[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: 15th, 2026, executive session at 5 p.m. and our regular meeting at 6 p.m. or as close to the 6 p.m. as possible. This meeting's being held at the Howard Alden Memorial Chambers, Medford City Hall, and via remote participation. This meeting is being recorded. The meeting can be viewed live on the Medford Public Schools YouTube channel, through Medford Community Media, on your local cable channel, Comcast Channel 9, 8, or 22. Bless you. and Verizon Channel 43, 45, and 47. Participants can log or call in by using the following Zoom link, and the meeting ID is 955-999-13874. Member Ruseau, if you could please call the roll.
[Paul Ruseau]: Member Graham. Member Mastroboni is absent. Member Olapade, is he going to be absent or just late? He's on his way. OK. Member Parks? Yes. Member Reinfeld? Present. Member Ruseau? Yes. Present. Mayor Lungo-Koehn?
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: Five present, one absent, one on their way. If we all may rise to salute the flag, please. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the republic for which it stands, one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. We have Executive Session. Upon motion to enter Executive Session pursuant to Mass General Laws 30A, Section 21A, Executive Session to conduct strategy in preparation with non-union personnel or contract negotiations with non-union personnel, specifically but not limited to the Assistant Superintendent of Academics and Instructions, Chief Operations Officer, Director of Student Services and Assistant Superintendent of Special Education and Student Services, and the Human Resource Director. Executive session pursuant to 30A, section A3, to conduct a strategy session on the basis that an open meeting may have a detrimental effect on the bargaining positions of the Medford School Committee. Specifically, the Medford School Committee will convene an executive session to discuss collective bargaining with Massachusetts Teachers Association regarding a teacher grievance, and the chair so declares an executive session of the Medford School Committee pursuant to general law chapter 30A section 21A to conduct strategy session on the basis that an open meeting may have a detrimental effect on the bargaining positions of the Medford School Committee. Specifically, the Medford School Committee will be discussing ongoing collective bargaining negotiations with SEIU 888 Carpenters Union and the chair so declares. We will convene in public session following the executive session meeting at approximately 6 p.m. Is there a motion on the floor to go into Executive Session? Motion under Executive Session. By Member Graham, seconded by Member Reinfeld. Roll call, please. And we'll mark Member Olapade present.
[Paul Ruseau]: Member Graham. Yes. Member Olapade. Yes. Member Parks. Yes. Member Reinfeld. Yes. Member Rossell. Yes. Mayor Lungo-Koehn.
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: Yes. Seven to the affirmative. Sorry, six in the affirmative, one absent. Motion is approved. Thanks.
[Unidentified]: ready.
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: Welcome, everyone. Thank you for your patience. We've been much worse at times, but we're in executive session at 5. It's now 6.15. We have a couple things to go through, and then we cannot wait to hear you play. Thank you to our student reps for being here, Ryan and Leo. Happy to have you. Next up, we have our consent agenda, approval of bills and payrolls, approval of budget transfers, journal entry 20937. for 114,448.94, and approval of meeting minutes from our June 1st, 2026 meeting and our June 8th, 2026 meeting. Is there a motion on the floor? Member Reinfeld, seconded by? Member Lopate, all those in favor? All those opposed? Consent agenda is approved. We do not have any reports of our subcommittee and we have a number of reports from our superintendent. First up will be a performance by the Middle School String Ensemble, who recently won the gold medal at the statewide MICCA. Congratulations.
[Sophia Chang]: Thank you for joining us to celebrate the children's hard work and achievement. I'm just very proud of them. And thank you all the parents and administrators and school committee for your continued support for Fine Arts. They are going to play Cakewalk from Serenade for Strings by Lydon without a conductor. Enjoy it.
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: We only get one? That was beautiful. I was hoping for one more, yeah. You want to take a picture?
[Suzanne Galusi]: It's assembling very quickly.
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: It's up to you, yeah.
[Suzanne Galusi]: Usually we do a picture. Ms. Chang, could we just have a picture with the students? Do they mind coming back? We can be right here. They don't have to bring all their... I know.
[Unidentified]: All right.
[Suzanne Galusi]: You get two performances if you fund the schools. Sorry, I'm just jumping around. Now.
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: I'm going to turn it over to our superintendent for one additional announcement under the Mustang moment.
[Suzanne Galusi]: Thank you very much, Mayor. So the second part of the Mustang moment this evening is just a recognition of the spring athletes for Medford High School. I'm going to just list the accomplishments. It's been a very busy season, and between graduation already happening and sports kind of actively coming to a close, I just want to make sure that we acknowledge our spring athletes. This spring, Medford High School enjoyed three GBL Greater Boston League championships and nine postseason berths. So athletes were not, as I said, able to attend, but in order to acknowledge them, the GBL champions are boys lacrosse, girls lacrosse, and girls softball. The postseason teams were boys lacrosse, girls lacrosse, softball, baseball, girls track, boys track, boys tennis, girls tennis, and crew. It also says to congratulate the GBL All-Stars, but that vote is being finalized tomorrow, so I don't have a list of the spring GBL All-Stars. We'll make sure that we include that in the Friday memo so that the students are rightfully acknowledged. The timing just didn't totally line up with the end of the spring season. So just wanted to make sure that we acknowledge the spring athletes and thank them and acknowledge them for their successes. Thank you.
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: Thank you, Dr. Galusi. Next up, we have the Roberts Elementary School HVAC project update and recommendation to approve. RFS engineering and Mr. Ken Lord, chief operations officers, here for questions and online.
[Suzanne Galusi]: I think there was going to be a request
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: Member Ruseau.
[Paul Ruseau]: Sorry. Motion to take the budget item out of order.
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: Motion by Member Ruseau, seconded by Member Graham. All those in favor?
[Paul Ruseau]: Aye.
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: All those opposed? Motion to take the budget paper out of order. So that's our item number four, budget update and approval. Mr. Gerry McCue, budget analyst, and Noel Velez, our director of finance.
[Suzanne Galusi]: Thank you. Jerry and Noel for coming here again and all of your hard, hard work. I do want to just take a moment to thank publicly the mayor and her team for allocating additional funds to Medford Public Schools. We were very incredibly grateful for this additional allocation, and we deeply appreciated the extensive work by her and her team to secure these necessary funds for the schools. This evening, you're going to see the continued work that we did in reviewing and closing the gap that we had. This year has truly been one of review and reflection. And this evening, you will see what was consolidated, reduced, repurposed, and what we were able to bring back. So again, many thanks to the mayor. And I will turn it over to budget analyst Gerry McCue and our finance director, Noelle Velez.
[Noel Velez]: Thank you both very much. Thank you everyone for today. So as you see here on our next slide, we're just going to give a quick review of where we were in our last meeting and where we are now. So originally, we had presented a preliminary budget of $89,933,398. The city's original general fund budget allocation was $87,750,000, which gave us a variance of $2,183,398. After the finalization of the city's general budget of $89,100,000, we came to a variance of $833,398. And over the next few slides, we'll talk about how we closed that gap to have a balanced budget. So on this slide here, additional savings needed to close the remaining budget gap. We ended up moving approximately, well we ended up moving $962,568. And beneath that you'll see a summary of how we came to that number. We're moving one special education coordinator to our fiscal year 26 circuit breaker. We're reducing the math high school teaching staff by three, one in ELA, one in science, and one in world language. These are all covered by retirement or non-renewals. We're reducing the Medford High School vocational program by one early education staff member due to low enrollment. The staff member will be transferred to an open vocational grant funded position. So they will still be on the staff, but they will not be affecting our general ledger's budget line. And the correct paraprofessional overstaffing over at the Brooks, we're reducing by four paras, three to be transferred to vocational programs and one non-renewal. To continue on the narrative, We're reducing one para at the Misita currently on workers competition. The person who was filling in for that para on workers comp is currently, will still be funded. We'll be discontinuing the para behavior specialist position over at the Brooks. We're gonna discontinue a psychologist position funded in the Roberts. This position will be shared between the McGlynn Elementary and the Roberts. We're going to be reducing one academic support position at the high school currently assigned to the vocational program. And also we found other areas of savings in non-unit salary schedules versus actual budget costs.
[Gerry McCue]: Yeah, just wanted to add that you know, the teachers at the high school were a result of, you know, We were informed by the schedule that was developed. We did the, we did something different this year. We scheduled the students first and so it's the case that all the sections are completely covered and we have three extra positions as a result and that work is actually continuing. With the paras, we, you know, I guess what I would call it is position creep. We had special ed director looked at the regulatory requirements for staffing and based on that, we can repurpose those paraprofessionals to other vacant positions. We did also manage to get a few extra savings. We get, we had the stadium mark for our vocational program ban. So we'll be able to save $50,000 in our budget for that. We reduced slightly the asks from the academic directors. for supplies and materials that covered challenge courses, electives, high quality instructional materials, things like that. So they still will have a sufficient budget to make those purchases. And then we were able to reduce the waste management account. We kind of right sized that to what we're actually spending with them and the same thing with a copy of lease in the vocational program. We were just slightly over budgeted for that. So this is also in addition to closing the budget gap we wanted put back some spending that was previously cut so we're proposing to add back the art teacher at the high school and the inclusion specialist district wide and then additional funds to fully fund our professional development plan for next year and adding even though we cut contracted maintenance, we're adding $50,000 back. So we're pretty close to what was asked for in that account. So this is just a recap of the elements of how we close the budget gap and we get that down to zero because we want to be able to make sure we're aligned with the funds the city provides for us. And then just a recap of what the final budget will look like bottom line. So happy to answer any questions you might have on this.
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: Thank you for the presentation. Any questions or any motions from the chair? For the chair? Anybody from the committee before I go to the students? Do you want to speak? Yes, the students.
[Aaron Olapade]: Yes.
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: Feel free to sit down if you'd like. Member Master Boney's chair, Cat, if you don't mind.
[Alachie Yeager]: Yeah, it's a relatively small thing. I just noticed that you said you saved some on the, like, non-unit salary schedules versus actual budget cost. What was, what is the sort of, for people that are watching or for people like me that might be West Lell-versed, what is the, could you maybe expand on what that means?
[Gerry McCue]: So, most of our employees belong to a union and the, There's contracts negotiated over salaries and terms and conditions of work. But there are a handful, well more than a handful, but there's probably about 50 or 60 positions that are we call non-unit, so they're not affiliated with the contract. So their salary is set by school department policy. And we budget money every year in order to give those people some raises. It turns out that what we gave out in raises came in less than what we budgeted for. That created some budget savings, and then we could put it towards that budget gap that we had.
[Alachie Yeager]: Wonderful. Thank you.
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: Ryan, do you want to come up?
[a17_UOV__Vs_SPEAKER_20]: First of all, I just want to say thank you for doing the budget and I think it's great that we got the deficit to zero dollars. I think that's awesome. One question is could you go more in depth to the open vocational grant funded position? Is that like a position to any of the vocational shops or just an open one that's going to do everyone? Can you go more in depth of that?
[Suzanne Galusi]: Thank you. I could speak to that one. So that one is still kind of being figured out in terms of the needs of the vocational program. Next year, we're bringing in two new shops. So information systems and plumbing are coming on board. And so Mr. Fallon is working between many of the grant opportunities. As we all know, he was also awarded $1.75 million in a grant to help bring these new programs on as well as develop the others. So part of this position would be in support of new teachers, existing teachers, and existing programs that may need a little bit of extra support. Once we have that finalized, we can kind of give you an update. But it's still being worked on.
[a17_UOV__Vs_SPEAKER_20]: Just a quick question. What is in the informational support
[Suzanne Galusi]: information systems?
[a17_UOV__Vs_SPEAKER_20]: Yeah.
[Suzanne Galusi]: That's okay. Information systems is a CTE, it'll be a new CTE shop, and within that shop, students learn the various levels of information systems, both in the, I believe it's in the, I'm looking at Dr. Talbot, in the IT networking field, but I can find more specifics for you, Ryan, if you'd like.
[a17_UOV__Vs_SPEAKER_20]: I would like that. Thank you, guys, again.
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: Thank you, Ryan. Any questions or is there a motion on the floor? Member Ruseau?
[Paul Ruseau]: Motion to approve the FY27 budget.
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: Member Ruseau, seconded by Member Reinfeld. Roll call.
[Paul Ruseau]: Member Graham? Yes. Member Mastermind is absent. Member Olapade? Yes. Member Parks? Member Reinfeld? Yes. Member Rossell? Yes. Mayor Lungo-Koehn?
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: Yes. Six in the affirmative, one absent. Fiscal year 27 budget has been approved. Thank you for your work and thank you for your presentation. Motion to report back to the regular order of business by... Member Ruseau, seconded by Member Lopate. All those in favor? Aye. All those opposed? We are reverting back to superintendent's report number two, Roberts Elementary School HVAC project update and recommendation to approve. RFS engineering and Mr. Ken Lord, chief operations officer, to present. Welcome.
[Kenneth Lord]: Thank you. So tonight we're going to hear the feasibility study and options for the Roberts Accelerator Repair Program for HVAC and roof replacement. Brian LaRoche from PCA 360 here is going to do most of the presentation. He can introduce his team.
[SPEAKER_22]: Thanks very much for having us tonight. And again, I'm with PCA 360. We're the OPMs for the project. So this Roberts Elementary School project is partially being funded through the MSBA Accelerated Repair Program. So I know that you had a presentation just recently on the new high school, which is their core program. So this is a little different than the high school project. So, the accelerated repair program follows slightly different parameters. So, we'll get into a little bit of that as we go through the presentation. So, we're very early, if you could go to the next slide. We're very early in the process with the MSBA. And so, in this particular program, in the beginning, we have to study three options for how we're going to replace the HVAC systems and electrify the building, basically using heat pump technology. So we have completed the initial study of the building and then looked to see what would be appropriate for the three options. So we're presenting them to you tonight. And the idea is after tonight we'll, or I guess you have a little bit more time, maybe a week or so, when we hear your decision, We're going to take that one design and develop it up to the schematic design level. The MSBA, before we submit to the MSBA board, requires that we've selected one option and we've developed it to schematic level. So tonight, you're seeing feasibility. Very early in the design. We've only really been in the process for about six weeks. And so that's where we're at right now. In the MSBA flowchart, the red star, you can see where we're at in the process. So in the, as we move forward through the project, we'll move into funding the project, and that's really a two-part process. The first part is we present the schematic design package to the MSBA board. That will happen at the end of August for the October 28th board meeting. And then once the board then votes, then they'll kick it back to the city to appropriate the funds for the project. And then once the city has appropriated the funds, then we will be able to move into the detailed design. So I'll tell you a little bit more about schedule. If you could go to the next slide, please. As you can see from here, as I mentioned, we're in the early phase of the project feasibility slash schematic design. And we have, we'll be before you again before we finalize this scope. We'll come back with the schematic design presentation and ask for your approval before we make a submission to the MSBA. So that will be happening mid-August when we'll come before you. So that will have to be scheduled. And then after that, like I said, we would go through these approval process between the MSBA and the city. That takes us to about the first of the year. And then right at the beginning of the first of the year, we're going to develop the design to a level we can go out to bid for the project. The goal for our project is we want to get your project out to bid and awarded with plenty of time so that we can use summer 27. There's quite a long process of getting through submittals and shop drawings and ordering equipment and so forth before we can do anything in the field. The summers are extremely short, and we have to make sure that we have all of the planning in place well in advance to make sure that we make the summer a success. So we see this project as a two-summer project, and we have two options to present to you. Each one is a little bit different in terms of its timing, and again, we'll get into that a little bit as we get further into the presentation. So with that, I just want to talk slightly about the accelerated repair program. So next slide, please. I know I watched the presentation that was made to you and it was a discussion about how the MSBA reimburses in a core project and, you know, what's the effective reimbursement rate. On an accelerated repair project, there aren't as many exclusions to the project. So, I know your reimbursement rate from the MSBA is 53.32. You know, there will be probably a few things will be exempt, but generally speaking, if we stay with the program of replacing the HVAC systems and the roof and making the ADA upgrades, it's generally all reimbursable. So that's the good news about this project. It's only if we start adding on other scopes. For example, I know it might come up tonight, if we add solar to this design team's scope, the MSBA wouldn't reimburse for that. But it certainly could be part of the project. So what we're presenting to you tonight is largely all part of the program following the requirements. So everything is pretty much reimbursable. Change orders, of course, with the MSBA are subject to their final approval. Anyhow, so the, again, you're getting a very good reimbursement rate of 53.32, and with that, I just would like to talk to you briefly about the scope before I turn it over to our engineering team. So as I mentioned, it's roof replacement is part of this, and because of the size of the project, we will trigger ADA compliance. The building is not that old. It was built in or opened in 2003. So at that time we had ADA. So, the building is basically compliant, but we did have a code consultant go through the building, and they did an extensive evaluation, and there are a few things that we do have to do. You know, there's a coat hook in the wrong spot. The mirror's too high. The toilet's a little bit too close to the wall. So, those are the types of things that we have to do. And in all, they amount to about 500,000 for a building of that size is really not significant. So the good news is we're not adding an elevator or anything sizable like that. These are all fairly small moves. And then, so on the roof, let me just touch a little bit on that. So the existing EPDM roof is at its end of its useful life, so it needs to be replaced. So we do have options on the roof replacement. The MSBA asks us to look at a recoat, which gets you about 10 years more of life. But we know that the city wants to move forward with solar, so we know that that's not a viable option for you. And so when we present the schematic design package to the MSBA, we'll let them know that. If we're putting solar in the roof, which I know you want, and that's a goal of the city, we need a new roof on there that's going to have the full life of the roof before you put solar. That way the roof warranty and the solar system match in terms of how long that they can be on the roof. So what we'll present to you in the budget later on is a roof replacement. with a PVC system, 80 mil because that's what solar needs. So that is already baked into the scope of what we're considering at the moment. Then we get into the HVAC and our team from RISC Frost Engineering is going to go through that in detail. The only other thing that we're as a team looking at is making the building future ready for full electrification, making sure that we're sizing the electrical service so that as time moves on, that the work we do now is set the building up for that. So we'll get into that a little bit more in the presentation. So with that, I am going to turn over the presentation. Just a moment, if the RISC4AST team want to come up, I'll just finish with the next slide on the roof just to give an overview of the project. So the school here, aerial view you see, on the left corner, there is already an existing mechanical well in the building. So all of the equipment, the rooftop equipment, is inside this enclosure, which is an acoustic enclosure. So that's something that's gonna come up in our presentation that we'll talk about a little bit later. There's an option where all the equipment fits in with this existing infrastructure. And then there's a third option where the equipment has to go in the higher roof and now we get into considerations with noise in making sure that we address that in the project. But we're looking at replacing entirely all of the black area with new roofing systems. And if you could go over to the next slide. I talked just briefly about some of this, but as I said, the roof is at its end of its useful life. Edge flashings, especially that well that I was just describing with the mechanical equipment, there's a lot of active leaking. The roof has been infrared studied, so we know there are some points of failure even on the upper roof where roof insulation has gotten wet, and there's quite a bit of it. So when we move into the next phase, we'll be looking at options of whether we can reuse and augment any of the insulation to save money. And that's something we'll be studying a little bit further as we get into this. But for the moment, what we're presenting to you tonight assumes a full roof replacement, including the insulation. That way we can get down to the roof deck and put in the proper membrane. for vapor control. So that's what we're considering right now. And next slide, we can kind of briefly go right through. I already talked about code compliance. It's largely ADA. Because of the scale of the project and the assessed value of the building, we exceed 30% threshold. And at that, we have to look at full compliance with accessibility. So that's why we're considering it. Okay. I will stop talking and I'll come back at the end and we'll talk about the options.
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: Thank you.
[SPEAKER_22]: Sure thing.
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: Welcome.
[SPEAKER_03]: Thank you. Hello everyone. My name is Goshi. I am Senior Mechanical Engineer, RFS Engineering. And with me today is... I'm Stratton Newwood.
[SPEAKER_17]: I'm the Project Executive with RFS Engineering.
[SPEAKER_21]: Griffin St. Onge, Mechanical Engineer, Project Manager.
[SPEAKER_03]: Thanks for having us today. Everybody can hear me okay? Okay, great. I'm going to start with some slides regarding heating, ventilation, and air conditioning options, starting with describing what we have for existing conditions. So if you don't mind moving on to the next slide, please. Thank you. Um, the current building have, um, a whole bunch of systems. We have a bunch of air handlers. We have, um, so basically you have, um, four, uh, three air handling units. One is serving, uh, CAF and another unit is serving, uh, gym. Um, and then there's another unit that is serving office and admin areas. All these three units are located inside a mechanical room. And the cooling source for these is an existing chiller that is inside that well that we just were talking about just a few slides earlier. And the heating source for those units is two gas-fired boilers. The classrooms, majority of them are served with unit ventilators. So they're not served by air handling units, but they're served by unit ventilators. So the air conditioning and ventilation is done through the unit ventilators. Most of this equipment is approaching end of life, ranging from 15 to 25 years life expectancy. and should be replaced. The one part that I neglected to mention so far is that the air handling units have the cooling system is refrigerant based. It's outdated. The air cooled condensing units and the refrigerant systems that go along with it are 410A systems that are now obsolete and also in pretty rough shape. Moving on to the next slide, here what I'd like to talk about is what we've done so far for studying the heating and air conditioning and ventilation options. In particular, what we bring to table as far as the thermal energy sources. So in light of the electrification, We've looked at three different options and we're presenting to you what we've evaluated so far. Generally, heat pumps use, they're all electric systems, and they use different sources to extract heat from a particular source, whether it be an air or ground source. And that's what we're presenting. So we have three options. Option one is the air to water source heat pump, where the heat pumps are utilizing air to draw heat in and out of the building. You can think of the heat pump as a... And in simple terms, it's kind of like a refrigerator in a house. So a house being the outside and the refrigerator being the actual conditioned space that it's serving. The only difference between that and this is the scale of things. And what heat pumps do is they're also reversing. So in a technology, they can provide heating and cooling and sometimes simultaneous heating and cooling too. So technology has evolved a lot when it comes to heat pumps. And I'll go a little more in detail in the next few slides. The option two that we've studied is a ground source or also called geothermal option where the source of energy is essentially earth. You know, heat sink is used to take the heat out of the building in summer months and putting into the earth and then draw back in winter months to heat the building. The third option that we are looking at is air source heat pump options. This is sort of a hybrid option where we look at the VRF systems combined with air to water source heat pump for reheat. I'll get into that a little more detail shortly here. Each of these options reduce energy use and also lowers emissions. The options vary in cost, complexity, and incentives. So each one of them have pros and cons in what they bring to the table. Next slide is option one, air to water source heat pumps. So like I described earlier, in this particular option, the air to water source heat pumps are going to be located inside the well and are going to be used to provide heating and cooling. They have an inherent problem, not problem, limitation where they stop operating at a certain ambient conditions, so require a backup source, which would be boilers. And the boilers will only be used as a backup when the temperatures go sub-zero. In this option, what we intend to do is the existing air handling units, we like to replace certain things. For example, all of these existing air handling units have refrigerant coils in them. Those will be replaced with hot water, chill water coils. And we're going to modify controls, add controls to the air handling units for better modularity and efficiency. So currently out of the three air handling units, one is a variable air volume system, while the others are constant. And with constant means the fan's running all the time, using a lot more energy. So introducing intelligent controls will help save us energy. All the terminal units that are inside the building will be replaced with new, primarily because they're all designed for higher water temperature associated with boilers, whereas heat pump technology provides lower water temperatures. So everything needs to be replaced with kind, however, sized for appropriate water temperature. The, any questions so far on this air to water source heat pump? Okay. Next option is the geothermal ground source heat pump option. The thermal source is essentially geothermal wells. We have a slide coming that kind of shows, you know, how the wells are laid out. And this, the difference between this and the previous option is that all the equipment is indoors. So the heat pumps actually reside inside mechanical room which is the current mechanical room have enough space to accommodate them. That's where we think they would go. And so we don't think that there's additional mechanical room requirements for that. What happens is that there are pumps that pump water from geothermal field to the mechanical room. It goes through the heat pump. That's where the conversion happens. That's where you reject and absorb the heat. And then you would use additional set of pumps for heating and cooling and supply to the building. And that would mean replacing any refrigerant coils in the air handling unit system. So essentially what we do with the air handling unit systems in the previous option, this is the same except that, you know, the source is different. Same goes for terminal heating devices, same thing. The water temperatures are much not as hot as the boiler system. So you're talking about 120 to 130 degree water versus 180 plus minus. So it requires all the terminal heat devices to be changed. That includes VAV boxes, cabin unit heaters, propeller unit heaters, and your unit ventilators. or any perimeter fin tube, stuff like that. Will you go on to the next slide, please? That sort of shows... about 60 plus minus geothermal wells intended to be about 800 feet deep into the earth, and they're sort of staggered. One of the key note about the geothermal wells is that the actual bore is roughly around eight to 10 inches round, but they, because they're a heat sink, they require more, you know, separation between each, bore so that they can perform well. So they're staggered that way, and they take a little more space. I think usually typically is 20, 25 diameter around them. Any questions on geothermal? The next one, the last option that we've put forth here is the air source heat pump. So air source heat pump, also sometimes referred to as refrigerant or VRF systems. And in addition to that, because we need reheat water, sort of a hybrid, so a small portion of that system will also be an air-to-water source heat pump. The location of the equipment will be mostly outside. Most of the heat pumps will go in the same geothermal well. That's the intent. both refrigerant and water pipes will go into the building to serve, you know, miscellaneous terminal heating and cooling devices. This will also include replacing the existing units with package rooftop units, air source heat pumps. That will also have energy recovery. There will be a backup option required for the air to water source heat pump, so we will be using boilers for that. The terminal units for this option, we will have new unit heaters, new VAV boxes, new radiators, and then most of the cooling and heating for majority of the spaces will be done through VRF style ceiling cassettes and that sort of thing. They're fan coil units essentially, sometimes called AC units. And that's how the building will be conditioned. Moving on to the next slide, I'm going to pass this to Griffin here. But before I move on, any questions on the third option? We can also come back to all these things later.
[SPEAKER_21]: So we understand that Medford is interested in planning for the future, for future electrification. So with this project, though it's just a retrofit of the head-end systems, we are going to be planning for the next step of this school. So we're going to be making sure that one of the only major architectural changes is upsizing the main electrical room. So we have a couple options of where we're thinking that could go, but we're going to make sure that we have enough capacity for not only this current project, but for the future solar, as well as eventually when the domestic water heater needs to get off of, be converted from gas to electric, we'll also have space there as well. So in doing this, it'll make the next future electrification project more reasonably priced. And regarding the solar panels we did do a study which I'll get into shortly. Like Brian said we are planning to upgrade the roof and make sure that structurally that will be prepared to in the future put PV. or solar panels. We will also be in the scope that we got priced, we're going to be putting down empty conduits from this new main electrical room up to the roof so that this PV project will be streamlined and it'll just be majority just a project up on the roof and we'll have everything already ready. You go to the next slide please. So this is the preliminary layout. So we're showing two different studies we did. The first one is the base, which, like Goshi mentioned, option one and two, where we're going to be reusing the air handlers. So we approximated about 14,000 square feet of solar panels. which will come out to about 250,000 to 285,000 kilowatt hours per year, which will offset the utility costs about 10, 15% for the school. This will also offset about 20 to 25% of the emissions as well, eventually when we move on to the PV. And then on the right is if we decide to go with a option three, which would be new air handlers on the roof with energy recovery. So it just reduces the space needed for those air handlers to about 9,000 square feet. But it still leaves plenty of room for getting some renewable energy onto the site. Can you go to the next slide, please?
[SPEAKER_17]: So I think the important point here on the three options is what do they cost? So we'll be presenting the life cycle cost analysis that we did. So in order to do this, we build a computer model of the building. We declare what system options are going to be, the insulation, hours of operations. A lot of these things are assumptions at this time, but it's been set up so it's equal on all three options and we can do a comparison. So this shows the capital cost of just the HVAC systems on the left column there. So you can see that the cheapest capital, the least capital cost is the air to water heat pump system. This may be a little counterintuitive if you've seen air source heat pump on other projects, but it has to do with the nuances of this project, specifically that we are removing the unit ventilators. The unit ventilators, as Goshi mentioned, not only they poke through the exterior wall, in order to air condition the space, but also for the ventilation. So if we remove those, we have to add back in ventilation, which is the dedicated outdoor energy recovery unit that Goshi mentioned. So that is why that the capital costs of option three are a bit higher, and the costs of The option two, the ground source heat pump, that differential comes mostly from the drilling that is required. So the middle column shows the total project costs, and then the far right shows the differential. If we move to the next slide, what you'll see here are incentives, so tax credits and mass save that can help to offset some of these costs. Mass Save provides incentives for all heat pump projects. So we've put those in the far right column. You get slightly higher incentive for the ground source heat pumps. The other benefit of the ground source heat pumps is the tax credits we've worked with a company to help estimate what tax credits might be available for this project. It's important to understand that these are a snapshot of the incentives and tax credits at this point in time. These are ever-changing and not guaranteed. So if we move to the next slide, I think that this is an important slide to show the difference in performance for the building as it currently stands. in comparison to what we are proposing. So what this slide is showing is energy use intensity. So that is how much energy in KBTU per square foot per year. And this equalizes across systems. So it does not consider the source of the energy. So the source may be a coal-fired plant providing electricity, it might be a hydroelectric dam providing electricity, or it might be on-site combustion. But this equals it out to just how much energy in KBTUs is being used. So you'll see all the systems, the heat pump systems, are far more efficient than the existing system. And they're all in the same order of magnitude, which is 40% to 50% less than the existing system. So in the next slide. is calculating the CO2 emissions. You see this is not directly analogous to the energy use intensity. This is specific to carbon. So again, all options will be a significant reduction from the existing system. The red indicates fossil fuel heating to the gas. We will still plan to have some gas in the building for domestic hot water and the backup boilers. Griffin mentioned that we're setting up the electrical upgrades so that all of this can become electric at some point in the future. The electric portion is in yellow. And then the PV, so the potential reduction is 30, 40% depending on the option, but and then as Griffin mentioned, a future PV array could offset further another 20, 25%. So PV is not included in this project, but we're setting it up so it can be solar ready. And in the next slide. Get down to brass taxes here. What is the energy cost? So currently, and I'd like to explain that currently the model is showing $290,000 for an annual energy cost. This does not reflect your exact utility bill from the previous year. This is a model which is dependent on a prescribed year of heating and cooling versus, as you know, every year varies, whereas last winter was 2025 was fairly warm, 2026 was colder. This is sort of an indication from an average year. So what you'll see here is that all the annual costs are predicted to be less. There's a slight a difference between each of the options. The red indicates the gas, the fossil fuel, and the yellow indicates electric. Yes, sure.
[SPEAKER_03]: Just one more point to note about that is that this is, you know, direct comparison. It's modeling. But we think that you may actually end up paying less because we're also incorporating more controls. So more, you know, turn downs and scheduling and things like that. So to reduce, to help reduce, you know, consumption. And so we also think that there is more to this than what you see.
[SPEAKER_17]: That means it'll be a smarter building. The costs that we've included do account for a controls upgrade, not only for the new systems, but tying into the systems that will remain, such as the existing domestic hot water boilers, et cetera. And then the next slide shows a 25-year life cycle. So this includes the capital costs in green and the energy costs, which would be in the red. So you can see that, and we went through this on the capital costs of the HVAC system, that option one has the lowest capital costs, but it does have higher annual energy costs. So the important thing is to look at this together as a whole. And what will the costs be over time? So ground source heat pump has the reverse. It has the highest capital costs, but the lowest operating costs. As Goshi described, the ground is a more efficient heat sink than the air. That's because it remains a fairly consistent temperature, whereas when you're trying to reject heat in the summer, it's hot out. When you're trying to reject cold air cold in the winter, it's cold out. So you lose a little bit of efficiency there. So ground source heat pump is the most efficient. And then in option three, which is the air source heat pump hybrid option, we have a high capital cost as well. And then the operating costs are somewhere in between.
[SPEAKER_03]: Primarily the reason for that, and you know, you can ask the question, like why is the, because they're very similar, the air source heat pump and air to water source heat pump are very similar technologies, so why does it look like this? The reason for that is because in this third option, we're replacing a lot of equipment. So all the air handlers are going on the roof, you know, there's all the conditioning, air conditioning systems are completely just being replaced with new. So that's why you can see the first, you know, the capital cost is that high for that specific reason.
[SPEAKER_17]: And the energy cost is slightly lower. There's contributions from the fact that we are replacing the air handling systems to account for or to add energy recovery. The important note, if you remember back to the solar slide, is because we have to put equipment on the roof, there isn't sufficient room in the mechanical room to add air handling units with energy recovery. They have to go up on the roof. Then you lose space for solar. So that's another consideration there. And then finally, on the next slide, it gives you an overall picture comparing the life cycle costs of each of the three options. And ultimately, whereas the low energy costs start to help the geothermal come into line with the air to water heat pump, there is a significant capital cost investment to that, as well as a more disruptive project. So one of the very tricky things here is the limited amount of time that we have each year to work on this project. In the summer months, we're assuming two summers. I think it would be very difficult to do two summers with the geothermal plus it is more disruptive on the site. So if we go to the final, do the final slide before we hand it back to Brian. Sure.
[SPEAKER_22]: So a lot of technical information, and it's hard to convey it in sort of a short, quick format. But I wanted to take this chance just to talk a little bit in a higher level how the different options stack up, because I think this is kind of important as we start to get into the decision of which option So for me, not an engineer, I figured I'd sort of relay it in the way I think. Option one, when we as a team got together and looked at the school and looked at the school year, we were trying to come up with an option that was pretty different than some of these others. So I think some of you might realize that we don't have energy recovery shown in option one. What we're doing in this particular one is trying to minimize the amount of work that we have to do out in the educational areas. We're tailoring the scope to be within the mechanical areas up on the roof. What we're trying to do is create a project that is cost effective, gets us a significant energy savings, also works with the school calendar, and works with the building itself. So as we get into some of these other options, so for example, between option one and option two, option, sorry, three. Option three has energy recovery. So in that option, you've got to put dedicated outdoor air units up on the high roof. That takes away from solar. So not producing as much electricity on solar has an offsetting gain. So we felt like option one had a benefit with maximizing solar. But yes, true, does not have energy recovery. So what happens with energy recovery is like bathroom exhaust and air that we leave the building, In energy recovery, you capture that heat energy before it leaves and then recycle it and put it back in the building. But that requires a significant amount of duct work throughout the building, duct shafts. So option three means that we need to take some educational areas to put this infrastructure in place to drive new air shafts that don't exist in the building. Option one doesn't have that. So I just want to make sure that these are some sort of distinctions in a less technical way, because that's how I think. So the option two, we have to replace all of the piping in the building. We use a refrigeration-based system. So we're in every ceiling, every classroom throughout the building to do option three. Option 1 reuses all of the existing distribution piping in the building with that system, which means, again, we're in the mechanical rooms. Very different projects between option 1 and option 3. Option 3 is very invasive to the building. Like I said, we're in every space. So I just want to make sure that's clear as we move forward and start to talk a little bit more about, you know, some of the pros and cons. And the team here has done a great job talking about cost. My next slide will talk a little bit more about that side by side so you can see it. And they've already talked about the energy savings and so forth. The other distinction that I wanted to make with option one is that we have, you can leave that slide up, that's fine. The existing enclosure that's on the roof has an acoustic surround. So option one, we're able to stay within that. Option three, we have to look at studies for in the next round. If you decide that's what we want to do, we now have to study the acoustics. We haven't gotten to that point yet. Okay, so cost. So option 1, 2, and 3, I owe you a total project budget which I will give you at schematic design. But at this point, it's still pretty early. We're still flushing out some of the scope. So what we have for you here, what we modeled for option 1 for backup heat, we're saying electric boilers. That's the cost we have here. just we had to pick a number, but that's a point of, when we get into schematic design, I'm sure we'll have other meetings with you, and we can get into whether we replace the boilers with new condensing gas-fired boilers or we stick with the electric. And then we have discussions in schematic design to talk about how does the building have protective heat. So what happens when there's a prolonged power outage? How are you going to keep that building maintained with heat? If you have an electric boiler, then you have to then upgrade the electric generator to run the electric boiler. But if you kept the electric, the gas-fired boilers, then you wouldn't have to upgrade that system. So there are a lot of nuances that we would have to make decisions once we move into the next phase. But for now, we're trying to keep it fairly high level. So in terms of the cost, what you have before you for option one is an electric boiler. All three options have the roof replacement the same. All three options have the ADA. And then I put the incentives there and then what I forecasted for the MSBA reimbursement and then put the city share at the end so that you could look. So with that, we've given you an awful lot of information and I know some of you have some pointed questions for us and we're happy to answer those. Oh, yeah, thank you. The slide I have on the screen, the numbers in the middle column at the bottom vary slightly. The incentive line, there was a miscalculation. It only captured the federal tax credits. It didn't capture the mass save. So the middle option on incentives, the number increased about a million. So from your handout that you were given in advance, that is the one difference on that slide. So it does make the middle option different in terms of cost compared to option three. So thank you for that.
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: Any questions from the committee? Or is that a lot to digest? And member Graham?
[Jenny Graham]: Thank you. I just wanted to say thank you for the presentation. This is like super technical stuff and it's very clear. At least I think I'm clear on what what all you are going to do. But I think it was really helpful to see some of the trade offs that in real time that we're having to consider as we do this around like disruption to this the school year and the school day and. how invasive all the options are and to clearly sort of summarize all of that and wrap it up in a bow of how much it's going to cost. It was very, very clear and easy to follow. So thank you for that. For I'll just say for me like I think that the option one seems to be a clear answer for us for the Roberts at the moment given all of that sort of totality of all of those factors and in particular knowing that we have. 2 more of these coming down the pike. through the MSP accelerated repair program. So I'll yield to my colleagues, but I'm happy to make a motion in just a bit.
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: Member Reinfeld, Member Ruseau, Member Parks, then Leo.
[Erika Reinfeld]: I was just hoping you could comment. Thank you. I agree. This was a presentation that communicated what we needed to know efficiently. Is the performance and maintenance plan similar? I know we saw the operational costs, but in terms of disruption over the course of the lifetime, like we've seen a lot of educational things get interrupted in order to be servicing. Are the lifetimes similar of these systems?
[SPEAKER_16]: They're all heat pumps. They're different.
[Erika Reinfeld]: But I know sometimes, you said some of them is reusing existing systems and doing some of that upgrade from the get-go, but are we looking at changes.
[SPEAKER_17]: So we would be using existing piping and ductwork for option one and two and some for option three, whereas option three would have a lot of new piping and ductwork.
[Erika Reinfeld]: And is the new, I guess I'm asking, are new things more likely to be more robust or
[SPEAKER_03]: I would say not necessarily, because all HVAC equipment has a life expectancy. So, you know, for example, motors have their life expectancy, compressors have theirs. There is a lot of good technology out there. Obviously, it has improved in the last 20 years, but it still has it. So that's why the life cycle cost analysis is 25.
[Erika Reinfeld]: But there aren't noticeable differences across the three.
[SPEAKER_03]: They're very similar. Okay. Yeah, they're very similar in nature because the heat pump technology is almost identical. It's just the source that where the energy is coming from is different, but the technology is very similar. And I just had a thought. So one of the things that Sorry, I just slipped my mind.
[SPEAKER_22]: I think your question, too, gets into if we're reusing the piping, piping doesn't have a 25-year lifespan. It has a much longer lifespan. So one of the things that we'll be doing once we pick a direction, we would do some metallurgical testing to that piping to assess its condition. At this early phase, we believe It's all able to be reused in terms of its size, but we would want to make sure that its condition is, we're not going to be dealing with piping failures in five years.
[Erika Reinfeld]: Right, and you're not expecting that putting these new systems into that is going to, one source is going to affect it differently than the others.
[SPEAKER_22]: No, our expectation is the life expectancy of the system when it's complete will be the same across all of them.
[Erika Reinfeld]: Do you have a sense of what that expectancy is? Yeah.
[SPEAKER_03]: So we, in the life cycle cost analysis, what we've tried to measure is that about 25% of your equipment would be expected to be replaced in 15 years. And then in 25 years, all of it will need to be replaced. And the only exception to that is that in the geothermal system, and that's why the bar was lower, is that you don't need to replace the well field. The well field's life expectancy is 50 years. But as far as the heat pump technology, the indoor or outdoor equipment, it's anywhere from 15 to 25 years. They vary, everything varies, so it's hard to just put one number to it, but that's why we estimate that historically it's 25% of it gets replaced in 15 years, and then everything gets replaced in 25. In current systems right now, it's almost at the end of their life expectancy.
[Erika Reinfeld]: Thank you, that's really helpful for fitting into the context of other work we're doing in the district and then across the city as well, so thank you.
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: Member Ruseau, then Member Parks, then Leo.
[Paul Ruseau]: Thank you for the presentation. I did read it ahead of time and I've been the geothermal or die guy for a while now, but I'm definitely going to make a motion to choose option one. Thank you.
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: Member Parks.
[Jessica Parks]: Thank you for the presentation. And yes, I mean, you made a great case for option one, just a few questions. And I had a lot more, I will keep them brief. In terms of how you modeled the The different options I see that kind of your fossil fuel heating kind of looks the same across the board for the three options. How does that work if the geothermal doesn't actually have a backup heating source? Because I think you modeled using the gas boiler backup.
[SPEAKER_22]: No, it's the kitchen and the domestic hot water.
[Jessica Parks]: Okay, so you modeled using electric as your backup?
[SPEAKER_22]: Correct, electric backup boiler.
[Jessica Parks]: Okay, perfect. And then, so that was factored into the pricing for these, is buying a new electric boiler, not reusing the old gas boiler, as it said in, I think it said in one of the slides or something.
[SPEAKER_03]: Yeah, the modeling is assumed all options electric boiler.
[Jessica Parks]: OK, perfect. That was one of my questions. The other one is in terms, you noted that you're installing empty conduits for the PV. Have you considered installing the footings for the PV at all? I've worked on projects where there's been issues with warranties and membranes. Dealing with that, have you ever considered installing the footings for the panels?
[SPEAKER_22]: The reason that we were looking at 80 mil roofing membrane is so that it could be a ballasted system so that you wouldn't have to put any penetrations through the roof. So the recovery board underneath the roof would be designed with a higher density anticipating the solar, but our goal would be not to penetrate that roof with the new solar system. Perfect, thank you.
[SPEAKER_17]: We did verify the roof capacity. So how much existing weight it could support and the accounted for in the estimate, reinforcing the areas that did not have sufficient capacity to support a ballasted PV system in the future.
[Jessica Parks]: Thank you. And then my last question, just as a last ditch effort for the geothermal. Did you consider locating it offsite, potentially at Hickey Park, which is, a wide open area and could potentially lead to maybe many, many years down the road to a community geothermal option as well. But for now, just for the school, does MSBA reimburse for offsite infrastructure?
[SPEAKER_22]: So we did get your question in advance. And so the answer to your question is, it is absolutely technically feasible to have a remote well field. The challenge is that the MSBA and the ARP program hasn't been done before. So we put the question to them today. We haven't gotten an answer back. It's possible, but we don't know the answer of how they would would they fund and reimburse a system off school property? One of the things as I was trying to kind of work through my job is to find what are the challenges, right? One of the challenges for me, we're just finishing a school project now where We put geothermal under an adjacent parkland. And so Article 97 talks about parkland, but this is under. So we didn't have to go to legislature to get any special approval, but we had to essentially go through like a license agreement with whatever authority had control of that park. So the MSBA wouldn't even entertain our schematic design until all of those legal questions had been resolved. So, again, me just trying to anticipate what are the challenges, I think it's a fantastic idea. I think that time might get us. I think that, you know, so what we have modeled for you right now is that we're going to submit to the MSBA in late August to be on their October 28th hearing so that we can come before the city for funding, to be out to bid, whatever. I know. I think, so the MSBA only meets every two months. So if we miss that deadline, and then we're two months later, say, we've missed summer 27. So honestly, I think it's a phenomenal idea, because the biggest challenge with option two is it takes about five months to do all of the preparation, put the wells in, get all your circuiting, all your piping back, restore. And we don't have five months in the summertime. So we would be impacting the school year or, you know, monthly phasing. And then it adds costs to the project. So I liked your idea. I thought it was fantastic. So we did pose the question, the MSBA, would they reimburse? But I think the other question is timing.
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: Great. Thank you. Okay. Leo? And then Member Graham. Oh, did I miss, did I skip you? I'm so sorry.
[Aaron Olapade]: Thank you, and thank you so much for this presentation. I had a couple quick questions. I know that you mentioned that option A, the AWHP, is kind of the most proven system type. Is there any reason as to why that specifically is? Is that just what's the most norm, or is that because what, like, the firm generally leans, because that's what works best?
[SPEAKER_22]: Non-engineer answer, then I'll let you take it. So it's a water-based system. So it's essentially what you have for the educational areas now. So it's a fairly simple system to operate. The third option, which uses refrigeration and cassettes, there's a lot of different types. So what we'd end up, like different areas, we need different solutions. you end up adding a lot of technical challenges instead of a singular type system that's sort of unified across the building. That's my non-engineering answer. How did I do?
[SPEAKER_03]: I'll piggyback on what Brian said. So essentially, in modern electrification, especially today, we look for what's the most efficient and most appropriate systems for certain types of buildings. And in commercial industrial buildings today, we see that ground source heat pump is the most efficient because of the coefficient of power. is 5.0 where the next one runner up is air to water source heat pump, right about 4.0 plus minus. And so it's what's out there. It's not just like it's a trend, but it's what's more efficient and more feasible in terms of installation, familiarity. You know, there could be technology that could live somewhere else, but the challenges with that would be, like, for example, I'll give you an example. There is an air to water source heat pump that is a CO2 driven. So instead of using inside the equipment, using the A2L refrigerants, they use CO2. They're highly efficient, especially in winter months. Down to negative 22 degrees, they can give you 180 degree water. However, they're proprietary. So for public projects, they may not be an option unless we can flat spec it. And another part of that is that they're very expensive because of that fact. Where, for example, you can purchase an air to water heat pump for $2,000 a ton, you're going to pay $6,000 a ton. The other challenge with that is when you have anything that breaks, replacement costs, you know, it's all factored in. So it could be very costly. So currently, geothermal, Number one, air to water two, and then traditional VRF number three. That's what's, I don't even think there is a fourth option. There's hybrid options that you can combine any of these combinations. Someone could ask the questions like, well, all electric is an electric option, but the problem with that is the efficiency, although compared to fossil fuel systems, is greater, but compared to air to water source heat pumps, it's kind of like pretty bad. It's you put in one unit, you get one unit out, whereas geothermal, you put one in, you take five units out. So it's kind of a no-brainer there. Does that answer your question?
[Aaron Olapade]: Yes, absolutely. Yeah, that was great. Thank you. Another question I had, two more. You mentioned noise production on the building. Is that an indefinite concern or an indefinite con that was labeled, or is that just for the development of the additional unit?
[SPEAKER_22]: So with option three, because we're early in the design process, I mean, we're just still sort of very high level. If option three were chosen, the next thing we would have to do is study the acoustics of putting rooftop equipment on high roof because we're very closely, you know, the neighbors are very close. And right now you have a very robust acoustically insulated area for equipment. So option one, we don't have to study that. That works and it will be no change from what you have now.
[Aaron Olapade]: Okay. And then the third question, I don't really know if this makes a ton of sense. To use the backup for option one specifically, I know that there's the requiring a backup heating system or using some of the already existing systems. Is there any understanding or concern about performance reductions or interruptions when you have to incorporate a new system with an existing system Like during the life cycle of the equipment if that makes sense. I know that some people may have questions I know that I do obviously that's why I'm asking about what may happen if at some point later down the line the existing systems have to be then you know the Damage to them or just like the life cycle them have concluded and how that may impact the new the new systems. I
[SPEAKER_22]: So we wouldn't want to keep the existing boilers because they're essentially at the end of their useful life. So we would be replacing them. And again, if we do choose option one, the team has to work through how do we manage recovery or what do you call it, build preservation heat, you know, in a power outage, you know, what do we want to do? Do we want electric boilers that are powered from a diesel fire generator or do we want, gas fire boilers, you know, that we would do like newer technology condensing boilers for that option. But that's something we have to work through. But in terms of when we're done, whatever option it will match sort of the life cycle of everything else. There won't be a difference there. I hope that answered your question. Thank you very much.
[SPEAKER_03]: Can I ask you a follow-up question? Sure. Just for our knowledge, different districts in Massachusetts have different expectations, and what we're finding is that a lot of places, when the conversation is about preservation heat, they often say that we hear you, we think that's a good thought, but we don't really use power for an extended amount of time. And often many towns around here, that is true, right? They don't lose power for more than a few hours at a time. And so what is the expectation or experience here in this town?
[Aaron Olapade]: That might be a superintendent.
[Suzanne Galusi]: I would probably have to concur. There have not been many opportunities, especially at the schools that we are talking about. The one that was from 1970 is a different story, and we are actively trying to work on that. But for our K to 8 buildings, that has not been a concern or an issue.
[SPEAKER_03]: The power grid is OK is what I'm thinking.
[SPEAKER_17]: We can get outage history, and this often comes up when we need reliable sources of power for things like fire pumps in the building. If you don't have a generator, you have to prove that it's a reliable power source. So that information is available and we can look at that, but I would say, and I live locally, Generally, outages are not extensive enough that you have to worry about. When we say preservation heat, it's not to preserve the kids in the class, because if there's an event that's causing an outage, it's probably not school, but you don't want the pipes freezing, essentially. Whereas, you don't have to get too far outside of the Boston metro region where the grid is not as reliable, and this is a serious consideration.
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: Makes sense. Thank you. Leo, then member Graham.
[SPEAKER_02]: The pros and cons here. What would probably be like the most like favored option in like other schools considering like the disturbances and like the cost efficiency?
[SPEAKER_22]: Can I take that? Yeah. They all have you know, pros and cons for sure, but There's more to it than just cost and energy. The other component that I worry about is making a project that's successful. I know you're talking about the new high school. A new building, new systems, that's a different conversation. When we're trying to get into an existing building and have a project not interrupt the school program, I really feel like option one is hitting a lot, it's checking a lot of boxes. We're getting some significant savings in our energy improvement. The EUI is dropped about 40%. And we're moving the building in the direction of electrification, It's a mandate in Massachusetts in, what is it, 2050 that all buildings will be off fossil fuels. So we're checking that box. We're putting all that infrastructure in. We're maximizing the amount of solar on the roof with that option. So I really feel personally that option one is the strongest because it has so many pluses.
[SPEAKER_17]: So one of the reasons that they have us look into multiple options is because, you know, not all projects, not all buildings, not all types of projects are equal, right? So we're talking about the high school. That might be a new building. It might be redoing the existing building. But the situation is different. So here, when we look in detail, where you might think that we often use air source heat pump to retrofit an existing building, it's not an exact fit here. The biggest reason being the unit ventilators. They poke through the wall and bring in the ventilation. It's often when the heating systems in an existing building, right, we have a lot of old infrastructure in this area, when the heating is functioning but they want to add air conditioning, that option is the least intrusive to the building, and we can lay new refrigerant pipe. Right here, we have the advantage of being able to use the existing pipe to the hydronic systems. Hydronic means the water-based systems, hot water, chilled water. So, and then I think we've seen from the committee in a lot of the questions that geothermal is often desired because of its efficiency. The problem is the cost, but in many cases, you can offset that cost with the incentives or the tax credits. We also do, you know, higher ed institutions like colleges or prep schools where there might be a donor who's interested in geothermal. So if the secretary would like to donate so that we can afford the geothermal option, you know, that can make it more palatable. So the big long story short is it really depends on the situation and it's nice to have all these tools in our tool belt and explore them and that's what we've done.
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: Thank you. Member Graham.
[Jenny Graham]: I just had one more quick question. If we decide during schematic design that we want to formally include solar in the scope of this project, is that possible? Yes, it is.
[SPEAKER_22]: We can incorporate that into the total project budget and present that to you. We did talk to the team here. The engineering team has the capability to do the solar engineering design. So we can do that in-house and add it as part of the project.
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: Great, thank you. Is there a motion on the floor?
[Jenny Graham]: Yeah, motion to approve option one. Move forward.
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: All those in favor? Aye. All those opposed? Option one has been approved. Thank you for the presentation.
[Jenny Graham]: Mayor, I think Ryan may have had a question.
[a17_UOV__Vs_SPEAKER_20]: Since option one got approved, all the questions are not really important.
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: Okay, thanks.
[SPEAKER_22]: Thank you very much.
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: Thanks, Ryan. Thank you.
[a17_UOV__Vs_SPEAKER_20]: Oh, Ryan's talking.
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: Yes.
[a17_UOV__Vs_SPEAKER_20]: So thank you, guys. You're very welcome.
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: Thank you, Kat. Sorry. Recommendation to approve updated Medford Public Schools Handbook. I'm going to turn it over to Dr. Galussi, Superintendent.
[Suzanne Galusi]: Three times the charm. So I have. I did consolidate everything from the past two meetings in terms of making sure that we know exactly what this vote entails. It reflects what was discussed in the May 18th meeting as well as the June 8th meeting last week. The two kind of hanging pieces to highlight for this evening, and then I'm happy to take any questions, would be when it comes to the elementary recess. So the following language was put in all of the four elementary handbooks. It says, recess is an essential component of a child's physical, social, and emotional development and will not be withheld as a disciplinary measure. Consequences must be logical, timely, and linked directly to the incident or infraction. This commitment is structurally reinforced and visible across three distinct practices currently outlined within the elementary handbooks, parentheses, discipline code, recess expectations, and homework expectations. Within the discipline code, there is A footnote or an asterisk next for number three where it says for serious conduct violations, it may result in the loss of building privileges. For example, assemblies, recess, intramurals, field trips, extracurricular activities. That footnote on recess, this next statement has been added in all of the handbooks that says, please note that the loss of recess requires school leader, which is a principal or assistant principal approval. So if there is an incident in which there is some sort of discipline issue that has arrived, recess cannot be taken away without the approval of the principal or the assistant principal. There is no change to the recess expectations as It was in there before that it is the expectation that students have their recess, but if a child displays unsafe behaviors while at recess, their time may be limited or taken away as a logical consequence, which is really just a time for the child to regain composure. There also is not a change to homework expectations as there is clear language, although we did bold the sentence in the middle of the homework expectations that says homework incompletion will not result in the loss of recess. We're hoping this adds clarity to the position that we all hold dear around recess time. I don't know if we want to take questions now, but The other piece was around just clarifying for the academic dishonesty panel. I kept that also highlighted. So at the very end of that policy, the section that says academic honesty panel, Under purpose, we have added an additional bullet point that says panel members will be determined annually and remain consistent throughout the school year. The sub bullet says if the panel member is involved in the case, An alternative designee will be assigned. So this gets to the point that it is someone different. It is a neutral panel that will review if there is a need for this appeal process. And then panel composition, we added a few clarifying pieces. So principal or administrative designee, meaning that could be the assistant principal or a content director. Designated panel teachers, so each year as previously stated, there'll be a composition of the panel and those teachers will be designated as such. And then the last one we clarified, so it says involved, so the student that is involved in the case. has the option to join the panel discussion alone or with a parent guardian. And then a sub-bullet to that says the involved student will have the opportunity to share their perspective with the academic honesty panel members before a determination is made. And then I'm happy to take any questions. The rest of this long list of compiled handbook pieces were mentioned in the previous two meetings.
[Erika Reinfeld]: Member Reinfeld, thank you for your work. I have no questions. I will motion to approve.
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: Approval by Member Reinfeld, seconded by Member Graham. All those in favor? Aye. All those opposed? Handbook has been approved. Thank you. We're keeping you on your toes. No presentations of the Advisory Council or nor the public, so we're going to continue business. MSBA project update on PSR. I'm going to turn over to Member Graham, chair of the Medford High School Comprehensive School Building Committee.
[Jenny Graham]: Thank you. I just wanted to provide a couple of quick updates and then I'm going to turn it over to the team to do a very brief presentation and ask for your approval of the revised The building committee, as you know, selected a preferred option last week at C2.2a for those who have been following all the crazy nomenclature. It's an ad reno option. It allows us to preserve the considerable resources that we have in our gym and our pool. It steers clear of the deed restriction that we previously we're grappling with and it meets the educational plan. So that is super exciting. On Thursday, please join us at the Bistro where we will have our last meeting of June. I think we'll have some cake and we will cover an official approval of the PSR submission to MSBA. We'll also authorize the RFQ to go out to bring on our CM, which will happen in the October timeframe. And the other thing that you'll see on Thursday is a framing of some of the next phase of work happening around adjacencies and efficiencies in the building. And some of that early work allowed the team to identify some space reductions that we believe can be made without harming the educational plan or the space or the intentions of of the building, but alas, can save us some space and accordingly some dollars. So you'll see that framing on Thursday, and then we'll use that same process as the team is going through the efficiency adjacency conversation over the course of the summer, really across every single nook and cranny of the building. Some of these things can't really come into focus until you know exactly where they're going. So all of that will happen on Thursday. The other thing that we'll do on Thursday is roll out an updated schedule for the next phase of the work, which will include not just SBC meetings, but propose some joint hearings between the school committee and the city council in the lead up to the decision making that will happen in the February timeframe to authorize a vote. and we'll lay in into the schedule sort of the sequencing and timing of the vote scheduling or, you know, the operational aspects of bringing a vote to the voters according to our So I'm trying to juggle all of that while not tripping on other meetings and making sure that there's ample room for community input and feedback along the way as we go into this next exciting place where we are all talking about the same one building. So that's super exciting. I'm gonna turn it over to the team to do a brief presentation about some of the ed plan changes. And in particular, they'll talk a little bit about the MSBA's feedback and sort of the resulting changes to the ed plan. So I will turn it over to the team.
[Unidentified]: Hi.
[Rosemary Park]: Can you guys hear me? It's Rosemary from SMMA. Yes, we can hear you. Okay, great. Actually, Kim, I wasn't sure if you were going to review this part or I think we had a quite discussed that part, but I can go into this if we can move on to the next slide, please. So as Jenny mentioned, we had received comments on the preliminary design phase report from the MSBA on the 5th of May. And then we, along with Leftfield, the OPM, and the district work together to send responses to the comments back to the MSBA a few weeks later on the 19th. And so the MSBA typically provides comments to the team through two documents, attachment A and attachment B. And if we move to the next slide, please. And you know, I just do want to start off by saying that these comments were very typical of what we see in terms of responses from the MSDA. So while attachment A generally contains comments on pretty much the majority of the PDP report aside from the space summary program because that comes in attachment B. And most of the comments really include just requests on clarifications or expansion of information, and then also asking the team to acknowledge certain requirements or requests from the MSBA. So, you know, we have here that there are generally Um. Many comments. Um a bunch of comments on just clarification surrounding the budget or schedule. Um and then just some further clarification. Um between connecting the educational plan to the space summary. Um and making sure that. The space summary was And then we also, as part of this process, needed to submit an updated educational plan with the PSR submission. So we will, and you should have received a copy of the updated educational plan, the revisions that assistant superintendent Talbot and I had worked through. And these, those changes were, they'll be provided in one tracked versions copy and one clean version copy. And we'll review some of that in a bit. And then can we go to the next slide, please? And attachment B does contain all of the comments that the MSBA had on the proposed space summary. And remember, document which itemizes all of the different spaces within the proposed school. And then, and so the majority of these comments really just asked us to acknowledge that there were comparisons between what we were proposing and what the MSBA guidelines recommend. There were requests to relocate certain spaces to different space categories, such as moving the, we initially had some of the MEEP program under special education, and we moved, there was a request to move that to the other category to be housed with the rest of the early childhood center program. And so a lot of these comments really helped us help clarify to the MSBA and to us what the MSBA may start to think of in terms of what is reimbursable square footage. And so as part of this process, we also sent an updated space summary, which documented these changes, as well as a few, as well as some changes that were Um. Decided upon by the SBC at the April 27th, Um, SBC meeting. In which will will review some of those things with you in a couple of slides. Um and once again, the space summary will be updated again for the PSR That also included the PPP report comments as well.
[Suzanne Galusi]: Thank you, Rosemary. I think that's my cue now. I appreciate that. So, the next, just the high level pieces of the changes to the educational plan are clear distinction between current and proposed teaching methodologies and curriculum delivery. A lot of this was just format. So, headings were added for clarity so that it was very clear to the MSBA what were current and what were proposed. Incorporation of expanded clarification for proposed curriculum delivery narratives and explanations as requested by the MSBA. So again, they just wanted real clear, clear examples. For example, building schedules, how lunches could possibly run. One of the things we are going to have to do is move from two lunches to three lunches. So they wanted to see some examples and some clarity. And some more information, for example, on the seal of biliteracy. Addition to descriptions for non-Chapter 74 technology, curriculum, program needs, media and technology, digital art, scene shop, slash stage craft, et cetera, as requested by the MSBA. And additionally, minor revisions to language surrounding black box drama and engineering robotics courses, non-CTE to incorporate decisions from, as Rosemary said, the April 27th SBC meeting. Those last two bullet points really kind of come down to How we approach this which is reduce redundancies and approve efficiencies. And so as we said at the SBC meeting as well as to this committee before. Our goal is to make sure we're creating flexible, adaptable, multi-use spaces that can grow with the needs of education as well as the needs of the community. We don't know what education is going to look like years from now, and so really creating spaces that are multi-purpose and flexible was the key. MSBA requires that each space is used 85% of the time each day. So when we're looking at something like a black box, We're not going to remove the black box, but having a standalone black box may not check the box to be used 85% of the time each day. However, really monopolizing on large group instructional spaces would be the key so that we could create a black box within a large group instructional space. for the use of black box purposes, for performances, for presentations, for science activities, whatever someone wants to use a black box for. Next slide, I hope that, if there are any questions, please let me know. Then the other piece that I presented along with the team on that April 27th meeting was our approach to what we had three buckets and we said repurpose. So as discussed, creation of flexible spaces, redundancies, where were there overlaps, And where did we need further evaluation? And then reduce. So where are there spaces that we actually could afford to lessen some of the square footage? Office spaces. So this right here is just a list of what was proposed and voted on during that meeting. And I'll just quickly kind of go through them, unless someone does not want me to. This was both an efficiency and a reduction. So there were, in essence, three spaces. There was a science resource room, an engineering, and a robotics lab. And we felt that we would have more efficiency because of our co-taught model to use that science and robotics lab as a twelfth science lab that allows us to equip it the way we need and allows the use for the science resource room as well as a robotics or engineering space as well as a science lab, a 12th science lab. This one I know I've explained a little bit to this body. I apologize for the use of my labeling and titling and I'm about to do it again. But right now, some of our sub-separate special education programs each had their own toilets. What we did here was not remove any toilets, but what we did was really have conversations about what are the programs that need their own toilets within the classroom. It's not that we were removing gender neutral toilets. It's just the toilets for the program. So project transition and access should have toilets in those programs. The remaining programs can have toilets that are adjacent in the hallway at shared use. That's what this refers here. That was an efficiency. Remove the MEAP evaluation team leader space. There was already a team chair office space. That's a redundancy. We don't need to have two. Reduce music practice rooms from six to three. That also was a reduction, but we don't need to have six. We're perfectly fine with using three. Right now, students don't have separate spaces to practice. Three would be sufficient. Reduce media and tech labs to 12,000 square feet, which is the same size as the computer science classrooms. And that is a reduction. We felt that that size was comparable to science classrooms and fine. Keep one makerspace and rename it an innovation lab. This is the flexibility we're looking for. There were two makerspaces on the list. This one will stay as a makerspace. but we want to call it an innovation lab, not a makerspace. Then take that other makerspace and repurpose it as the art photo lab. We felt we did not need two dedicated maker spaces. We keep one, we take the other one, and we make it the art photo lab. That is an efficiency, but it is also a reduction. This was another redundancy. There were three wellness rooms. in addition to restorative spaces within each house. We felt that that was redundant and we felt that the restorative spaces for restorative circles, for mediation, for prayer, are much more important than wellness rooms for our students and our staff. Reduced stagecraft scene shop, this is just lessening some of the square footage, I believe. This is still larger than what the current shop is. I've already discussed the black box and calling in the large group instruction. And then there were a whole bunch of offices. And so a lot of the approach we took was, what can we do to keep this farthest away from students but minimize? What we always prioritize are collaborative spaces, and that goes for the adults in the buildings as well. So we are prioritizing conference rooms and places to gather and work collaboratively. So office spaces do not need to be large. This here lists all the office spaces from mine to directors to principals to a myriad of people, just reducing to get to a level of efficiency that is needed. Next slide. and keeping educational spaces whole. Again, this is the same thing for the project manager, accounting manager, just a list of administrative offices. We don't need large spaces. There was an additional CTE co-op office. We did reduce that. I have it labeled as efficiency because next, and next year, through through the bar grant funding that we just received. We will be adding in a college and career position, and that position will also encompass co-op. So we don't need to have both. We are one school. We do not need to have two offices, so that was reduced. Remove office space for the director of CCSR. We don't need a dedicated office for that. Remove. house office administrative assistants. So what we saw in the space summary was there was additional space within the greeting area. I might forget what that's called. And then additional small classroom office spaces. We want our school administrators, administrative assistants, to be part of that welcome to people in that larger area, the way we have it kind of bullpenned now. And so this was just reducing smaller separate offices. We don't want people working in silos. That's what you see here. It's the same thing for HR. They had separate offices and for payroll. We feel that the bullpen style is much more collaborative, much more efficient for workflow. That's what you see here, reducing the standalone siloed offices. So we also noticed there were two office spaces for transportation. We just need one office for the transportation supervisor. Bullpen as well for our content directors. And then there was a bunch of storage reduction. So what we saw was the clothing closet, we reduced that a little bit because It's actually a little bit quite too large. And then Medford Family Network, we looked at the storage space that Medford Family Network has, which is still more than they currently have. And it's more in line with the storage that Kids Corner has, so that there's some equity built in there, especially since they'll be sharing some spaces. We felt that that made sense. Next slide, please. And then there were a few things that were listed. So the removal of the pop-up gallery, we felt we didn't need one isolated location. We talked about putting these throughout the building, and that was better for displaying student work. Food pantry can be part of the clothing closet, and so that was an efficiency and a reduction. The early childhood multipurpose room could be a little bit smaller to keep in line with the other spaces similar to that purpose. Stroller parking was a separate location. And in a lot of the schools that we visited, we saw that it was part of the grossing factor in that where people are coming in, there may be a larger hallway. That was our suggestion to do here as well. removed central office AV room entirely. We don't need, we already have a room on the space summary. This one was additional, it was a redundancy. Paraprofessionals have a workroom included here, so we reduced that to, we just reduced that a little bit in size, which is sufficient. And then because teachers are also going to have to be, and administrators, lots of people are going to have to be sharing space. This was removing open office hoteling because we already included it in the adjacencies of the bullpenning. This includes, there will already be those like phone booth style type and conference rooms provided as breakout options so people can make private phone calls. It was just a doubling on the space summary. That was a lot. I tried to zip through it, but be thoughtful if there are any questions. Thank you for the update.
[Jenny Graham]: Please let me know. Member Graham? I just want to make a motion to approve the changes to the ed plan.
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: Motion to approve before the roll is called. Elachi?
[Alachie Yeager]: Yeah I just wanted to make a quick thing that we noticed in the education plan but also one less maybe super important things. Two of the biggest space reductions were both was in the robotics like science lab area. I was just curious. I'm in the robotics shop. There's nowhere in the shop that we refer to as the science lab. So I'm just curious what space is being talked about.
[Suzanne Galusi]: I'm so glad you asked that question so that if there's this confusion in the community, we can clear it up right here. This is not the robotics lab that's part of the CTE program. So they have non-chapter 74. And so they had originally labeled it a robotics lab, which would be like an additional for people that aren't in CTE if they want to kind of experiment. We're not saying we're not going to do that. But what we're saying is that we can do that. In an innovation lab and not just solely. I understand.
[Alachie Yeager]: Thank you. Sorry, the terminology. And then one of the things that was thrown a lot here was black box instruction. Just for people that were in the community, maybe people like me, what are you meaning by that term?
[Suzanne Galusi]: Of a black box?
[Alachie Yeager]: Yeah. Well, I know what black box means metaphorically, but I mean in terms of you were saying you, like specifically like the, reduction in the photo lab was not photo lab. I can't find it right now, but you were saying that you wanted that specifically changes the educational plan about black box instruction. Could you elaborate on what you meant by that?
[Suzanne Galusi]: Yes, so a black box is a standalone room. Correct me, Dr. Talbot, if I get this. Thank goodness for the tours because I've seen them in person. It's a standalone room where all the walls are black. They are painted black. Most of them are equipped with some scaffolding above. There is like the back of the house part of theater where people can also kind of like hone in on those skills. So it is equipped with the lighting and some of the technical pieces. During the day, there are some varied uses for that room. It is another large group gathering area. It can be used for performances or for speaker series. It also could just be another large group area. There are no natural light in most black box theaters for that intended purpose. So what we're saying is to be more flexible, maintaining, I believe right now we have three large group instructional spaces, and we want to keep that third one. And either any of those three spaces could be outfitted to turn into a black box if need be.
[Alachie Yeager]: And those three spaces are LGI Innovation Labs? Yes. OK. Yes. Understood. Great. I think that's all. I think Leo has a pretty pressing thing from the instructional plan that he noticed. So if, I know that you wanted to vote and I know it's quite late, but if we could quickly do that, that'd be great.
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: Is it okay to take Leo next?
[Alachie Yeager]: Yes.
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: Leo, then we're going to move the motion.
[SPEAKER_02]: So I was looking through, like I was just kind of going through the pages. For the emergency response plan for the high school, the medical response time, I just want to make sure like it's categorized under Armstrong. And I didn't know if it should be switched to Cataldo because like I don't want to say something happens and they go back to this and it says the average time is five minutes. And then it goes back and say something happens, and it goes to 10 minutes. I don't want them to go back and kind of see this. I don't know if that makes sense. But I don't know if it should be switched or not.
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: Yeah. Thank you for pointing that out. The new contract with Cataldo, we can make that adjustment. Thank you, Leo. Member Graham, you have a motion for approval, seconded by Member Reinfeld. All those in favor? Aye. All those opposed? Paper passes. Oh, Ryan, I'm sorry.
[a17_UOV__Vs_SPEAKER_20]: That's all right. Is this on?
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: Yep, it's on.
[a17_UOV__Vs_SPEAKER_20]: I have one question, really short. Will the makerspace we have in the library be used as the innovation lab or the art photo gallery?
[Suzanne Galusi]: So we had two makerspaces in the space summary. One we're maintaining as a makerspace. The other one we're turning into a digital photo lab.
[a17_UOV__Vs_SPEAKER_20]: So, I'm asking, the digital photo lab, is that in the library? Is that like near the library?
[Suzanne Galusi]: In the library? This would be a separate space.
[a17_UOV__Vs_SPEAKER_20]: Yeah, yeah, yeah.
[Suzanne Galusi]: Yeah, so we'll maintain one of those makerspaces. We haven't talked yet about adjacencies and where things will be located. That's part of the next phase of work that we're gonna do.
[a17_UOV__Vs_SPEAKER_20]: All right, one more question. When would that phase be done? Would that be done near the beginning of the next school year or yes?
[Suzanne Galusi]: Well, we're going to start that a little bit next year and moving forward, yes. And that's where we'll get to decide. Now that we have one concept, now we'll really get to decide what we want in that and where things will be located and what it will start to look like.
[a17_UOV__Vs_SPEAKER_20]: All right. Thank you.
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: Yeah. Thank you, Ryan.
[a17_UOV__Vs_SPEAKER_20]: You're welcome.
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: The motion was called. Do you have another question?
[Erika Reinfeld]: My motion is to take 2026-16 out of order because it relates to this MSBA conversation. Motion to take 2026-16 out of order by Member Reinfeld, seconded by
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: Member Olapade, all those in favor? Aye. All those opposed? 2026-16 offered by Member Parks and Member Reinfeld, a resolution to collaborate on space alternative study with the City of Medford, whereas the Medford Public Schools District is responsible for district strategy and direction for the future of public education related district wide services in the City of Medford. Whereas the Medford School Committee has approved the educational plan that guides the Medford Comprehensive High School Building Project. Whereas the Medford High School Building Committee is a mandated body charged with authority to evaluate, narrow, and recommend design options for the Medford Comprehensive High School Building Project. Whereas the Massachusetts School Building Authority has asked the MCHSBC to carefully evaluate the scope of the project with respect to the continued presence of certain community facing services currently housed in the high school building, such as central administration, the welcome center, kids corner, and the mental family network. Whereas understanding alternative locations and associated relocation capital costs for these spaces is essential to the school committee. and the City of Medford to make informed decisions that align with the educational plan and optimize the use of school and community resources. Whereas the high school design team will be finalizing the project design in October 2026 with the guidance of the MCHSBC and all decisions related to the project scope including but not limited to programming, design, systems and execution must be made prior to that time. Whereas it is in the best interest of the Medford Public Schools District to have this analysis completed and presented to the school committee for consideration and confirmation of alignment with the educational plan and other ongoing district-wide studies. Prior to proceeding to the MCHSBC for consideration, now therefore be it resolved the Medford School Committee requests that the city of Medford share the results of the space study that examines possible alternative locations and associated costs to relocate central administration, the Welcome Center, Kids Corner and the MFN with the school committee in time frame that aligns with the schematic design development. Requires the Medford School Committee to issue a formal response to any findings and recommendations for such a study. Prior to submission to the Medford High School Building Committee. Requires the Medford School District to update the educational plan to reflect any proposed changes as applicable and present this updated plan to the school committee for formal and timely approval. Member Reinfeld and Member Parks.
[Erika Reinfeld]: Yep, so this is in relation to the conversation that was just referenced and the work that's going to be done over the summer to explore some of the non-reimbursable components of the project and to help, since I know the city is going to be looking at alternatives to see what the trade-offs are between keeping things as part of this project bundle. This is a resolution to clarify the role that the school committee is playing in terms of the educational plan with the building committee elected an option for design that allows us to meet the educational plan and just to make sure that that check-in is continuous and ongoing and does not hold up the process because of formal approvals needed. We just saw how the space summaries affect the plan and we want to just make sure there's a mechanism and a very clear mechanism so that every party knows what to expect and who is evaluating components and that the school committee can provide the feedback to the building committee on how things align with the mission since the building committee's mission is to create the mechanism for a high school that aligns with the educational plan. I feel like I went around in circles. Member Parks, do you have anything to add to that?
[Jessica Parks]: across all of the different groups, committees, groups, bodies that are involved in this project, whether it be the city of Medford, the school committee, the public school district, the comprehensive high school building committee, and all of them and how they work together.
[Erika Reinfeld]: Yeah, exactly. And I think it's also a formal commitment to be collaborative in this process and not pitting education against physical space and whatever it is we were working together on this. And this clarifies some of the mechanisms for that collaboration.
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: Correct. Is there a motion for approval?
[Jenny Graham]: Motion to approve.
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: By Member Graham, seconded by? Thanks. Member Ruseau, all those in favor? Aye. All those opposed? Paper passes. Motion to revert back to regular order of business by Member Reinfeld, seconded by Member Parks. All those in favor? Aye. All those opposed? Motion passes. 2026-12, offered by Member Reinfeld and Member Ruseau. Policy second reading, update to policy. Motion to waive the reading by Member Graham, seconded by Member Reinfeld. All those in favor? Aye. All those opposed? reading is waived. This is a policy second reading to the update to policy JJH student travel. Motion for approval by Member Graham, seconded by Member Lopate. All those in favor? All those opposed? Motion passes. New Business 2026-14 offered by Member Reinfeld, resolution to amend the AI guidance in the Handbook and Policy IJND-AI as follows. Current language, educators use of Gen AI should be as a tool to support the teaching and learning environment, but is not to be solely relied upon in place of educator review and judgment. New language, educators use of Gen AI should be as a tool to support the teaching and learning environment, but is not to be solely relied upon in place of educator review and judgment. This is particularly true when assessing student essays and other qualitative work. Educators should not use AI tools to provide feedback or assign grades to students. Is there a motion for approval? Motion to approve. By member Graham, seconded by member Reinfeld. All those in favor? Aye. All those opposed? Motion passes. Jenny did. Member Graham.
[Erika Reinfeld]: Can I motion to waive the second reading since we approved this in the handbooks previously?
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: Motion to waive the second reading by Member Reinfeld. Seconded by Member Graham. All those in favor? Aye. All those opposed? Second reading is waived. 2026-15 offered by Member Reinfeld, where the superintendent, where the, where as the superintendent, superintendents should say, appointment has been approved on a July 1 to June 30 schedule, whereas the educator and administrative review cycle in Medford is aligned with the school year, whereas other districts align their superintendent evaluation with their educator and administrative staff reviews. Now, therefore, be it resolved that the superintendent will provide a draft of her annual goals over the summer to the school committee, and that they will be presented and discussed publicly in September. be it resolved that the official evaluation of the superintendent will happen between May 1st and June 30th each year with any mid-year revision to goals occurring in January or February as needed. Is there a comment or a motion for approval? Member Reinfeld.
[Erika Reinfeld]: I can just comment briefly that because of the odd nature of the interim appointment, we were off schedule from what is kind of typically done. And this realigns it and puts it on the regular cadence and also does not require new members to evaluate the superintendent in their first month of office.
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: Thank you. Motion for approval by member.
[Erika Reinfeld]: I think member Olapade has a
[Aaron Olapade]: Yes. Thank you very much. I just have a quick question slash an amendment that I want to propose. I know you mentioned having mid-year revisions if needed in January, February. I just would ask that we amend that we add some type of periodic updating of the goal setting. That's generally what's been happening already but I think having that in the resolution would be productive just so that community members know kind of where we're kind of stacking up based off the goals that were set from the prior period. So that's my amendment. the language if needed right now. The amendment I have is be it further resolved that the superintendent shall provide periodic reports to the school committee on progress towards the annual goals to inform any necessary mid-year revisions.
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: Motion for approval by Member Graham, seconded by Member Parks, as amended by Member Olapade. All those in favor? Aye. All those opposed? Paper passes. If meetings are needed in the summer, They will be July 20th, 2026, and August 24th, 2026, via Zoom only. Those will be canceled if we don't need them, I believe, per the policy. And our next regular definite scheduled meeting is September 14th, 2026, here in the All Memorial Chambers, Medford City Hall, and via Zoom. Motion to adjourn. Motion to adjourn by Member Reinfeld, seconded by? Second. Member Gray.
|
total time: 13.96 minutes total words: 1195 |
total time: 0.91 minutes total words: 106 |
total time: 2.09 minutes total words: 250 |
total time: 5.16 minutes total words: 221 |
|
total time: 3.28 minutes total words: 358 |
total time: 2.28 minutes total words: 178 |
||