table in terms of field activities happening elsewhere in the city. We have started those conversations with the athletic director. and the district offices as well to try to figure out what opportunities are there. But until we know specifically what option we're looking at and then sort of how the phasing is going to play out, it's difficult to provide those concrete answers. We will get them out to everybody just as soon as we possibly can because we understand the importance of that for everybody's daily lives, especially those that are sort of intersecting with the school year on a regular basis.

[Jenny Graham]: Thank you, Matt. Any other questions from people on the line? Is there anyone else who would like to speak?

[Adam Hurtubise]: Please come on up. We'll call and shoot. I've got to watch my feet.

[Jenny Graham]: That's right. Your name and address, please. Sharon Diaso. I live on the mass avenue, serving everyone. I'm sorry, I was a little late. I was waiting for a high school student to help me with my lawn and we had a baseball game. So that was, I think not worth it.

[Libby Brown]: I'm just asking for anyone to make it moving on. And I'm the neighbor's messenger today. No, you go, man, you go. I'm in. Could I ask anyone who's on the board or is it a commission to just raise your hand so I could just know where the deciding board is?

[Jenny Graham]: Are you asking who the voting members are?

[Libby Brown]: Who is instructing all of the ideas, et cetera?

[Jenny Graham]: These are the voting members. The project team is being paid by the city of Medford to lead the project, build the idea, the options, et cetera. OK. The other question is for how many?

[Libby Brown]: I noticed that one or two people raised their hand before they were architects. The question was addressed from the architect. How many architects are there on the voting? Why aren't you voting? They're the ones designing it.

[Kimberly Talbot]: Some of us are on the committee. We're not doing this.

[Libby Brown]: Okay, so how many on the committee then who will be voting actually were involved with raising school buildings? Two. Two architects.

[Jenny Graham]: Okay, and engineers? looking as an engineer. All of the information about the team's credentials is on our website if you want to go there.

[Libby Brown]: So also one of the questions was, actually one of my first questions and my neighbor's also was, about eight or 10 years ago, Winchester was involved in a similar situation because they actually were getting more enrollment than they thought.

[Jenny Graham]: And of course, Winchester sort of being lovely and more, I would call it, uppity town. Their residents were very concerned about their children.

[Libby Brown]: What happened was, and I know this is a bad day, they overbuilt. So they were in a building that was bottom, and some of that space wasn't used.

[Jenny Graham]: And they had an extra building on the side that was about half the size of this structure that was empty.

[Libby Brown]: So I think it's very proven that everybody knows, too.

[Suzanne Galusi]: We're the best site to look to follow up with the results of all of these meetings and the square footage that we really think you might need to think of because I have a friend also whose sister teaches in another nearby school.

[Libby Brown]: And they're saying their enrollments are all predictably down the next five to six years. Our question is, how soon is this expected to begin if one of these options doesn't pass? And in the meantime, we understand the electrical updates really, really need to be done. And of course, any place you go when you work in public, especially teaching, the first question they ask you, what is the most imminent thing in the classroom to the safety of your students? Get about your lesson plans to save you.

[Jenny Graham]: So we're wondering how bad the electrical is, and will that be addressed before any meaningful construction

[Libby Brown]: after Mr. Attorney Julio's presentation tonight. I'm just wondering, because that might be an interfering factor.

[Jenny Graham]: Okay, let me see if I can try to answer some of your questions. There's a part of the Medford Public Schools website is dedicated to this project. So to answer your question about where to go for updates, that is the place, that is the source of information that is coming from the project team that is vetted and credible. So if you have questions, that's a good place to look. On that site, there is a detailed enrollment study that was performed by the MSBA to make sure that we in fact don't overbill. And ultimately we reached an agreement with them about the size of this student population that essentially looks at our current student population and makes a modest increase, which was backed by the data around real estate pattern and birth rates and all of those sort of things here. So is it an independent vetted study done by the MSBA that we had to supply information to and through to, but that is all on our project website. And you can look there for any of that information. In terms of the electrical question, I think we probably might have to get back to you on that one, because I'm not sure I understand the question and we can talk about that later. But if the question is, is the building safe for students right now? The answer is yes. We do what we can to keep this building going forward. And frankly, that's getting harder and harder every single day. So something does have to change in this building in order for us to be able to continue to provide a suitable environment for kids. Thank you. So in other words, it could be that the electrical is needed

[Libby Brown]: could be pursued before any reconstruction is started.

[Jenny Graham]: In other words, to build electric code, I mean, it wouldn't be- Well, a code upgrade of this building is what option A is, and that will cost us over $500 million. So a code upgrade is not a simple endeavor, but it is an option that the committee is able to consider. Yes. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. And then the other question, that you had actually fed off of a question from the resident who spoke first. And we have received a detailed timeline from SMA. They have been hired by the city of Medford. They've provided a detailed timeline of what happened. I'll happily post that on the site tomorrow. It was received this afternoon at 4.30. And you all can read that and digest that how you consume that how you'd like. And we are in conversation, the mayor, the superintendent, and I, along with the project team to make sure that there is accountability for this mistake. It was a mistake. It was a mistake that we will hold people accountable for. And those things often are quite complicated and take time. But we agreed that there was a huge mistake made here, 100%. And figuring out how do we move forward with a timeline that serves the kids and this project while pursuing accountability is what we're trying to do.

[Libby Brown]: Thank you, welcome.

[Adam Hurtubise]: Anybody else who would like to weigh in?

[Jenny Graham]: Okay, seeing none, seeing none on Zoom, would you like to move forward before we talk about how to address this? Would you like to talk about the PDP comments? Let's take that item out of order so then we can get back to this discussion. Yes. OK. So motion to suspend the roll and take agenda item four out of order by loop. Is there a second? I'll second. Seconded by Dr. Booth. I'll call the roll. Jenny Graham, yes. Mayor Wendell Kern. Yes. Dr. Garucci. Yes. Marta Guadalajara. Yes. Bill Bowen. Yes. Ken Lord. Yes. Libby Brown, yes. Marissa Desmond, Maria Dorsey, yes. Brian Henry, yes. Emily Lazzaro, Paul Malone, Paul Morell, yes. Errol Potting, yes. Luke Preissner, yes. 12 in the affirmative, zero in the negative, three absent. The rules are suspended to take item number four out of order. So the next topic is The MSBA's PDP comments and the team's response to those comments. So I will turn it over to the team.

[Michael Pardek]: So I will take this one. I just want to make sure that everyone's aware. So the PDP comments that we get from the MSBA is a regular part of their process that we go through. They will provide comments on every single submission that we give to them throughout the course of the project. So this is just the first iteration of this activity for this project as we've gone through. We did get the comments from the MSBA on 5-5, so May 5th, which I think was two Tuesdays before. And we're given 10 business days to respond, so a total of two weeks. And we did respond yesterday to sort of stay within that timeframe of what they were looking for. When the MSBA provides those comments to us, they group their comments into two different documents, Attachment A and Attachment B. Attachment A is sort of like the catch all for all the majority of their comments. And they're looking at everything there from budget topics to anywhere they are. Schedule comments, coordination between the end plan and the space summary. as well as any items or statements that we need to be including within the PSR submission. They ask for a lot of acknowledgements of their rules and regulations, and that's all part of attachment A. Attachment B is specifically comments on the space summary. And that's interesting and important because what they do there is they start to give the district an idea of what spaces may be reimbursable and may not be reimbursable. So when we start talking about the city of Medford's reimbursement percentage overall and what that dollar value is. It's the first insight that we get into MSBA's thinking on those particular topics. What they give us at this first stage is not final by any means. It's really an initial sense of what might be there from a reimbursable standpoint. And there will be additional feedback and conversations that we have at the subsequent PSR submission, and then going all the way forward to schematic design, which is when all those things are locked in. That's the general breakdown between attachment A and B. Just to note that the educational plan is going to be modified in some cases by the responses that were provided as part of the PDP comments in this process that we went through. We don't provide the updated educational plan until we submit the PSR. And at that point, it's a very prescriptive approach. They want a red marked version so they can see the changes that are there, but they also want a final finish that does not show any changes. So that will be sort of the formal ed plan moving forward in the process. And then one comment that the MSB also made, and I'm not sure if this is what Luke was alluding to earlier, was that they requested a school only cost option be provided. And so that's really what they're asking for is something that just represents the grades nine to 12 school related programs. So not say the district offices or other programs that are here, and not necessarily the preschool program as well that would be brought here from outside the actual building. So that particular request is not something that was challenging for us to respond to in terms of creating. We actually have to provide them a specific submittal on that. I think by the end of this week or Monday of next week, which is Memorial Day, so we're just going to get it to them by the end of this week. But it's essentially taking all those program alternates that we already had included in the PDP cost estimate and that we repeated in the PSR cost estimate. We just pulled those out. And then that is the option that the MSBA is looking for. So that level of transparency and information that they just want to make sure is clear for everybody in the community was really already cooked into how we were estimating things. And so we're just pulling it out at their request so it can be viewed a little bit more easily. And then attachment B, again, is the comments on the space summary. They did ask us, in some cases, to shift spaces around between the different space categories, which is generally just a sign that they're looking to have something designated as reimbursable space versus non-reimbursable space. That's really the intent behind shifts that we're asked to be doing. And then the space summary, we did include an updated version as part of the responses. The only changes in the version that we've provided as part of the comment and response were the updates that were made at the April 27 school building committee meeting. The last time this group got together to reduce some spaces out just we want to provide that update to the MSBA. And then we will submit the space summary again with the PSR report that will actually include all the revisions made that were in the comment responses. If they ask us to do something we will do it. We'll make those changes in the space summary and give it back to them. And then just a word about the process in terms of these comments. It's not a lot of time to actually orchestrate the responses to, I don't know how many pages we had in terms of comments before they ran in, maybe 26 different pages. A lot. The size and the quantity of the comments is really commensurate with the size and the complexity of the project. And this is a large, complex project. So it wasn't we were we're not under the impression that we would just be getting like five pages of comments back for this. So that is sort of typical for our experience working through these. Really the comments that we're dealing with the educational plan were answered by the district. We are working with Dr. Talbot, Dr. Pelosi and their entire teams in terms of pulling in other involved parties if it's a director or some other sort of curriculum question, we actually went to the content expert on that particular topic. But those responses were written by the district. There were some that were more related to sort of the mechanics and the logistics of the submission. And so left field and SMA teamed up to provide those responses. There was a collective response and review process from all three groups as we went through it. I just wanted to reinforce that it's a collaborative effort. It is not an SOMA just writing out all the answers and sending it off to the MSBA. It's something that was really a collaborative spirit, just as the educational plan was, as we were putting it together, and just as the rest of the documentation being put together was collaborative. And yes, it did go back yesterday. So that's really the overall summary. I know that the comments themselves, the responses were distributed out to the building committees so that you can see all the individual comments that were submitted and the responses to them.

[Adam Hurtubise]: Are there any questions? Luke?

[Michael Pardek]: So if you want to commend the team on a thorough job, there was a lot to get through. And I cheated. I used a death notice. So, but I did want to make a kind of a statement, and this is more philosophical, like 30,000 foot, we're in a three way constraint problem. One is the MSPAA, I think you want scope, discipline, and it's obviously partial feedback, shared yesterday, more on that later. Another constraint are, I'll say, community advocates who want expansive civic functions. And then the third constraint that will emerge is taxpayer affordability. And we'll hear more about it next week. These terms and quantities data that are relevant to that. And we'll learn whether they support the full vision of, I'll say, The current PDP response package shows the district is trying to hold these three equities together simultaneously. Whether that remains sustainable is probably the defining question of summer and fall. As an SBC, I think we're approaching a critical moment where we'll need to determine whether this project evolves into a four-dimensional, fundable high school project with strong MSBA support and participation. or a larger civic campus concept that may incur a historically high local responsibility. The majority of this SBC has not seen approval from feedback from the MSBA, and I ask that we all see it. We've seen attachment A and B, and from what I can tell, there's at least a cover letter as well, cited in attachment A. Yeah, it's cited in tax review. There may be other things. I'm just asking that we see it. And I hope we get it soon. If it's a public document, it may be subject to a records request. So if that's the case.

[Jenny Graham]: I'll stop you right there. Is there a reason why that wasn't provided?

[Michael Pardek]: I'll go back and take a look at the document. But I thought I had sent everything out in one concise file. I'll double check the file and make sure, but.

[Jenny Graham]: Okay. Yeah, there's no reason. It's not being without.

[Michael Pardek]: Okay. I've only seen the, uh, the red line in line responded, uh, attachment. Um, so, so last three, uh, through, um, the, the weekly we learned as we wanted to include at least one, uh, and I had to call focus concept. Um, that's it. Um, The MSPA has been working at PDP material for us since late February. There have been iterations, and even after all that back and forth, they're still telling us to listen to something, and that something is at least nine to 12 folks, high school concept. They went to, I'll say, you know, bureaucratically, the extreme length of underlining, it's the only passage that's underlined in multiple pages of feedback, and that gets my attention. So, you know, let's kind of give it serious scrutiny and do a good job there. And consider including that as part of our options space, since the message, to me at least, from MSBA seems loud. I think time is on our side. And I'll say I've done a lot of research. for my own experience from that research, and perhaps others would draw different from one another. But I believe the MSBA values community readiness over landscape records. And they will give us the time to get things right. And for next week, I know Mayor Robert Kirk will have a depth capacity presentation for us. I do ask that we listen to that. We wait for it, in fact. We've got a week, but we need to hear it before we make any big decisions regarding concepts and sizes and things like that. I think that we don't fit voters, and I think the MSDA will have patience with us as really allow the natural evolution of the projects to take place. And it takes, you know, I'll say different timescales for different communities. I believe that we've got a good solution. So that's all I want to say. I would like to see the full feedback. I do appreciate the work that was done. I thought it was very good. And that's all. So the final question, just let me say,

[Kimberly Talbot]: respond to the, I guess I would caution against reading too much into the request for seeing the high school only option. We have been seeing that on recent larger high school projects. So don't feel as if Medford is being singled out. And I guess I want to commend the committee for structuring the cost information in such a way as that you have actually been looking at those numbers in that way already. So just to say, you're not being, you all as Medford are not being singled out with that request.

[Suzanne Galusi]: Okay, thank you.

[Kimberly Talbot]: Lisa, I just have a question. Does the MSBA care if we have all of the like the administrative weighing our early childhood If that's outside of the scope of their work, I'm assuming that we're saying if we include it, Medford is gonna pay for it.

[Adam Hurtubise]: So they don't care if it's there, right?

[Michael Pardek]: Yeah, when we spoke with the MSBA and about this comment specifically, they said, you gave us all those options and they're all the same, essentially from a space standpoint. So they said, we wanna see an option that eliminates those community aspects and what Kate and her, nine to 12 high school would look like. So they, and we asked, we asked that question, you know, about the community spaces and yeah, they said they won't tell us what we can and can't build. They just want to be, they just want to make sure that we have looked at, you know, several different options. And in this case, a nine to 12.

[Kimberly Talbot]: Does that mean that we have to have like one of these options, like of our five or six an option that's signed out that doesn't have those spaces? Is that what they're saying?

[Suzanne Galusi]: Yes. And do they want to know from the city, the district committee, what happens to those community facing organizations if they're not included in that plan? Or do they not care where those things would go?

[Michael Pardek]: I think that's more what Medford cares about than the MSBA. It's certainly like they're aware of that reality, but I think what they want is that the community understands if programs that are here are being unhoused in some way, where are they going, right? And that's the big question that needs to be answered in that scenario outside of the context of what it is.

[Jenny Graham]: And I would say that in our conversations about some of these things, in order to have a good conversation about on-housing, things that reside here right now, A, there has to be a place for them to go, and B, there has to be an assessment of what that space is, its availability and its needs, right? And its costs. And its costs. And so, for example, there's lots of energy around everybody having an idea about what happens to Curtis Tufts when the Curtis Tufts program comes up here. In order for us to responsibly take something off the table because we're going to put it first tops. We need to know what it would cost to do that, which would include a separate project outside of the funding of this project. And it would require remediation of that building to fit its next purpose, right? So there are high schoolers in that building right now. So I've seen the community talk about wanting to put the ECC there. First of all, not big enough from a square footage perspective. And second of all, um, in addition to ADA requirements and, uh, you know, stay in classroom spaces, like there's a number of other considerations in making a building small enough for kids this big, right. To inhabit such a building. So for, for us to think about as we're going to unhouse something, we have to have a place to put them. if we're going to unhouse the kids corner, if we're going to unhouse the welcome center, if we're going to unhouse central office, like there has to be an alternative. And what I would like to see this committee do is acknowledge that we shouldn't be making decisions about removing things from this project until we know where it can go. And that that would be a more cost effective option for the city than to just sort of like cast some things out to feel good right now, because it's not going to feel good to have to to have to pay more to do something later. So what I understand is that we have time to make all of those decisions with real data as we look into the summer and into the fall. And we have time until October to make those decisions. So I would like to see us use that time to have those conversations and make those decisions. based on data rather than sort of reading into something that the MSBA is saying and interpreting it in a way like it is, it's more common than it's ever been for them to be asking for a nine to 12 only school so that it is, there is a clear cost comparison in the project that people can understand and latch onto. So I don't think any of those things have to happen before we make a decision on a single preferred option. And I think all of those things get easier when we have a single preferred option. So we don't have to do anything on any particular timeline, but every day that we wait is another day that the roof on the pool is held on by straps. Every single day that we wait is another day where the cost escalates. And I do think this committee needs to figure out how to hold like all of these complexities and not let perfect be the enemy of the good. we can make a decision about a single auction, in my opinion, on June 10th, as we have previously outlined, and we can still continue to make decisions into October. And as we have said all along, we will not know the cost of this project. So anyone who tells you they know what the cost of the project is, they are making assumptions. We will not know the final cost of this project until the construction manager comes on board, schematic design is complete, and that is February of next year on the current schedule. I think we have time to do everything that the community, answer all these questions about how much things will cost and could something go to Curtis Tufts or is there some other space that nobody knows about in the community that could house some piece of this and that would meet the needs of the programs. Like we have time to do all of those things. We don't have to do any of those things between now and June. we have a choice to make a single preferred design decision by June, which is our previously stated timeline. So those are the options before us. Libby?

[Kimberly Talbot]: I'd like to hear if we can figure all that out after June.

[Jenny Graham]: I'm curious, though, some of the studies, I assume anything looking at what the first steps, like that's all, I don't know, that's for the design studies. So does that one have to do with the side parallel study, right? Yeah. I don't know if we have that idea. And the work on such a project would also be outside of the cost of this project. It seems like the most critical piece of information anyone really needs right now is, again, the preliminary cost. The cost difference, which it sounds like we already have that. Yeah, it would look smaller on the site. That's the difference. It's just what's the cost of it.

[Adam Hurtubise]: So we already have that.

[Suzanne Galusi]: Yes, we do. Chair, Mayor, yes, we have the cost differences, which we've been pretty transparent about what each option costs out at.

[Jenny Graham]: And then today we did get, I think it was sent to the committee, but late in the day, we did get cost estimates on what would be covered by the MSBA on each option, each of the three options for each option we have and what the city would have to

[Suzanne Galusi]: provide through debt exclusion or otherwise. So we have roughly of estimates, although I agree it's not, we're not gonna get a final number until we do the month's work at work.

[Jenny Graham]: So we are talking about a timeline for residents, especially since the financial presentation will be next week with lack of debt capacity and impacts to taxpayers. We will then have a ton of work to do over the summer and then those space,

[Suzanne Galusi]: potential space reductions and all the motions, I think they're gonna happen after Labor Day through October. So I understand that, and it makes me feel better that we are gonna do a financial presentation next week.

[Jenny Graham]: So this committee and the public knows everything that's on the table, and then we also have a timeline on the hard work that has to be done.

[Libby Brown]: Michelle? Just a question. When we're talking about the 9-12 option, is the current stuff her stuff still included in that nine people option? Okay. Yes. Thank you.

[Jenny Graham]: We are back to whether we want to take a vote on this motion to formally adopt the alternatives that we saw tonight. So if there is a motion, I'm happy. I think it's called for more, but I'm sorry, just on that side, I have a feeling this will potentially be approved. And I just want to state that it is all happening very quickly in the last minute. And I know that the public may have additional questions on the alternates as well as this committee. So that I just want to make sure that our team is ready, willing and able to answer questions over email and at future meetings. I know it's a lost digest, very short amount of time. And so I just want to make sure that the public and this committee has time to ask questions at inter-meetings and behind the scenes on these alternate modifications. We have an upcoming community forum in about a half a week, maybe two weeks from today. Thank you. Motion to adopt the proposed resolution by Nicole, is there a second? By Libby.

[Libby Brown]: Questions about the motion? Lisa, will there need to be another motion to accept to have a design that's just 9-12?

[Jenny Graham]: That's already been handled. Like the project team has the costs and can present that. So is it one of those? It should be a plan that's a smaller building.

[Suzanne Galusi]: I think that's what we're saying. It doesn't happen.

[Adam Hurtubise]: I'll let them see that.

[Jenny Graham]: Correct. The costs are available now, and we'll get to that in our next agenda item. Has the MSB asked for a visual set option?

[Michael Pardek]: As part of the PSR submission, yes, and we have started on that. For what they want as a response to their comments, they'll be accepting the dollar value update, as well as just a written description of what it would be. Something that would be at the level of the PDP submission is what they're looking for initially. I have a question on the 9-12 request. Have they specified that it be an entirely new field for a rental ad? Has the team selected one of those concepts? It has to be one or the other. So no, they were not specific. I think they specifically wrote it that like it could be any of them is how they actually termed it something along those lines, not to be quoted for Vayner, but the intent was that the design team in the district can sort of select that from just because it can really be applied to any of them. It's not like option specific. We chose to look at D1.1 because it's not a deed restricted option. And so it has that benefit to it. And it's just, it's the simplest thing to sort of conceive of in terms of how it doesn't like impact the existing construction. But again, we can take those programs out of any one of the options from an estimating standpoint pretty easily, especially with the cost estimating analysis document that allows you to sort of toggle in between different options. Yeah, and you'll see in the cost update tonight, how we have it broken out moving forward. that will show a clear 9 to 12 school, what the existing programs in the school are, you know, what's here today, and then, you know, all the other alternates that are being proposed to bring here. So we'll have like, and you'll see in just a second, just so that's very clear that everybody understands what a 9 to 12 school would cost, what a 9 to 12 with the programs in the building today would cost, and then what a building with all the desired programs would be. And then that way we can have all that information readily available for everyone. So as a point of clarification, what I'm hearing is there needs to be at least one. The project team, in the interest of time, please look at 311 as a starting point. But I didn't hear anything that excluded the possibility of also a 9-12 rental ad. There's benefits there. Gentlemen talked about a body of the apartment. I think it makes sense to preserve some spaces. I have affinity for some of our hard-to-replace spaces. And so in the future, we can talk about, I want to confirm that we can talk about a 9-12 rental ad concept a new bill that a rental ad would have identifier, whether it's some alphanumeric code. I just want to be clear that those expectations are reasonable and heavy.

[Jenny Graham]: Yeah, and I think the way I see this playing out is the costs exist for that labor to exist on any of the existing options. So the way the cost spreadsheet is built you wanted to take any of our options and say, what would it look like if it was just 9 to 12? You can do that right now. So that exists. If we're saying that we want a different set of visuals than D, we can do that before the PSR submission. But we also can pick an option and still keep talking about that as a choice as we talk about that kind of space reduction, all the programming, all of that is going to continue to be talked about. So let's say we pick one of the C options that we just adopted. We could go into July and into August and be like, you know what, we have another great home for the MFN and everyone loves it and it's not going to cost us more money as a community. And so we're happy with that. So we're going to take that out. And then we could say, and we're happy with a location for something else. And why don't we just Forget about all the other programs that are here, and just you and I, we can do all of those things with a single option. So right now, there's costs across all of the options, but we always have that choice until October to take whichever option we choose and continue to modify it, up to and including getting to just a nine to 12 school year.

[John Falco]: Okay, yeah, I'm thinking about the spreadsheet. That's how I got to call my closest.

[Jenny Graham]: Yeah.

[Michael Pardek]: All right. And just another clarification, if this motion were approved in its current form, we would have A11, we would have C22A, C34A, and then this TB, or a D11N that reflects a 912. In the original D11. Well, A is just... And the original D11.

[Jenny Graham]: Yeah, and you'd have B.

[Michael Pardek]: So a total of six. Okay. So if this motion passes, we have a total of six.

[Suzanne Galusi]: Any other questions?

[Jenny Graham]: I mean, really you have five options and then you have a nine to 12 only version of four of them. So you have nine options.

[John Falco]: It wasn't that wasn't apparent to me earlier.

[Jenny Graham]: Yeah. So yeah, we would have nine options. Okay. If you're considering those nines as well, just group options. I see, like in my mind, I just see them as choices that we can make across five options or actually, but because you can't do that. Great. But yeah.

[Adam Hurtubise]: Any other questions before we call it a roll?

[Jenny Graham]: Okay. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. to absent, the motion is approved. Okay, next item on our agenda is the PSR cost estimate review.

[Michael Pardek]: So I'm gonna turn it back over to the team. All right. So just to kind of recap these to the six options that we provided To the cost estimators for the preferred schematic report estimate. You will notice that these are the C2.2 and C3.4 options, not the A that were just adopted. We do not have cost for those options yet. However, they are very similar. They're exactly the same square footage. there's not major changes in the constructability of the shift. So we feel pretty confident that the numbers that you'll see for those C options will be very similar for these adjustments. We actually feel that because we're bringing the building further south from Edgley Field, there's less site work and less rock removal. Uh, so we are asking the estimators to take a look and see how that, um, could potentially adjust, uh, the cost of these revised options. Uh, but we think it would be, um, in a positive direction in terms of reducing costs. So, uh, we will, you know, make sure we have all that information. We should have it, uh, before the meeting next week. Um, but I just wanted to kind of point that out as we look through these, um, So going to the next slide, I'll just do a quick explanation of this so everybody kind of understands how it works. The options are across the top, and then down the side are kind of those different scenarios that I was just explaining. So that top row is for the high school only, just like a nomenclature thing. TPC is total project cost. Um, so these are all total project costs. This is, um, you know, the, the value of the project that would have to be passed at a debt exclusion. Uh, so, uh, sorry, not as a debt exclusion on the warrant. Uh, and then we'll be, we'll be factoring what the actual debt exclusion will be as we move forward. Um, The second row is the total project cost of the high school plus the current programs that exist in the high school today. This scenario also assumes a renovation of the pool and the gym in the A, B, and C options. It assumes a new pool in the D options. The next line is everything in the row above just uh, all of the programs that, uh, were being proposed in the SOI, uh, and through the the PDP phase. Uh, the only difference here will be the C option. Uh, I'm sorry, um, sorry, um, I need to double check the D The and then the very last row is what the total project cost would be with all programs and in pool in the D options. For simplicity and looking at these as it compared to PDP, that second row is is uh i'm sorry that third row is what we were basing the the pdp estimates off of um which was all of the programs uh renovation of the pool um i'm sorry it would it should be a pool uh or the d option um so we went back and tried to compare how that uh looked versus the uh versus the pdp cost Um, so you'll, you'll see the comparisons here and I'll highlight, you know, some of the real big, obvious, uh, changes. Uh, in the 8-1-1 option, uh, we had initially, uh, during PDP been around a $436 million project that has increased, uh, to a $528 million project. That is largely due to, uh, an addition of a radon system for the foundation. We had not included anything. in PDP, but felt it was important to include something. We're not 100% sure if it will be required, but we wanted to keep it in the cost for now. And if we feel we can take it out later on, we can do so. But that was a big part of the change in the A11 option. B21 didn't see a ton of changes overall. We're right around the same overall total project cost. Um, with a slight increase, um, in 12 million. Uh, I think a lot of the, the B2 one, um, is just the, again, the complexity and the phasing that comes along with, uh, with an addition renovation. This does include the modulars because we cannot renovate the building with, um, displacing students. So this is the only option that is currently assuming modulars aside from the A11 option. C2.2 previously was around 825 million that has come down to 796. This is largely due to some of those space reductions that we saw over the SBC meeting on April 27th. We, like I said, we did remove the modular classrooms from this option when we looked at whether modulars could potentially, you know, save money by reducing the length of the project. It actually does not. So we actually feel that the no modulars versus modulars is not a cost saver. So proceeding without modulars is the better route. even from a cost standpoint, so that was positive to see. The C3.4 option also stayed right around the same, increased slightly from 803 to 814. This is largely due to the durations. It is a longer project than C2.2. So you have a bit of increased time as well as all of the general conditions and requirements that come with constructing the actual project. The biggest changes from cost reduction we did see in the D11 and D21 options. D11 was originally up around 864 and has come down to 766. uh, this is a, this is a more clear kind of representation of the space reduction, uh, being able to construct this building, um, in more of its entirety on the lower part of the product, uh, of the site, um, didn't see as, as much increase in phasing. Um, so the, um, It's why some of the D options or why the two D options are seeing a larger increase in new construction. It's simpler from a construction standpoint. And so the space reductions that we saw previously are more obvious in the new build options. And then D2.1, we were up around 830 and it came down to 783. Um, and similar to D11, um, you know, this was the simplest construction project. But given the vote we had held tonight, it's no longer being considered. So, um, I will also note that the PDP costs at the top are slightly different than what, uh, had been shown at all of our community forums and all of the events that we are going to. That is because during the PDP phase, we were carrying different parking options and some of the options. We pulled out those parking options and just did grade marking to match what we priced in the base bid for PSR. So that's why those numbers are slightly lower than what has been shown uh over the last few months or so and that was just so that we could do this comparison and kind of see where we uh where we are at compared to where we were in pvp using the same size um building in the same scope so uh it's usually a question that we get is how does this compare to the last phase so uh that's why we pulled this together and why some of those pvp numbers are slightly different than than what you uh have been seeing out in the public recently

[Unidentified]: So we talked about earlier about MSBA being like agnostic if we have those programs and they're not going to reimburse for the building. Would those have to be pulled out for a separate debt exclusion like the pool, or those can be included in the plan?

[Michael Pardek]: Yeah, that's specific to the pool as far as like, and a new pool specifically. It does not need to be a separate debt exclusion in the ad right now. So the pool is just like existentially? Yes.

[Adam Hurtubise]: other questions?

[Jenny Graham]: Okay, that is the end of our agenda. Is there a motion to adjourn? So I'm here. Let's go second. Seconded by Nicole. All right. Jenny Graham. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes.