AI-generated transcript of 6.18.26 MCHSBC

[Jenny Graham]: I'm going to read the meeting notice and call a roll. Hopefully we'll have more join us. The rain lets up out there. And I'll be scooped up in a tornado. Okay, please be advised we'll be involved in a meeting of the Medford College of High School Building Committee in person at 489, at 411 Kirk Street, and be there for participation. The meeting can be viewed live on Medford Public Schools YouTube channel, through Medford cable media on the little cable channel, which is Comcast 98422 and Verizon 4345447. This meeting is recorded. Dispensers can log or call in by using the following information. Zoom meeting ID is 999-0039-9763. I will go ahead and call the roll. Jenny Graham here, Mayor Lumbo-Kern. Absent. Dr. Glusi here. Artie Cabral is absent. Joan Bowen? Here. Ken Lord? Here. Cindy Brown is absent. Marissa Desmond? Parita Dorsey? Carl Hilliard? Emily Lazzaro? Here.

[Maria D'Orsi]: Paul Malone? Here. Nicole Morell? Here. Aaron Albate? Here. Right.

[John Falco]: Right.

[Jenny Graham]: Dickinson. Yeah, that's well. Yeah, yeah, yeah. Sally here. Austin. Oh, so here those Santos, Lisa Miller here. We have eight presidents. So in Austin, we have the farm. So we will call meeting to order. The first item of business for us is approval of the meeting minutes stated 6-10. There were two small adjustments made to correct speaker and their address and to clarify one of the comments. Is there a motion to approve? Motion to approve. Or a second? Seconded by Emily. Any questions about the minutes? Okay, I'll roll. Jenny Graham. Yes. Mayor Lungo-Koehn. Absent. Dr. DeLucie. Yes. Cardin Cabral. Absent. John Owen. Yes. Ken Lord.

[Unidentified]: Yes.

[Jenny Graham]: Libby Brown. Marissa Desmond. Maria Dorsey. Brian Hilliard. Emily Lazzaro. Yes.

[Maria D'Orsi]: Yes. Paul Leung.

[Unidentified]: Yes.

[Maria D'Orsi]: Nicole Morell.

[Jenny Graham]: Yes. 8 in the affirmative, 0 in the negative, 7 absent, the minutes are approved. Oh, welcome, Mayor. Hi, good evening. The next item on the agenda, I wanted to do a little bit of framing before we go to the motion. So as you all know, this summary is enormous. And we have work to do that we've been talking about in terms of continuing to look at every single space and every single nook and cranny in this building or close to the building and figure out, does it all belong there in this space? In addition to that, we have some, like, some, like, hinge decisions that we'll have to make. So, for example, Will the auditor, are we going for an auditorium that's 1,000 square feet, 1,000 seats, 800 seats, 750 seats, or 500 seats? So over the course of the next several meetings, we're taking each of those pieces in bite-sized chunks. So the intent is to spread out those conversations. And so at each meeting, we will focus on some portion of the space summary. So there's 10 on the space summary. So we'll take them. section by section. And then we will focus on a particular program. So we might, for example, in one meeting, talk about the teen health center and weigh in and make a decision about does that continue to go forward or does that get removed. So as we go through this next phase, And the team starts meeting with all of the educators to talk about things like adjacencies, what programs are located near each other, where is this in the building, what's on the fifth floor versus the fourth floor, all of those things out of that work is inevitably going to come opportunity for us to say, we should live here, we should talk there, that kind of thing. Um, that's to come. We're working on a schedule that actually will lay out exactly what's happening at exactly which meeting, um, coming up and we'll publish that soon. But we are trying to sort of relate into that schedule. Also things like, will there be listening sessions with the city council and the school committee? And what is the election calendar and how does all of that have to sort of step into the calendar between now and really this time next year? Um, so For tonight, what we wanted to do was frame the efficiency discussion and sort of give you all a model for how you intend to do this section by section. The motion itself says, be it resolved that the MCHSBC authorize the following space efficiencies to be incorporated into the PSR mission. These space efficiencies were identified in conversations that have begun to plan program adjacencies within our CTE program. So I'm gonna let Dr. Pelosi about these specific items, but before we do, are there any questions about the go forward plan due to this like space, this review of space efficiencies?

[Michael Pardek]: Luke? Sure. So we had a large number of space efficiency proposals on April 12th and to avoid, I'll say redundant work, has there been any effort to audit of these future proposals and map that to April 28th, so that you don't have to look at anything twice.

[Jenny Graham]: Yeah, so that's part of the work the programming team is doing. So they are taking everything that was tabled, as they work with the educators in those particular areas, they are looking at those. That and all of the things that are going on educationally, what are the right things for them to bring forward? And those are the packages that are going forward. So that list will be instituted by the project team and the educators. And some portion of that, some portion of them already have been adopted, some maybe tonight. But yeah, that's the plan is that all of that input goes to the educators so they can weigh how does that fit with the rest of the conversation around space efficiency.

[Michael Pardek]: So I was asking if there's going to be an auditing function, so that we don't, I guess, consider things twice. There was a very long list of proposals.

[Jenny Graham]: Well, those are on the table.

[Michael Pardek]: And there's some on the table today. And we just heard this morning about the summer. So I'm asking about the auditing function that maps today's and future against the wines from the evening auditing so that we don't have to look at anything else.

[Jenny Graham]: So when something is on the table, it is not for discussion here. The things that are on the agenda tonight are for consideration. The things that are on the table are like on ice, right? So if we want to take them off ice, they need to come to an agenda. What I'm saying is that will happen if those things are deemed educationally appropriate as these conversation educators come forward. So there's no plan to bring them all forward. There is a plan to bring forward those things that the educators and the project team work through together. And they will also, to the best that they can, take and tag that original list of items that were largely submitted by you. So yes, they will do that, but that's not the focus of the exercise. The focus of the exercise is the educational review of the spaces. Does that answer your question?

[Michael Pardek]: Only part of your answer to my question. They are going to talk. They can be as simple as cost. What I'm trying to prevent is looking at the same thing twice. I understand.

[Jenny Graham]: We will not be looking at the same thing twice. So we will look at what's on the posted agenda each time the agenda comes to us. That's what we'll do.

[Michael Pardek]: Well, I'm just asking if someone's going to worry about the water.

[Unidentified]: Yes, the answer is yes.

[Michael Pardek]: That was the question. Yes.

[Jenny Graham]: Okay. Dr. Pelosi, would you like to frame these proposed changes shortly?

[Suzanne Galusi]: So on that same meeting, on April 27th meeting, the district proposed a series of reductions, redundancies, and as part of that list, there were some things that overlapped with us. So as part of that list of presentation, I put forward to the project team for their review for certain CTE spaces. And specifically, part of that review was around the toilets, the offices, because they have related classroom space. So I asked them to review specifically some of the space that may be dupation or redundant, and specifically to do it in the offices. So what you have in front of you this evening is the culminating result of their review. And I'm not sure if you want me to talk through it, or if you would like to talk through the review, what you came up with?

[Michael Pardek]: Sure. Up on the screen is the list of the items that Dr. Poulos suggested, and then we sort of vetted through a process as well to make sure that it works with sort of the end plan. I think what's important about these items is none of them actually actually touch the ed plan. And that's a commonality that we'll be looking at as we go through this process, even over the summer, because the ed plan has been approved by my school committee in terms of the most recent iteration that happened on this past Monday. So what we're going to be doing is looking for efficiencies. And I think there are efficiencies to be found. These that are first at the top of the list, the first four, really look at trying to combine individual toilet rooms for the CTE shops. They have put dedicated toilet rooms in some cases. Students don't want to hang out into the school because they're working on things that are getting them dirty. And that lost time on where to go find a nearest bathroom and come back is not something that you typically look for. And that's why they had dedicated bathrooms. But as we move forward in the process and we understand more about where two adjacent programs might be that could share those toilet facilities and those changing facilities, the changing facilities are down below. You can eliminate one of right? So we're not taking them all away. We're not shifting them somewhere else. But we found some efficiency by just thinking about how they're going to be paired up within the building in a design way forward, something that we just didn't have as we started into the process before we had a plan and just didn't know which where we could fit different programs. So we were being a little bit more conservative there. But we think that this is a good approach given where we are now about the building in terms of being able to pull back on both the shared toilets as well as the shared changing facilities. There's also the loft areas that currently exist in some of the high bay shops, not all of them, but there are some that have loft spaces. When we originally generated the space summary list, we were just trying to replicate, not exactly, but give that resource. At the same time, I think that resource was deemed like not the most ideal in terms of storage opportunities, because you end up having to lift things up and put things away. So it sort of becomes a little bit like the attic space chat. I don't know if that's a good, description for how they get used. And so we're not suggesting that that storage space goes away entirely, but it basically will shift down onto the shop floor where there's livestock that can be pulled, whether it's conduit and electrical or it's wood, it's two-by's and carpentry, something like that. It'll be more accessible and it will not lend itself to being an attic space because it will get cleaned and organized on the shop floor from a safety perspective. So that, the loft space is what got pulled out. Um, we also look at reducing the size of the related rooms. Um, so every, not every, um, CTE program, most of the CTE programs have a dedicated related to the classroom. Essentially it's adjacent to space, the shop space. Uh, they were previously sized at 900 feet, which matches the academic classroom size. I think we'll probably look at that classroom size as well moving forward, but the realization that with look to make those classes 150 square feet, which is the upper end of what the MSBA allows for classrooms, to really facilitate the co-teaching model where we have a special educator in the room with a general educator at the same time. And so there's potentially more adults in the room, more space that's needed to deliver that hope, because that wouldn't be an exactly similar model in terms of what the related rooms are doing and the number of students that are going to be potentially in the related rooms. It made sense to think about that 100 square foot of production. It will still allow 850 square feet is the lower end of what the MSBA allows, so they give a range of 850 to 950, but it will still allow the early room to potentially be used for academic classes during scheduling. The dooms windows are not being used. We maintain that flexibility from a scheduling and legalization standpoint by gaining some efficiency there. And then lastly, we pulled out the CTV shop offices. So this is something that we had in the program to be somewhat conservative in terms of the planning for things. I know during the program meetings with instructors, a lot of instructors told us they wouldn't really prefer to have the office, but we were trying to be just future-proofing and conservative on the approach. But we decided to go back and say, well, if people are not interested in the offices, we don't necessarily need to make them. We will provide locked desk and storage opportunities, which are within the shop space. So they have direct observation over the students there. So it was a collection of items, and that was generally the rationale, as I mentioned in the prior piece of that.

[Jenny Graham]: Very clear. Thank you. Any questions about the proposal?

[Michael Pardek]: Can I ask whether the adults, can I ask whether the adults or students need to get this advertisement back through? It does. Yeah, so I'll take that back in terms of the numbers that are up here, I don't believe in. These are the three numbers. They are all stuff in terms of when we're pulling it out of the space, though, in the updated estimates that you'll see.

[Maria D'Orsi]: We have a question about the office space. If one of the CTE teachers or shopping for a shopped good luck in office space. So for instance, a garbage might have a lot of dust. Having a desk with a computer doesn't make sense to have it on the shop floor. Or, you know, the chef's in here at her shop floor in the kitchen or in the dining room, but it might not be appropriate to have a desk there. Are those If a teacher does want both, would that be possible to put it back in for civic shops or?

[Michael Pardek]: Down the road, I think that's certainly something that can happen. So, but Dr. Gluski, when we come back in the fall, we'll be doing programming meetings with all the instructors, the 50 or so ideas that we had. And so that includes all the CTE instructors. We'll go through a more detailed shop layout that actually has all the parts and pieces there in some way. And we'll take feedback at that point. So I think if we hear the feedback that one or two want offices, that would be something that we would react to. address as we get to that.

[Suzanne Galusi]: And I think no matter what, there will be shared planning space, just as there is on the academic side. No matter what, there will be space for teachers to plan, grade, do the things that they need to do as part of your role.

[Jenny Graham]: Any other questions about this proposal?

[Maria D'Orsi]: I'm going to add one thing. Sometimes the desk space, the office space for CTE teachers is almost more like a business office in some ways, like a little bit different than like a home-eat-share dining space. I'm not saying that's valuable. Sometimes, you know, there is like things that need to be ordered, like food needs to be ordered, and it's more like a business office. So I don't, it's not that I'm trying to say that Planning space isn't important, but recognizing that there are differences with the needs of such a church. And my shop is not that kind of shop. But I think there are shops. So I just want to keep that in mind. Thank you.

[Unidentified]: Are there questions?

[Jenny Graham]: Is there a motion to approve these space reductions?

[Michael Pardek]: Motion to approve.

[Jenny Graham]: Motion to approve by Lou. Is there a second?

[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: Second.

[Jenny Graham]: You all? Okay, I'll call the roll. Jenny Graham, yes. Mayor Wendell Kern.

[Suzanne Galusi]: Yes.

[Jenny Graham]: Dr. DeLuzzi. Yes. Artie Cabrales. Yes. Ken Lord. Yes. Libby Brown. Yes. Marissa Jesmons. Yes. Brian Hilliard. Yes. Emily Lazzaro.

[Unidentified]: Yes.

[Jenny Graham]: Oh, well, it's awesome. Yes. Yes. 11 in the affirmative zero in the negative for an accident, the reduction. Okay, moving on. We have on our agenda is our authorization to have left the minute our PR to the MS&A. So I'll let the Loudville team take it over.

[Michael Pardek]: There's a couple of updates. So I know the PSR was circulated to the building committee earlier this week, just so everyone could put eyes on it in advance of this meeting. So there was a couple that were sent around. We just want to run through sort of visuals on those, on what we've been able to, since everyone received that in this draft. One of them, there was a note indicating that the D1.1 NP option was included as part of the initial iteration of options, but it wasn't sort of fully fleshed out in terms of drawings and tables and things associated with it. Just as a quick reminder, what that D1.1 NP option was is the NP was remote pool. And this was an MSBA requirement. They have this project advisory 96. basically says when you're considering an all-new construction option as a standalone pool, you also have to include an option for consideration that does not have a standalone pool. It's not the same thing for a conditioned reclamation option. This is solely for new construction options with what they refer to as natatorium. A natatorium is a fancy word for a pool building. So we did have this D1.1 NP option in there. Pricing shared with it for it on June 1st. And when we presented it, we actually added it really at the tail end PDP phase in response to the MSPA reminding us that this need be included as part of the PSR considerations. The drawing that you see on the right hand side is exactly the same as the D1.1 option. There's just no pool building to it. It shows some plaza and landscaping outside it. And there's a cost that is also included as part of the PSR submission. There's really not much to share other than just updating everyone that we did fill out the PSR report with all the requisite parts and pieces of this D-1.1 NP option just for general disciplines. We understand that the pool has always been a very valuable part of the school and part of the project. We've heard that numerous times from the community as a part of it. So I don't think an NP option was going to be viable. This is really more about applying to the campus.

[Jenny Graham]: Any questions about the PSR?

[Michael Pardek]: So I noticed there was a new bed plan. It was dated June 5th. It was not on our S2-10 agenda, and I never received a copy, nor do some of the other changes. We had meetings on the 1st and the 10th, but I'm opening the new BED Plan the first time you saw it, as a draft. For anyone who read the PSR, they do, there's two copies of the BED Plan, the original one from February, and the new one from last week. The original one starts at page 266, the revised one starts at page 668. Um, I think it's our business. So the other plan is a foundation for wider budget. So that's good. Um, within the community don't understand that it's actually the school committee, not the building committee, but it's causing the project to be so big. People naturally think that we as the school building committee are responsible for what's wrong. Um, but it seems to be perception. Because of that perception, the SBC will prepare the Brown public if the project continues to offer anywhere near largest, most expensive value. Second point, proposed space reductions here, they're great, but they're symbolic. They're less than 1% of the proposed 630,000 square feet. And some of those finally go on the gross effect. It's an easy yes, but I think there's a lot more than that. The MSPA pointed to many places where proposal exceeds guidelines, but we have a bunch. I'm not talking about not high school space. There are many examples of oversized spaces that appear in the feedback that's already there. This revised plan, it simply doubles down to argue that our community is collectively asking for all the states. So I worry, and my confidence continues to grow. I worry the MSDA will not be pleased with the PSR, but hopefully we can all laugh about it for all the greater good. We'll see. They'll send us feedback. I think the MSDA perception matters. They barely read Metro's Facebook pages, but they read PDPs, they read PSRs. Their perception matters because the estimated metric share costs that were included in the last thing, those are for like near historic reimbursements to the state. And those reimbursements are administered by the SGA. For example, 818 million minus 591 million is 227 million. That's a huge number. It's only gonna exceed 500 million. And Revere is by far the most reimbursed one in the state history. I want us to have a good relationship with the NSBA. I've taken lessons from Burlington. They spit the NSBA. They asked their community to foot the entire bill for $335 million. Now they have to go back to the drawing board. That was only 330 million, not 600 million. And it was Burlington. a town with a huge commercial tax revenue. So that's happening. Burlington's case, they have a decent fallback. Their fallback is they tried the MSBA approach. They tried the alternative, now they're trying the MSBA. For those on plenty with real professional experience on complex, expensive, multi-year projects, I asked them, do you find it easier, at less cost, to design to them thoroughly? Aerospace, I can tell you the answer is it's always cheaper for the machine to start. It's always better to make change than it is before for a dramatic conversion. I speak for 25 years in this country. I asked the committee to reflect on this. Are we using concepts and language from the 1970s to build a system that excludes? Can we price people out of living here that are excluding them for benefits of this imposed complex. My vote is going to be no on PSR until we get a project with a reasonable size system. I say, I do.

[Jenny Graham]: Does anybody else have anything that they would like to ask or comment about before we vote on PSR? I have a question.

[Maria D'Orsi]: So I do recognize that a lot of the conversations that are happening in the community are about the cost. And when I reflect on my own shop, the space, and I understand a lot of the estimates right now that we're getting are based on square footage. I'm getting a larger center of my life. So my space would be increased by about a thousand square feet, plus I would be getting related. I believe that's following the guidelines, however, and I'm not sure about that. I also recognize that some of the increased space for the school is part of the vocational program. And I'm just wondering when would I be able to say, you know what, I don't need all this space. Some definitely need the space that they're getting. My child, I don't need as much space as I'm being allocated, I'm just not sure where that fits into the conversation.

[Michael Pardek]: I can, I can take that. So, Lisa, when we get to the program meetings in the fall, we'll have an opportunity to have that dialogue to understand it will feel like there's too much space. I will say that the amount of space in a shop, though, is guided by DESE recommendations. And it's tied to the enrollment in the shop that you have. And not to say that we're always just going to look at current enrollment. We want to make sure that we're not looking forward. It also means that we're an unlimited number. We can't just say that we might have 200 students in the shop, right? So that's going to be not viable in terms of the balance of the rest of the programs. can talk about where we are versus the minimum. And if people are looking to reach their above the minimum, what that means from an enrollment perspective. And there's a conversation that needs to happen in chat to have a present for all the meetings as well. Because he's looking at the balance of CT enrollment and problem programs, right? And they're really all connected in terms of what students are interested in. We'll go back and we'll look at just trends as well, anticipations of which which chops are sort of growing the moment in interest, maybe once in a while you understand static and understand sort of where you fit on that spectrum. And we'll try to just back from all men as we go, but you can't go over the minimums of the terms of the enrollment. We have to let the enrollment sort of guide the size of the chops. Is that okay?

[Maria D'Orsi]: Yeah, I mean, that's kind of what I expect. I look at sure like, often it's not clear when we express like, oh, this doesn't, you know, then something doesn't quite make sense. So I just wanted to try that out.

[Michael Pardek]: And when we're coming in the fall, we'll have layouts. That's the first time you can see, like, this is where my related room and my shop space and storage, whatever the parts and pieces of the shop are. And you never get it right on the first try, but it's basically showing the way that we can put it together. And then we'll get feedback from everyone to say, no, we should move things around. It's too big. This needs to be over there, that type of thing. And so it'll be much more. interactive, I think, than our first programming meetings where we're just talking about what you want and sort of in the abstract because we're not having the ability to look at it from our response.

[Suzanne Galusi]: And to that, that is also not just applying to shops, that is applying to all of the processes in the space already.

[Maria D'Orsi]: So that work is likely to happen. And I just want to say that I want to be clear that I'm not speaking for other shops. They're in free space. If they need it, they just

[Jenny Graham]: Yeah, Lisa, I think you're getting those questions. I would encourage teachers to reach out to Chad and Marta. They are part of the leadership team of this project with Dr. Belusi, with Dr. Talbot, with Ken. They are the people who can help guide that input. But they also are here charged with building a building that will withstand whatever is going to change in the next 50 years. whether we think we need something exactly the way that we envision it today, I think what we know is that we will be wrong about that at some point. So trying to like weigh all of that in the balance is why there is an education leadership team and sort of the role that they play. So if there are people who are asking you those questions, I will direct them to chat, Marta.

[Maria D'Orsi]: Maria? I have a question. Well, I'm not sure if there's a question here. I think I'm looking for some clarity based on some of the things that Luke just said. So these changes were proposed back in April, correct, Susanna? That's what I remember. Yeah. And that's what I remember. Now, Luke, you were talking about changes in the ed plan that you noticed between on June 1st and June 5th or something like that.

[Michael Pardek]: There's actually two distinct separate anthems in this song. There's the one which originally released in February, and there's the second one that seems to be an update that was in the course of coordination for release. I looked at it.

[Jenny Graham]: It was approved on Monday night.

[Michael Pardek]: OK. I didn't read that in the minutes, but you say it was funny.

[Jenny Graham]: We don't have time for that. OK.

[Michael Pardek]: So the last minutes I looked at it, regardless, there are two separate, related, but separate documents inside the PSR. One starts at page 280, the second starts at page six something.

[Jenny Graham]: Matt, can you answer why there's two?

[Michael Pardek]: Yeah, I just want to clarify, actually. I can understand why it seems like there's the original one, but there are actually two different versions that are requested, required by MSBA to be submitted. it's the track changes version that shows all the revisions in red, essentially. And then there's a clean version of that. It's the same document, but one of them shows changes from that prior version from February. And so that's what we're going in on at school. They do it just so that it's easy to see where changes were made. And I think it was useful for us when we didn't see it and be able to understand what changes were and sort of issue some sort for them. So it wasn't two different documents that are, it's the same document just has the revisions highlighted and one was not.

[Suzanne Galusi]: And the changes reflect the changes that were voted on at the 427 SEC meeting. So that's what those updates are actually.

[John Falco]: Yeah, I've recognized abstract changes.

[Michael Pardek]: Yeah. OK, I'm just surprised, because they would have gotten a copy of it again if I added the February version. But it doesn't matter. I explained why it's in there. It's counterintuitive to me, but I accept it. I understand it.

[Jenny Graham]: And the YouTube video from meeting on day night is available on our YouTube channel. And the education team did some writing about what did change in the ed plan and sort of identified those things and walked through the space changes that also were reflected back at that point. So I would encourage people who want to learn more about that to watch the meeting, that snippet of the meeting from Monday night. YouTube, yeah.

[Maria D'Orsi]: And I'll just follow up with that. That's why I had confusion. I wasn't sure if it was a chicken or an egg situation there. It just wasn't clear to me. But I do want to make comment, too, based on what Lisa said. And I can support the school library. There is no more fully predicted changes that happened in the school library 10 years ago. It was so entirely different, no matter you know, working in it every day, I could not have predicted how things would look today than they did, you know, back in 2015. So it's definitely something that you just have to bring there and try to make your best guess.

[Jenny Graham]: And I think if there's in the community about who owns the ed plan, you can direct them to the school committee and the school committee would be happy to answer those questions because the school committee is elected by the city to preside over the educational plan more broadly for the city of Medford, and specifically in this instance. So if people have questions, please, by all means, send them our way. We can field those questions.

[Michael Pardek]: The only point I was raising was, and so I respect that the district writes the ed plan, the school committee has approval authority, and I'll say editorial powers, because ultimately they're approving the release of a version. I get all that. The point I was making was, we've got a stake in it too, right? Like, if we don't have any mechanism for feedback, then we're just like a one-way cutthroat for whatever school committee decides. And we have no feedback mechanism to say, well, this is key to the school. That's 630,000 square feet.

[Jenny Graham]: The school committee has heard, I just want to be perfectly clear. The school committee has heard that they are sitting in the room, they are on the bidding, they know, they're aware, and they take that just as seriously as everybody else does. How we are all choosing to deal with that seriousness is different, and I think that's okay, that's why we're a committee. But it is the job of the School Building Committee to create a building that supports the equity. If we don't do that, there is no reimbursement. So it is this committee's responsibility to map the end plan. It is. That is the job of this committee.

[Michael Pardek]: It's also important to note that the end plan could change, and it recently was. And the end plan, if it fulfills the committee's solutions, could, in a hypothetical situation, be changed to the point where the code upgrade is reimbursed. That's a fact. The school committee could go back, rewrite portions of the ed plan, and make the code upgrade actually a reimbursable project.

[Jenny Graham]: But hypothetically speaking, that's not going to happen. So we have to vote. You know what? I'm pushing that.

[Michael Pardek]: I'm just saying. You can't say that the ed plan is, I'll say, not subject to that.

[Jenny Graham]: It is subject to feedback at the school committee. You're all welcome to attend.

[Suzanne Galusi]: The at the school committee, the overview that we gave was exactly what happened at the April 27th meeting. So that was for the community and for the greater committee members, not on the SBC. So we literally went through the reductions just like I went through to this body on April 27th. And then the only other thing is for the pieces that MSBA actually suggests we do, like add headers to certain areas, or just explain a little bit about, like literally say, this is how you're educating students now, current, use the word current, and then use the word proposed. It was very scripted in a way. And then it was really just, this is from that April 27th meeting. And those will be the track changes that you see. And that was the update to the ed plan. There was nothing else in there. And Dr. Talbot and I are happy to answer any questions that you may have about the ed plan, especially Dr. Talbot.

[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: If I may, through the chair, And I'm sorry I can't be there in person. I planned on being there. I'll give a little comic relief. I planned on being there, but I left city hall, got stuck in the rainstorm, got in my car, realized I forgot to lock the office and had to do it again. So I was soaking to the core, but I, not to talk about the ed plan, but just to acknowledge what I think, where I think Luke is coming from, which is just a fear of this being too big and too expensive and, We all want the same thing, which is to get that debt exclusion passed and to get to a place where we know it will pass for our kids and for our faculty. And I just wanna point out, ed plan aside, that we spoke about it at the last meeting. There are two deliverables. The city is looking into the Curtis Tufts and that space where hope we think we got a quote. that we're gonna put before the council to appropriate the funds and have that evaluation done by Labor Day. And the city's also looking at the debt plan further out than obviously the next 10 years, which we know are tight. And then I just, we spoke last week too about the second deliverable and I do think you know, some of these meetings are obviously internal. We had left field and the, I think the head of left field at our meetings, Dr. Galussi, myself and chair Graham, and that second deliverable is doing the hard work that we need to do this summer and then take, you know, some tough votes over the fall. And I do feel that between deliverable number one and deliverable number two, I feel confident that the hard work will get done. So that's why I'm voting yes today, but I just wanted to say that I do hear Luke as far as it goes with his concern for the space, and I've been talking about that, the space and the cost and the fear of what may happen if we can't get that successful vote. So I just wanted to put my perspective in and just let you know, Luke, you're heard by me. just give you those thoughts. Thank you.

[Jenny Graham]: Thank you. Any other questions or comments about the PSR? Paul?

[Michael Pardek]: I have one thing for the project team related to the PSR as the key for the space summary, the big giant table, and especially for the work over the summer. I would just like to request that once the dust settles for this, If you could share a revised version of Zoom in, like an Excel or a Google sheet or something like that. And then also I would love to ask some questions that could be answered by sending us a document. I don't need to be discussed here. One would be, if there are any differences between DESI and MSPA reimbursement, there's only a column that shows MSPA reimbursement, which obviously is extremely important. But it's exciting to hear that some of the shop spaces, which might be larger than we currently need, come from things that we even if wanted to, could not be produced. So I think it would be helpful to know what those are. And then the second reason I'd love to have that in a format that is something that the community members sort of look at and talk, you know, and run scenarios with would be If there are square footage drives costs, and if we're going to be looking for savings and costs, and some of the spaces which are reimbursable are currently larger than what we're using, it feels like it would be helpful if we could have a way to summarize the basis in a way that we potentially could find solutions that we're ultimately using the capacity. That feels like a complicated potentially problems with the, we're going to go header by header, moving forward, never backwards. But I think if we had all of those things in one space before we talked about that, might be, might be useful to be able to trade some of the spaces when we're in that. So, I don't think what I'm describing is dissimilar from what Jane was describing at the end of the plan over the summer. Certainly, we can find a way to share the updated space summary. It will be part of our report that we put out, so it becomes really a public document at that point. We'll have to figure out whether we can get to an editable version of it. We saw it in the boss comparison matrix. When it goes out there, it's editable. It has challenges in terms of maintaining fidelity or how to match the working performance. Those are sort of the depths within it. But we can find something that gives you the necessary visibility to it and standing on it. And what I'm proposing is not to take this and mark it up and give it back to you. It would be one way, and then any changes would only, of course, go through. So maybe it's a proof.

[Jenny Graham]: Yeah, I think if we will get to a copy of the baseline, if you have questions, thoughts, or suggestions, they go to Dr. Bluth so that she can ingest that work that she's doing, where they're going to sit in the room with all the educators at the table and talk about that. I think like welcoming suggestions without burying the team in minutia would be really productive and welcome. But I do want committee to like think carefully about supporting the educational leaders of our community the work that they're going to do to bring this stuff over. I want them to lead the things coming forward because otherwise we end up with lists of hundreds of things, some of which are not even able to be changed. And I want to try to avoid that going forward because I don't think it works that great last time. So if there are questions, if there are suggestions, if there are changes, getting them to Dr. Kalusi, I think is the right way to make sure they're heard and vetted. before they come to the spot. So that when we come here, there's an educational justification, in addition to just like, you know, hey, did we think about that kind of thing? Brian?

[Michael Pardek]: It's safe to say that some of the stories we're saying, the action we're doing, we'll do that for the fifth reading, all the other readings, there's a plan that we're going to lead to that. There is an impact that our institution gets filtered through other people react to what is being shown, because there are going to just be at a higher level, a more grander level, it's our job to have that and make decisions about, make suggestions to go back and ask, can we have, can we save the time?

[Jenny Graham]: We'll, we'll create like a, an end point, right? Where like there's like a clean up of any last steps. Yeah. So we can put that on the schedule.

[Michael Pardek]: Let's just say, I realize that we have your expertise, and we can react to how they react, and say, those cases, those square footage can challenge something we think of, we have a suggestion to make. So it's sort of a trickle down to us to get away.

[John Falco]: Yes, that makes sense. Ah, yes, that makes sense. OK, great.

[Suzanne Galusi]: Would I humbly say that people should use the superintendent at the firm document or email address instead of Escalusie, which is a really scary place. And I don't want to miss any of the feedback. Thank you. Eric?

[Aaron Olapade]: I have a quick question. I know that when we were doing, I think it was our eligibility period, when the team met with all our editors and did all the space surveys and things like that, there was a lot of discussion about how the ed plan was developed over time and understanding like what space it actually used to work. And then we moved forward with development and trying to reduce and things like that. You know, obviously you mentioned that there are some of the spaces seem like they're bigger than currently needed. Not necessarily understanding per se, but I want to have additional clarity about what that That's simply is MSBA guidelines. You're going to be an opportunity to have further discussion. Sounds like there is where we're going to be meeting with educators again to have further discussion, individual shop spaces, classroom spaces, shared workspaces, those types of things to better understand what you believe in the ed plan or what the ed plan is currently detailing or what is the current need of educators and then the projection over the next 15 to 20 years, let's say. I know that a lot of work was done to understand the student population growth over the next couple of years as a part of the development of the total number. That was a lot of work, but I just try to understand what it will look like in the next handful of months when it comes to the interaction with the school staff and things like that. Yeah.

[Michael Pardek]: So the beginning of the interaction with the school staff will start at the beginning of the fall, whenever it's back. We just don't have access to people over the summer. That being said, we will be finding the folks that are here over the summer. If we can get any of it taken care of across the summer, That's definitely a good productive time that we can make use of and share back as we go. But when we get to the fall programming meetings, we are meeting with all 50 groups again. It definitely will include all instructors, as I was saying earlier, on the academic side, departments as well as shops. And so those conversations will focus on both an update of sort of what we're seeing there. It will refresh everyone's memory in terms of what Capacities, more sizes, individual spaces, and this is a good time for everything, but those are attuned to. And I think we're unfortunately going to have to take a lot of Dr. Carlucci's time to sit through those meetings because she's going to need to hear the conversations as well as we go through and be able to bring sort of that understanding of the ed plan and sort of featured in a district as well as from individual educators that we're speaking with or user groups that we're speaking with. So we need to balance those two sets of inputs. That's sort of what Lisa was alluding to earlier. has a perception the size of the space that person may may not align necessarily with what we're asked to be doing either from evidence-based perspective or in the case of secure testing by password. So we need to balance all those things and figure out what the path or but we definitely be looking both at the big picture goals of each individual program as well as sort of more minutiae. This is of an individual space layout where they are in the building before their path.

[Aaron Olapade]: Yeah, thank you. And I think to that end, I think Johnny mentioned about the minutiae of all these things that could be going, obviously, incredibly difficult to follow all the things that are happening, but many of them, community-based questions, as we get closer to actual clarity about the development of it. I wonder, and it sounds like it's gonna happen to a certain degree, but I think, you know, obviously, it's all a conversation about understanding what's really happening at the speed in which it's happening. When we talk about the educators understanding what their current needs are versus what the projections are, and then, as you mentioned, it must be a guideline versus the ed plan or what our team is developing, Are there ways for us to kind of track those additional changes in the two of them. If there are those specific changes and yeah that's a kind of a ridiculous request in this very moment because what was to say, but I'm not only asking I think that I don't want people to feel as bad. You mean to lose you know I don't want people to feel like we're just trying to just create create create without any real inspiration about the current into the current team of student body and I guess.

[John Falco]: Point of information. We will not be involved, obviously, in the actual execution. Correct. Correct. I hope you're not suggesting that we will get a refrigeration station at their shop, but that's a different question. Okay, so you're saying maybe... Yeah, so I should be a little more clear.

[Aaron Olapade]: When I say we, I mean, like the project team, superintendents office and the educators, I'm sorry, I should be really clear there. I think when I say we, I just mean that. And again, like this, it's been mentioned a handful of times over the last couple of months, a lot of talks about transparency and clarity and understanding what's been going on. And I don't want people to get lost because it's a ton of information over a number of years. And I want us to feel, I keep saying we, me, I want me to feel that Everyone has their answers, right? Whether they like the answers or not, whether they feel like the answers are given in response to what we forward. People, you know, the community feels that they understand what's going on, so moving forward, it doesn't feel like a larger conversation we have. If there's other things we can do to mitigate some of the confusion that's happening.

[Michael Pardek]: So, yeah, sorry, I'm saying we. I guess as a response, I don't have an exact response or sort of approach, I think it's a good point. Maybe what we can do is think it's after all those 15 meetings that we're going to be having, we do generate meeting minutes. So that is there for anyone to spend the time going through. It is really individual for each one of the programs. We could share maybe a typical set of meeting minutes that comes out of schematic design just to see from another project to see if that has the level of information that you're interested in. And if not, we can talk about maybe what wants to get documented there. And that would be a talking point that we start with or during particular meetings as we go through them? Maybe, yes, Meg.

[Jenny Graham]: Well, and I think the other thing that we have done along the way is we have bonded teachers, staff meetings. We dedicated time at one of the PD days. As we look into next year and have some clarity about these things, those explainers can happen in those other ways, too. Because I think, to your point, what's important is that the educators who come to work here a single day understand like how does this transpire and what does it actually look like and how many changes and then you know what will it look like and what's the end state. I think there is an opportunity as part of the communication plan for the next phase to make sure that the educators sort of have that understanding of the process too. So we hope to put those things on the calendar for next year.

[Suzanne Galusi]: If I may, I would say like Right now, we're at a level of like eating, drinking, breathing, sleeping, this. And so, you know, I feel like we probably feel more comfortable with it. We're doing it a lot, but I do think for maybe even this team, the community, to your point, teachers, I think It would be helpful to have something visible that are beyond maybe like minutes that are more process memo track changes. Or if I think of the space summary, you know, you add a column that's kind of highlighting what came out of those meetings. If it was Lisa's point or reduction in her, like, um, or something just so that it's, it's transparent. And visual.

[Jenny Graham]: And I think I've been making this request of the team since like day one, which is that space summary and how it is laid out is not user-friendly. It's not intuitive. It doesn't explain things. It does a job that the MBA team wants it to do, but that's not serving us as a community in the next phase. I have to spend some time serving Bedford and helping people get behind. Here's the evolution of this building because people have a lot of interest in care, making sure that we are spending money the right way. So we are going to have to do that. We're going to have to have a bootleg version from Medford that makes it clear for people what is happening. And we never have to submit it to the MCBA, but we need people to be able to understand that document.

[John Falco]: I'm happy to. do that, but it's a good time. Right.

[Michael Pardek]: So I want to know that there are pretty effective virtual tools that support it, but this is transitive. Okay. And then there's AI summary for AI generated summary. We need to cross check through the weeks. That is not the need to use a transcript, but it is a focus and a paragraph synopsis. And then we've got recording also to use video, to use mobile player. And I mean, I use it at work, you know, to sort of catch up on things. I don't know who can offer it, or if there are other tools that are available, but I would recommend it in the spirit of capturing the feedback of educators, but not being overwhelmed with the word-by-word. We can look at any available tools that are not available and will be more expensive, so we'd be accommodating that.

[Jenny Graham]: Is there any other questions about the PSR submission? Brian?

[John Falco]: Just one real quick. Are the kids from the science team?

[Michael Pardek]: I would assume that That's sort of like Lisa's point of view. She'd like reduction in her space. Then comes to fruition. It gets, you know, it gets tracked through the square footage. You can see that that's a lot. And then it's, there's a lot of clarity. If you can just follow those, you can just see the results of this problem. As a result of all these themes, I think to me that's the easiest way to be able to track a lot of changes.

[Jenny Graham]: We will roll out a tracker on the website to show, because we've already done many, many, many changes. And that table was shared at the school committee meeting. It looks exactly like the table that's in the meeting notice that we just approved. That's on purpose, to use that frame so that we can show what has happened over time and when. And so we'll be working to put that on the website so people can see it.

[Michael Pardek]: That's a very tough drive. Yeah. You have to sit through hours of being here all day. Correct. And there it is. That's the result. Right. That's all we need. Everything. It won't change. I have a question, too. HAB-Michael Leccese, moderator, he's on mute.

[Jenny Graham]: I'm going to call the roll.

[Michael Pardek]: Jim, can I just do a quick discussion? So we did have one additional slide up here that is following on to that email that was sent around with the draft. There was some yellow highlighted elements for things that we're still working on and finishing. Because of the cost, the score for the reductions that we were talking about, we went back and got the cost estimator back and looked and made those reductions. So that was part of the yellow highlighted information that was in the draft that we went through. Along the top line there are costs that you all saw previously at the June 1st meeting. From total project costs is what we're talking about here. From the A1, the NP option all the way across, the high school only option as well. Right below that are the revised figures that we got back from the cost estimator that were across and then Delta is down below that. Again, they're all reductions that were there. There were some ills that the cost estimator noticed going through, and that's why you see some higher numbers as they were just checking all their numbers going through it. But the general story there is that we have reduced dollar values across the board for total project costs. Just as we're voting that in, we just want to make sure that folks are aware of those 1% being. Great.

[Jenny Graham]: Thank you. I just want to thank the project team, because they have done a wonderful job on all of this work, also in maintaining a good, positive, productive relationship with the MSBA. I got to see that in a meeting and the MSBA was incredibly complimentary. They are very supportive and that was clear and evident that you all are doing exactly what they want and need you to do and for Medford to do. So I just want to say thank you for that before we vote. This is a lot of work. And I hope that we can tell the SBA that we all. I would call the roll. Jenny Graham, yes. Mayor Lungo-Koehn.

[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: Yes.

[Jenny Graham]: Dr. Everglucy. Yes. Marty Cabral is absent. Joe Bowen. Yes. Ken Lord. Yes. Libby Brown. Absent. Marissa Desmond is absent. Maria Dorsey. Yes. Dan Hilliard.

[Maria D'Orsi]: Yes.

[Jenny Graham]: Emily Lazzaro.

[John Falco]: Yes.

[Jenny Graham]: Paul Malone?

[John Falco]: Yes.

[Jenny Graham]: Nicole Morell is absent. Aaron Lopate? Yes. Luke Preston?

[John Falco]: No.

[Jenny Graham]: 10 in the affirmative, one in the negative, we're absent. PSR is approved for suspension. Thank you. We're almost there, folks. Bear with us. The next item on the agenda is The approval of the CM at Risk RFQ. So the RFQ, the CM selection subcommittee has met, has reviewed this RFQ. It went out to all of you. And the plan is that it will be released in the central register on July 1. And in order to do that, we need this body's approval. So are there any questions about the application? Are there any motions about the application?

[Michael Pardek]: Motion to approve by Ken, is there a second?

[Jenny Graham]: Second. Bryant? We'll call the roll. Jenny Graham? Yes. Mayor Lungo-Koehn?

[Suzanne Galusi]: Yes.

[Jenny Graham]: Dr. Galusi? Yes. Artie Cabral? Libby Brown? Joan Bowen? Yes. Ken Lord? Yes. Ertha Devins? Maria Dorsey? Yes. Frank Herod. Yes. Emily Lazzaro.

[John Falco]: Yes.

[Jenny Graham]: Paul Malone.

[John Falco]: Yes.

[Jenny Graham]: Nicole Morell. Yes. Aaron Lafayette. Yes. Luke Pryzner. Absolutely. 11, 10 in the affirmative, 0 negative, 1 abstention, 4 absent. The SCM application is approved. We are working on our schedule of upcoming meetings. This is a quick timetable of the CM timeline, which we just talked about. So the very first part of this process will kick off on July 1. And our plans will be that we will, by early October, make a selection and bring it to this body for approval. And then, Helen, I think you had a slide about upcoming committee meetings. This list is subject to change, and we will send out the final list for you all. We will give you a list and what it is that we plan to talk about at each time, and we'll be public that so that if people in the community really want to talk about the auditorium, they know to come and do that. If people in the community really want to talk about the pool, they know when to come do that. If they want to talk about classroom spaces, they know when to do that. We are trying to space them out so that it is not overwhelming for folks and that we are saving some of the meatier things for after the start of school when the programming meetings happen. So we're trying to work through this timeline and make sure that we're making good, productive progress at everything that we have. And we do have a monthly meeting schedule. Meetings in the summer will be on June only and we will revisit in person after the start of school. Um, any questions? Okay. Okay. Is there a motion to adjourn? Motion to adjourn. Motion to adjourn by Lou, seconded by Dr. Glucy. Call the roll. Jenny Graham? Yes. Mary Lungo-Koehn?

[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: Yes.

[Jenny Graham]: Dr. Glucy? Yes. Murray Favral? Yes.

[Maria D'Orsi]: Johnson?

[Jenny Graham]: Joan Bowen? Yes. Ann Lord? Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes.