[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: Hi, everybody, I think we have the whole committee, so we'll get started. And we're recording okay, so this is the 14th regular meeting of the school committee today's Monday, July 20th, 2026, and this is virtual only we have executive session at 415 and regular meeting at 5 PM. The meeting can be viewed live on the Medford Public Schools YouTube channel, through Medford Community Media on your local cable channel, Comcast 9, 8, or 22, and Verizon channel 43, 45, or 47. Participants can log in or call in by using the following Zoom link, which is on the City and School website, and the meeting ID is 97008462111. Member Ruseau, if you could please call the roll?
[Paul Ruseau]: Certainly. Member Graham?
[Mike Mastrobuoni]: Here.
[Paul Ruseau]: Member Mastroboni.
[Mike Mastrobuoni]: Here.
[Paul Ruseau]: Member Olapade. Here. Member Parks.
[Erika Reinfeld]: Here.
[Paul Ruseau]: Member Reinfeld.
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: Present.
[Paul Ruseau]: Member Ruseau, present. Mayor Lungo-Koehn.
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: Present. Seven present, zero absent. Do we have any student reps on the meeting? I don't see any. So if we could all please rise to salute the flag. Pledge allegiance to the flag, 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 pursuant to General Laws 30A, Section 21A 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 in executive session to discuss strategy for Medford Teachers Association litigation, and the chair so declares. the school committee will reconvene in regular session immediately following the executive session at approximately 5 p.m. Is there a motion to enter executive session?
[SPEAKER_03]: So moved.
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: Thank you, Member Mastroboni. Is there a second? Second. Member Reinfeld, roll call, please.
[Paul Ruseau]: Member Sorry, I didn't realize I was off camera. Member Graham?
[Jessica Parks]: Yes.
[Paul Ruseau]: Member Mastropone? Yes. Member Olapade? Yes. Member Parks?
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: Yes.
[Paul Ruseau]: Member Reinfeld?
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: Yes.
[Paul Ruseau]: Member Rissell? Yes. Mayor Lungo-Koehn?
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: Yes. Seven in the affirmative, zero in the negative. Motion is approved to enter executive session. We will see everybody as close to five as possible. Good evening, everybody. Welcome. If you're just joining us, we have, we're right on time. Look at us. We are going to go to the consent agenda. So we have approval of bills and payrolls, approval of meeting minutes from our regular meeting of June 15th, 2026, and our special meeting from July 10th, 2026. Is there a motion on the floor? Motion to approve. By Member Reinfeld, seconded by?
[Matt Gulino]: Second.
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: Member Olapade, roll call, please.
[Paul Ruseau]: Member Graham?
[Jessica Parks]: Yes.
[Paul Ruseau]: Member Mastroboni? Yes. Member Olapade? Yes. Member Parks?
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: Yes.
[Paul Ruseau]: Member Reinfeld?
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: Yes.
[Paul Ruseau]: Member Soyes, Mayor Lungo-Koehn?
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: Yes, seven in the affirmative, zero in the negative. Consent agenda is approved. We have no reports of subcommittee, and we have two reports of our superintendent. First up is the introduction of the new district-wide staff, Mr. Ryan Pike, director of facilities, and Ms. Katie Doucette, managing director for before and after school. I'll turn it over to you, Dr. Galusi, superintendent.
[Suzanne Galusi]: Thank you so much. Yes, I'm very excited to welcome two critical positions to our MPS family. Thank you for the introduction of their titles. So, Ms. Katie Doucette, as the mayor said, is the managing director for before and after school programming and has already hit the ground running. As everyone knows, as we have really increased capacity across the district and are moving to offer some enriching programming. So Katie comes to us with, she's like a little unicorn that just fell from the sky because she has a lot of great complementary skills and a portfolio that just complements what is needed for the afterschool program. quite well. So she is quite familiar with out of school time, having worked in a lot of different capacities, mostly in Waltham for the Waltham Partnership for Youth. She worked in a lot of those programs in a supervisory role, also in a coaching stance. Most recently she in WALFAM also was the Title I Director and the Homeless Education Liaison. So she has all these lovely little skill sets that will lend itself nicely to our program and we're really happy to have her aboard. And before I explain a little bit about Mr. Pike, I didn't know if Katie wanted to just say hello to the committee.
[SPEAKER_00]: Yes. Hi, everyone. Dr. Galusi, thank you for the warm welcome and the kind remarks. Yeah, this is the beginning of week three for me in this role. And as Dr. Galusi said, we've hit the ground running. really doing a lot of hiring because we are expanding, which is super exciting. I've been really blessed to have such a warm welcome from the team, from families in the community. There's already a strong team of returning staff in place. Thank goodness for them. They've been such a huge support. And I also am just incredibly excited to be in a district that takes its out of school time so seriously and is investing so heavily in this work. So I'm really delighted to be here. Thank you.
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: Thank you, Katie. Talk to Lucy.
[Suzanne Galusi]: Yes. And now we have Mr. Ryan Pike, our new facilities director. He, too, has brought a wealth of expertise and skill set to this role that we are really super excited about. He has experience in school leadership, most recently coming from Tingsboro. and MassArt, where he was the facilities director. And he has some state experience with him through MassDOT. But he is a nice kind of fit right here with Mr. Lord's team and has definitely hit the ground running with a lot of what's on the plate for getting the schools ready to open the school year and the many projects we have going on. So I'd like to introduce Mr. Pike. I don't know if you want to say a few words, Mr. Pike.
[SPEAKER_12]: Yes, can you hear me okay? Yes. Yeah, I want to say thank you to the superintendent and Mr. Lord. They've been very welcoming and supportive. I'm really looking forward to the new school year as far as like the superintendent said, hit the ground running. We got a lot of stuff going on this summer. I'm looking, I'm very excited to see what we can do.
[SPEAKER_03]: Thank you so much. Thank you. Yes.
[Suzanne Galusi]: Thank you very happy to have a team now assembled.
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: Huge yeah, welcome welcome both of you.
[Erika Reinfeld]: We we appreciate it and I understand Mr. Pike also has some experience working on school building project.
[SPEAKER_12]: Yes, I've had projects with MSCBA as well as MSBA. Great so little bit of everything.
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: Awesome high school. Sounds good. Next up is grade configuration update. I'm going to turn it back over to you, Dr. Glusi.
[Suzanne Galusi]: Yes, and now I'm going to try my very best here to share my screen. Just give me one moment. It's very sad when I don't have Mr. Pippicelli around.
[SPEAKER_03]: Let's see if I do this right.
[Mike Mastrobuoni]: Looks good, we see it.
[Suzanne Galusi]: Great, thank you. So I do have on the title slide that I will be presenting this evening, but it is important to note that members Reinfeld and member Park are also really involved in this. And so maybe interjecting and or enhancing my presentation this evening, and please do so as we go along here. So, I think it's really important to just start with the people that are critical in this work right now. And so, here you can see who is comprised of the team. This team is guided by community norms of transparency and shared purpose. As we look to see what this could be for the, I think we have tweaked the name a little bit to overcrowding slash grade configuration task force. And we're really looking at academic extracurricular programming and the full compilation of what is happening at these levels. So we have several district educators on this committee. We have May Abusan, who is an English learner teacher at the McGlynn Middle. Mike Bergholzer, grade 6 math at the Andrews. Melissa Doherty is grade 5 at the McGlynn Elementary. Connor Hemdel is grade 5 at the Missituk. And Jamie Taylor is grade 6 science at the McGlynn Middle School. Caregivers, we have Kathy Lodato, who has had children at every level, but right now Roberts and Medford High School. Jessica Parks, Missituk, moving on, I believe, to Andrews. Erika Reinfeld, also at every level. Roberts, McGlynn Middle, High School. Jennifer Sagotsky, most recently right now is McGlynn Middle. and Aaron VanDeVeer is McGlynn Elementary. And for district administration, it is myself and Dr. Talbot. It is Kim Clinton, Mike DiClemente, who is the assistant principal at the Roberts, Jen Skane, Nick Tucci, principals respective of the middle schools. We have had three, a total of three meetings thus far, one a month starting in April, so April, May, and June. And in the first three meetings, this slide covers just a little bit of what we have been talking about. We have evaluated historic enrollment, which was showing about 300 students per grade level for the past three to five years. We have talked about restructuring the Andrews to a 7-8 model and what that would mean as we project enrollment out, which could be for a total somewhere about 617 students. We do know that the highest enrollment to date was around 589 in the year 2001 and 2002. It was 579, but that is about the highest we have seen to date since the Andrews has been opened. We have also, as a committee, conducted a building walkthrough of the Andrews so that the task force was able to get a real understanding for the usage of the rooms and any hidden capacity that may be there. There is a lot of potential at the Andrews. And they have also reviewed the HMFH data that was provided to us when we did the study. So we do, we've said this before, but just to also kind of ground us again, their data suggested that we need nine more rooms in order to kind of make this work. And those are some of the things that we're digging a little bit deeper in because those are the constraints. In addition to that, we're looking and taking a deeper analysis at... what it would be to have teacher room sharing, what those smaller interior rooms are, the size of them, what they're used for, what they could be used for, the capacity of the cafeteria, knowing that if we were to do this, lunches may have to shift and or could it handle the additional capacity and beyond the cafeteria also within just hallway traffic. And then there was a discussion that we need to dig a little bit deeper into about the Andrews now, is on the list as an emergency shelter for the city. And so they're even to what does that mean? And then what do some of those spaces also mean? Like, do we have flexibility to repurpose some spaces or not? If the legal status is that it is an emergency shelter for the city. The other piece that we have done is in June, we decided to create two subcommittees so that during these summer months, we had a little time to dig into some really specific areas, and everybody had a little piece of, I would say, like homework that they would bring back to the task force since we had this summer break. The two subcommittees are the educational model, which is taking like an academic view of what the groupings currently are, what they could possibly be, and doing some research to what do other district middle school models look like. This also encompasses looking at the licensing requirement for teachers, if there are any looping possibilities, and just how the transitions, if we were to switch to a different model, what that transition would look like. And then there's also the facility subcommittee. This subcommittee is really tasked with looking deep and heavy at enrollment projections, what the transportation logistics would be, again, what that capacity would be for kitchen, cafeteria, gymnasium, with about 200 additional students, and then really looking at what the space allocations are and the footage by room to see if we do have and what the right number would be, and then identify if there are renovation and construction needs for the models that we're looking at. Then there are other logistical items that have been part of a discussion that we also have had conversations about, and that would be the feasibility of the recommended models for specialized programming, so for special education and for EL. And it also would be for making sure that we are keeping in conversation and exploring other challenges such as shared space, instructional models, and what those capacity constraints would be. And the other things that have come up are afterschool care, specifically for fifth grade, but sixth grade has also been part of the conversation. what would that look like and what could we possibly do? And then making sure that we know that there are several, here we call them milestones, but really a lot of traditions that are part of what is now the elementary structure and making sure that we honor those and give enough time and space so that students are not missing out on moving on ceremonies, clap outs, field trips that are associated with that last year of elementary school. And then, of course, what the financial implications would be to any and all of these conversations. And so this slide here really captures a lot of what the message was that we sent out as a task force to the community to give a brief update around the work that we had done for the three months, and then flagging that we would be coming to this body for this meeting to provide a little bit more of a detailed update. What was reflected in that memo, as well as on this slide, are we understand that there's a lot of feelings and questions and hesitations around this work, and because of that, people really want to know what's going to happen, and they want swift solutions. All of that is completely understandable, but we also want to make sure that we're spending the time to do this the right way and the best way for Medford Public Schools and not so quickly that we're not taking a really deep comprehensive look at what we have in front of us. And that includes these five pillars, which is really taking the time and space to do a deep review of enrollment trends. What we don't wanna have happen is trade one school's overcapacity for another. So we really want to look across levels and project out what is going to be happening. Comprehensive programming analysis, we talked about that with the middle school models. What are other communities doing? What could we possibly do? Vetting out the way we do things now and is it the right way? Is there a better way? Strategic construction planning, no matter what we do, it would involve some level of construction and renovation. And what would that look like? Collaboration with staff, we're really excited about the balance of this task force. But ongoing conversations with our teaching partners are very important as we work through this in a thoughtful way. And then again, as said, but really, taking time for transition planning so that everyone is part of the conversation, everyone knows what the plans will be, and taking a very meaningful approach to any sort of transition planning that may arise. And so what this looks like in just big picture is this summer, the subcommittees are doing their research and their data dives, and between September and December, We're bringing all of that back and the subcommittees within the task force are going to be digging into the work that was done over the summer and brought back and really determining what the viability is for a 5, 6, 7, 8 model. And we want to make sure that we are providing this body and the community with what our recommended path forward is somewhere between December 2026 and very early January 2027. And with that, I think I would just yield to member Parks or member Reinfeld if they feel there are additional pieces that they want to clarify. You need to open it up for me. Yes.
[Erika Reinfeld]: Member Reinfeld, then Member Brooks. So I had a couple of little things to add, which is to note that the caregivers on this committee also have special education experience in their family with various models of special education. So that is represented in the room. And then one of the other things that the task force has complete access to, anonymized, but is the survey responses of what the community So I want to make sure people know that we are digesting that and incorporating that into the questions we're asking in our data dives and how we're thinking about solutions. And then also just to note that the word transitions is being used in two different ways. Sometimes it refers to transition to a potential new grade configuration. Sometimes it also refers to the transition between grade levels of the actual students, which is one of the. the real, on the educational side of things, probably the biggest concern that came up in the survey and that we're all very conscious of, of when students transition to a new school, how that affects their learning over the summer into the new school year and their through line through MPS. So I just wanted to clarify those three things.
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: Thank you, Lember Park.
[Jessica Parks]: I think now everything that I was going to say is covered. So I think I am good for now. Thank you. Okay.
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: Thank you. And thank you for the presentation. Thank you to all who have been working on this.
[Suzanne Galusi]: So I think the only thing I would say, if there are any questions, we can take them. And then the other piece would be the last time this, the one piece here is the, this body voted that The earliest this would happen would be the 28, now I have to make sure, the 27, 28 school year. And we are recommending that we push that to the 28, 29 school year. So I believe the first time it was done by vote. So I think we are looking for a vote here. Is that correct? Member Reinfeld, Member Parks, I believe so. Yes.
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: From a question for me from a financial standpoint, has that been explored? Because I know that is a piece of this.
[Suzanne Galusi]: Meaning shifting the time?
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: Meaning the savings, the potential savings that have been discussed previously, shifting those savings another year when, you know, It's just tough every budget season. So was that explored or thought about or evaluated before we take a vote?
[Suzanne Galusi]: Specifically, I would probably have to say no. I think I'd have to maybe look into that and get back to you. I'm not 100% even sure about the savings.
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: I think it's important for Noel and Jerry to have an understanding and input as it relates to potential cost savings. Kids and students are first and foremost, but it just plays a part of the evaluation.
[Erika Reinfeld]: I don't think the task force is costing the district money to do this study. This is all volunteer where the cost would come in. I think it would be in the actual grade configuration. That's correct.
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: Yes. So to push those costs. Cost savings to do this. Yes. And that was discussed quite in depth behind the scenes before this was brought on the floor.
[Erika Reinfeld]: You mean doing this rather than, say, redistricting or some other solution? Those were the cost savings. That was the cost discussion I remember from our initial vote.
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: Yeah, I don't know. There would be a cost savings when this is, potential cost savings, great deal of cost savings when this is done. And that just needs to be evaluated even just from a budgetary standpoint by the finance team.
[Suzanne Galusi]: I think part of what we're looking into is are the models that we could run. And if we were to do this, there may be some small pieces of renovation that also would have to take place. And of course, we are going to involve the finance team. But I'm just, I don't, other than what we've said, I'm not quite sure of what the other piece would be.
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: I think it was before your time as well, there was potential of, you know, million dollar cost savings being explored. Which was 1 of the reasons why we would. We're exploring this option. But again, that that has to be evaluated from a finance perspective. So I would just ask that that be done before we continue to move this further and further down the road.
[Jessica Parks]: So just not having been part of those conversations, having just been part of this, I do think one interim step we are also requesting, and correct me if I'm wrong, Erica, or member grant or member Reinfeld or Dr. Galussi, sorry, staring at a different box, is that we are asking for a additional update in December of kind of the direction we are thinking or January timeframe, December, January timeframe. Once we have had time to regroup after the summer with our findings and then determine what everything means to kind of bring our findings together and then have a chance to kind of have the two groups come together again, bringing both sides together and then have that kind of January, December based on your kind of timeline, Dr. Galusi, is that correct? And I think that is also a point where we would be able to have the additional conversation just as a
[Erika Reinfeld]: Yeah, I think as the subcommittees report back and say, this is what we find and think is possible and recommended, we then say, what are the financial implications of those paths forward? And so, yes, absolutely. I think this extra time for potential implementation lets us do that in a holistic way, both in terms of the immediate costs of making a transition and in terms of the long-term financial health of the school budgets. So yes, I think this extension allows us to actually do that deep dive with Noel and Jerry and get those answers to this committee. Thank you for clarifying.
[Suzanne Galusi]: So would we then hold the vote until we provide the ethics.
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: I think so, yes. The vote to extend to continue to push this further. I think so.
[Erika Reinfeld]: I am concerned that if we say this could still happen next year, we are going to have some panicking teachers and caregivers and students. They are already anxious about people who are going into fourth grade this year going, what am I doing? People who are coming into sixth grade, am I only getting one year at the middle school? These are the answers they were hoping for in the spring and to tell them, That we don't know that doesn't feel good to me to I think it. I don't think it's realistic. I understand wanting the SWIFT solution and to be able to implement these things, but I think it doesn't allow for planning. It's not well aligned with the collective bargaining agreements that we have with the unions about spaces, how spaces are shared, what the teaching commitment looks like for licensure. I understand, but I am really nervous about not About having people still panicking about. Not knowing what's going to happen at the end of the school year. They're starting right now.
[Jessica Parks]: Yeah, I agree with that. And I and I want to say that I think we could. Have the analysis done to say this is the direction we're going in. by December, January, because we would have to be able to start implementation and having those discussions. I don't think we would be able to be ready to rock and roll by the beginning of next school year is my concern and have everyone be on board and ready to go, especially if we do stick with the plan that is in place right now, it would require potential erection of walls or whatever might be for separating spaces, as was identified in just the initial walkthrough. So that would need to be discussed. And doing construction in that quick of a time frame I don't think is feasible.
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: No.
[Mike Mastrobuoni]: I agree, I think it's unrealistic that we'd be able to decide procure complete. Like, what member parks is saying these, these renovations that we need to implement this. So, I mean, I think I think it. There's tension, right? The faster we do this sounds like if there are cost savings, right? The faster we can generate those cost savings. But I think at the same time, it's unrealistic that we're going to change the structure of the building in time for basically a year from now, which is when we sort of need to be done and ready to go. So I think that I'm happy to vote to push it back another year. And I think that that's reasonable.
[Erika Reinfeld]: I mean, am I allowed to make this motion since I'm on the task force? I motioned that- Anybody can. Okay. So my motion is that the school committee approve a no earlier than start date for this transition of the 28-29 school year, the same resolution for the task force with an updated date a year later. I second.
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: Okay, roll call.
[Paul Ruseau]: Member Graham, I don't know if she's still here.
[SPEAKER_03]: No, she had to leave.
[Paul Ruseau]: She had to leave. Member Mastroboni? Yes. Member Olapade? Yes. Member Parks? Yes. Member Reinfeld?
[Erika Reinfeld]: Yes.
[Paul Ruseau]: Member Rossa? Yes. Mayor Lungo-Koehn?
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: Okay, yes. Motion passes six to zero. Presentations, no presentations of student advisory council or the public. We have continued business, MSVA update by member Graham, vice chair of the Medford Comprehensive High School Building Committee and Dr. Suzanne Galusi, our superintendent. A review current and future policy on providing storage space to large community partners, provide guidance to MCHSBC regarding storage space, B, discuss current and future educational partnership with Japanese language school, provide guidance to the superintendent regarding an enhanced partnership with JLS. Provide guidance to the MCHSBC regarding space for the JLS library. Discuss proposal for teen health center and MHS, including rationale and benefits, operating plans and costs and partnership requirements. Provide guidance to the MCHSBC regarding teen health center space. Review sustainability goals for the MHS project. Provide guidance to the project team, the MCHSBC and the MCHSBC sustainability and MEP systems advisory team. Dr. Galussi, I'll turn it over to you. I don't see Member Graham.
[Suzanne Galusi]: No, I think Member Graham had to hop off and deal with the situation. I'm going to ask either our project team or Mr. Lord to present the slide deck. And then... Thank you, Matt. I see Matt Rice. Are you able to...
[Matt Rice]: I am. I didn't want to steal Ken's thunder. But assuming that he's happy with me sharing the screen, I will do that. All right. Is that up for everybody?
[Suzanne Galusi]: Yes.
[Matt Rice]: All right.
[Suzanne Galusi]: Okay, so I think I'm going to start the conversation and then I'm going to... turn it over to the project team. So you can advance the slide, please. I think tonight is just a little bit of an update. I know we have updated this committee before. This is just a quick slide on the design that was selected and the full integration of what we are hoping this high school can bring to the community. We've talked plenty of times before about we have such a wonderful comprehensive opportunities here for students, but they're a little siloed in the way the building is structured, and this is going to provide us a lot of opportunity to just integrate all of what we have to offer for our students in a very interdisciplinary approach, and while also keeping community-facing programs easily accessible to the community, and connecting our students to the possibilities of the Fells in a way that we're unable to do right now. So, I think we're going to get into some of the other logistics of this later on in the slides, so I'm just going to ask to advance for right now. Matt, was there anything specific you wanted to talk about on this slide?
[Matt Rice]: On this particular slide, no. It's a nice image only because it gives the overall sense of what the proposed site development is proposed to be. Working all the way from Edgerly Field that is reimagined with a track and a multipurpose football field and also soccer field at the top at Edgerly, and then working its way down the hill, the renovated Gymnasium and pool is this area that I'm highlighting with my cursor now, if you can see that. And then the new addition is really built all the way around that. So we are going to be blurring that boundary in terms of what's perceived as renovated space and what is new addition. It will be a holistic, comprehensive environment when it's completed. The exterior appearance of the building is nothing that is set in stone just yet, or even designs. It's really just to give a sense of scale and texture and sort of where windows and apertures may be. Um, there is a large, um, centralized parking area, um, out in front, um, with drop off that's happening for, uh, parents as well as MBTA buses, um, out in front. Um, and if we work our way down the hill as well, where the existing parking lot is, um, is where the second of the multipurpose fields will be located. Um, and then I re-imagined Steve Miller Drive as you come in off of Winthrop Street. So this just gives you the overall picture, um, again, of what the proposed site development is.
[SPEAKER_03]: Thank you so much, Matt.
[Suzanne Galusi]: Okay, so I'm just going to give a broad overview of community partner rental spaces. Right now, I know this has been a topic of conversation, but right now, a lot of our schools, as we know, are used as rental for various community and outside organizations, affiliations. Here at the high school, and the McGlynn Middle School, there are some programs in which they are using spaces as storage. I think we know this building is quite large and there are little nooks and crannies everywhere. And so there are some programs, the Japanese Language School here at the high school, Redemption Hill here at the high school, have some space in areas of the high school in which they're storing materials. A lot of those are things that they need for their programs that happen mostly on the weekends. Impact Church is at the McGlynn and the same is happening. There may not be dedicated closets or classrooms, but there is some storage maybe on like hallways or wings of the stage. And so if you see here from the space summary, there are educational prep space and then there's just straight storage space. You can see what is in the space summary right now reflects a little bit of what is being used right now. and then what the cost would be to continue to provide community partners with rental space. So there is the estimated construction cost and then the total project cost, which is a little under $2 million. If we could just advance the slide, please. So here you get a sense as to in the projected I guess, soft plans for the school where these spaces right now are placed, which is this this blue dotted circle, which is somewhat adjacent to some community spaces. It's near, as you can see, the auditorium, and it is near some gymnasium spaces, mechanical spaces, right there is where the two storage spaces would be so that there's that access to some of those community facing spaces. Next slide, please. And so this here, we're here tonight to have a conversation and get guidance from the school committee about whether Medford Public Schools will continue to provide storage space to long-term renters. I think it's important to note if we're talking about the Japanese language school that has been here, they just celebrated 50 years here in Medford. So that is definitely a long standing partnership. Redemption Hill is not as long, but these are the things that have just happened over time in which space has been provided for them to store materials. So continuing to provide that space Do we want to be able to do that to continue to provide rental space for them until the construction begins and or during the construction phase? Do we want to continue to leave it in the plans and provide storage space. It is not reimbursable. And so there would be an additional cost to keeping in storage space. And then we also want to look at some of the things we've been looking at as alternatives to this situation would be Do we place additional storage cabinets within the high school, within some classrooms that some of these partners would be able to access? Do we provide shelving space within the build for the community partners? Do we potentially look at if need be providing like outdoor sheds somewhere on the property that could possibly be rented out for storage reasons to community partners. And these are some of the things that we are seeking for a vote this evening. I would say to you, I, I would say to you that right now the high school has, as I mentioned, a lot of little spaces in which the storage is not as a result of something else going without. There's just a lot of additional space. That's not necessarily going to be the case in a new build. And it also makes things a little confusing in terms of It is not part right now of the school committee policy in terms of what the rental agreement is for when we are renting space to community organizations or to outside affiliations. And so it is void of that school committee policy and not something that is reflected anywhere in policy and I think is a little slippery slope. I don't know if it's, We're going to talk about a couple spaces, so I don't know if you want me to go through the whole slide up until the lead portion, and then we discuss, or if you'd like to discuss each section as we go, because we are looking for guidance from the committee.
[Erika Reinfeld]: I would like to discuss the the partnership with the Japanese language school before we talk about the storage for partners.
[Suzanne Galusi]: Thank you. So that perfectly cued member Reinfeld. So Japanese language school. is a nonprofit educational institution. They have been here, as we said, for 50 years. They service all of the New England area. And there are approximately 800 students that learn here every Saturday. They are learning the language and they are learning the culture. That is what the Japanese Language School is. As part of the partnership, I am invited to many of their ceremonies, many of their moving on, their graduation, their beginning of the school year. We do have a contract, they have a longstanding contract for the use of space on Saturdays. Primarily classrooms in the C building, the lecture hall spaces, the gymnasium, and on occasion the theater, but regularly not. It's about 38 Saturdays per school year and they pay $142,000 approximately each year. So some of the things here for your consideration is They have one of the lecture halls that they use as their library, and they have for several years. A lecture hall is tiered. It is quite large, as you can see here. It's about 1,700 square feet of space. Every inch of it is used for their library. And so part of what, again, this would not be a cost that is covered, and so that would be a cost, an additional cost, but they do feel like the space that they have for the lecture hall, for their library, there are back offices in there as well that they use for some storage capacity. We also found out by doing this work with our project team that there are one or two other spaces on different floors that they also have for storage. What is located in there is signage, vests and cones for arrival and dismissal procedures, classroom materials, their own carts, specifically for their lower primary grades, for their instruction that they roll out and in each Saturday, and then We have heard this from all of the renters that have, space is audio equipment for when they have large gatherings, because our audio equipment is quite faulty. So those are the types of things that they are storing here. You would see just for the library and what these spaces would be, would be a total project cost of about $2.8 million. I'd say $8 million. And so this is an educational partnership that we could look into a little bit more in terms of what that may look like moving forward with the Japanese Language School because we have a 50-year partnership with the schools and the city. I know that they have worked with the mayor as well throughout the years. There's a tree planted at City Hall. So there is space to kind of look into this a little bit more closely. And then I'm going to just stop for any questions or conversations that are top of mind.
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: I think you can keep going, Dr. Gholsi. No questions that I see.
[Suzanne Galusi]: Okay, can we go to the next slide then, just so we can see more of the space? So again, I know I framed this. I'll do it really quickly. But what we're looking for is whether the school committee wants to build some of these academic spaces for the Japanese language school. I think there are two pieces to talk about. There's their library and then there is the storage space. And if there is a educational component to the library and or the partnership with Japanese Language School and what parts of the partnership would this school committee like us to dig a little bit further in and then what that partnership could maybe yield or offset for this project in Medford Public Schools. And then just so you get a sense as to where the spaces are The next slide, please.
[SPEAKER_03]: I don't know if we want to. Is there a way to make that a little bit bigger?
[Matt Rice]: We cannot zoom in, unfortunately, here. I think we have the series of the different floor plans here.
[Suzanne Galusi]: Yep.
[Matt Rice]: All the way up and through.
[Suzanne Galusi]: I think it's just so that you can see that right now they have classrooms within, many classrooms within the C building. And so you would see here where a lot of those classrooms would be. They use our cafeterias. That is more centrally located, where that light yellow coloring is right here, where Matt is putting his pointer. And that right there is also the front door access, which is what they typically use each Saturday for their drop-off and pickup.
[SPEAKER_03]: And I think that might be it.
[Matt Rice]: We just set the upper levels as well. So I think, as you were saying, Dr. Galusias, they would have access. They would need access to even the upper levels here, given the number of classrooms. Potentially, it could be limited to level four, depending on the number of classrooms. But if not, up to the fifth or sixth floor. So it would be accessing a good majority of the building after hours. go back to the question that was posed.
[Suzanne Galusi]: Thank you. I am going to pause here just for for discussion on the educational partnership with the Japanese language school. I do think it would be worth looking in, just for my two cents, I do think it would be worth looking into what this partnership means moving forward and for me to engage a little bit more fully with the leaders of the Japanese language school in terms of the library space. And then the other piece to talk about is just general storage space to offer rentals. which I feel quite differently about.
[SPEAKER_03]: I'm happy to take any questions.
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: Member Mesterborn.
[Mike Mastrobuoni]: Thank you, Madam Chair, through you. Superintendent, thank you for this. I think it's like, it's a pretty straightforward question, right? Is this something we see a part of the building in the future, whether it's Japanese language school or other community partners, right? It's sort of like a fundamental question of, are we building something for the community? Are we building something specifically for the students? Feels like, I ran quick numbers, like if these folks are a great partner, Specifically, these folks are a great partner. They pay their rent. And basically, this pays for the investment that we would make. Just doing quick math. My question for you is, what's the nature of our agreement and relationship with the school? If we built a space, would that be something that is allocated for the language school? Or is that something that we have to run an RFP for? Are we going to get ourselves into a situation where We create this space, this potential library space, and master law requires us, you know, 30 B, or, you know. Requires us to put out an RFP for the space, and we get an unintended consequence of. You know, somebody else coming in, and then we're sort of in a difficult position. Like, I'd love to know what our. Maybe this is a naive question, but like, what is our relationship to the school and what contract do we have with them? Are they just a regular community schools user, just like anybody else? And sort of like, how would that process go? I always want to avoid, you know, like preferential treatment to certain nonprofits. They're all great. Every single one is great. So I think that would be helpful for me, helpful context for me, if you have that.
[Suzanne Galusi]: No, I appreciate that question so much and I thank you for that. I think I'm very like-minded to that. So I would say, as I mentioned, in order to rent space in any of our buildings, there's school committee policy and there's a rental agreement and we go by that. But I would say I inherited a contract from the Japanese language school and just the Japanese language school Um, that seems to be that they have run about every three years and it does not follow the rental agreement. So there does seem to be some history of a separate contract with the Japanese language school. Um, it does lay out, uh, their. great their gratitude for using the space and how they partner with medford public schools and it does detail the spaces that they use when their school year runs and what the cost the annual cost is they do pay additionally for door monitors because they want to have i mean 800 students are educated up here on a saturday it is quite busy and it is quite a large amount of people and so They have a crew of people that work for the Japanese language school, but they also do ask for additional staffing. They pay for it, but they do ask for additional staffing. I think the, I think The other piece that makes them slightly different than other renters would just be this relationship with the city and the schools in terms of definitely at least the mayor and I are part of a lot of the ceremonies every year in which they are recognizing students and recognizing the partnership that they have. That doesn't necessarily, that doesn't really happen with the other renters, but in terms of what the partnership has been and could be, might be worth looking into a little bit more. But we are definitely in the business of educating students. I am very proud that we have community spaces where the community can gather in celebration and in meeting. But I would say that first and foremost, we are here for the students. And so I do feel that we would be blurring the lines and it would get, honestly, a little messy to say that we are going to be providing space for storage. I don't really support that. But I'm intrigued to look into a little bit.
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: Do we have the answer on the RFP member Mastrovoni makes a good point on?
[Suzanne Galusi]: I personally would have to look into that. I'm not quite sure. Yeah. I don't know. I mean, we have people from the design team, but I don't know that. I think that's something I'd have to look into.
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: OK, member, oh, I don't know who had the hand up first. Member Parks, then member Reinfeld.
[Jessica Parks]: Member Reinfeld was first, so it's fine.
[Erika Reinfeld]: Oh, okay. Um, so thank you. So I was, I have a few questions. Um, I was hoping that the mayor and the superintendent could perhaps comment on the benefit of this partnership to the community. I hear recognition ceremonies and participation. That's very feel good. I'm curious what other benefits we're deriving from the partnership in general. My, my, yeah. So maybe I'll start with that. If you have mayor, were you going to jump in or? Okay, so I would that would be something I'd like to hear my general feeling on this is that we should build the spaces that we need for Medford and for Medford students and. If there are community groups that can use them aligned with their mission and not contrary to the mission of Medford Public Schools, that's what community schools is there for, for rentals to provide it. The one thing that gives me pause on this particular one is this deep 50-year relationship that feel, as you say, it feels different. The question that I was going to ask was, this final bullet point that we're seeing on the screen here, does Japanese language school have capacity to fundraise to support this construction? But what gave me pause on that, and I'm sorry, I'm going to go around in circles because it's very tangled here. But what gave me pause on that was, If they have fundraised for the construction, does it then entitle them to it in perpetuity? And that also doesn't feel right for a building whose primary mission is the school as much as education is happening. So I think I lean towards we need to see more of a material benefit to Medford Public Schools in order to really fully support this and what that looks like, right? I hear great things are happening in the learning of language and culture, but I don't know that Medford students are necessarily benefiting from that. So this is where I'm leaning. I'm not fully sold, but so I guess I just want to know a little bit more about the business and reciprocity of providing this. I really do feel our job is to build the high school that we need. And I think to use a space that is available to the Medford community, I do think some storage is needed associated with the different spaces, right? You don't build a theater that doesn't have room to store equipment. Classrooms need storage. And I think in some cases, I would support a little bit of an expansion so that our community partners, which bring in rental income, can have the basics of what they need. A library is a lot. That is a huge expense, particularly compared to all of these other storage spaces. I haven't managed to distill that down into a question except what is the, I support cost neutrality on these things and I want to know what reciprocal benefits Medford is deriving from this capacity.
[Suzanne Galusi]: I think that would be part of the exploration because as of right now, there aren't.
[Erika Reinfeld]: I support doing things that feel good and are kind and generous, but asking Medford taxpayers to support something that we're not, that our students aren't directly seeing benefit for does not feel within the purview of what we're trying to do with this project. That's where I think I land. And I will let others comment.
[SPEAKER_03]: I think you could go, Member Parks.
[Suzanne Galusi]: Did we lose the mayor? I think we did. Oh.
[Erika Reinfeld]: Well, Member Parks was definitely next. Oh, thank you.
[SPEAKER_03]: Who's on here with us? She's saying she can't unmute, but I don't see her anywhere to help unmute her. Is she the iPhone? Oh, yeah, she is. Hold on one minute.
[Matt Gulino]: No, the iPhone joined while Mary was on still.
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: Yes, that's me. I was just switching. And I was just gonna say Member Parks can go next. As far as Member Reinfeld's question, they're a great organization, wonderful, and they provide us rent. So that's kind of all I, other than that, I don't know.
[Erika Reinfeld]: That's the extent of the, thank you.
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: Yes, I mean, they're a great organization. And like Dr. Galussi said, they invite her and I some of their milestones and they've been great renters as far as I know, and they provide like the 142,000 a year.
[Jessica Parks]: Thank you. I can echo member Reinfeld's sentiments. Quick point of clarification, Dr. Glusi, did you say that the 142,000 a year, that is just, covering their rent and then they pay additional for any security or anything else they use? Or is that inclusive of security as well?
[Suzanne Galusi]: No, I believe anything additional to what is not listed in the contract, they're paying additional. So as they need that, they're paying for it.
[Jessica Parks]: OK. And then my second question would be, how does this annual fee potentially compare, and you may not have this now, so this may be a question for future, and I apologize, compare to some of our other agreements on whether it be an hourly basis, have we looked at that? And I apologize, I did not ask this prior to the meeting, so that may be something that needs to be looked into, but is it,
[Suzanne Galusi]: So yes, I can, I mean, Mr. Lord is on the call, but Mr. Lord, Mr. O'Leary and myself have spent a great amount of time this year looking at community schools and rental agreements that were or were not. So I could get you the kind of side-by-side comparison It's close, but it is probably a little under what it should be. But it's much more in the park than most of our other agreements. Would you say that's a fair calculus, Mr. Lord?
[Matt Gulino]: Yes, very much so.
[Suzanne Galusi]: But I can get you the actual numbers.
[Jessica Parks]: Okay, but that's good to know that it's closer to the park and knowing that the lease is every three years. So it may not be kind of comparable depending on when things were updated.
[Suzanne Galusi]: So this lease that was signed by the previous superintendent, I believe is up not at the end of this year, but next year.
[Jessica Parks]: Okay, thank you for that. Okay, thank you. I appreciate those clarifications.
[Paul Ruseau]: Thank you. Go next. Don't know I have been struggling with this now for weeks because this is not a new topic. I do want to say I'm completely opposed to any outside storage. We don't need to have this beautiful landscape building and then within, you know, weeks of finishing it, start erecting the junk that always accumulates around old structures. And so I just I'm completely opposed to outside storage as a not just a cosmetic issue, but it's like it looks like we didn't plan if a week after we open the building, we're building additional storage outside. It just doesn't make any sense to me. I also am reading that surplus school space is supposed to be approved by DESE before it can be rented out. I'll go out on a limb and bet we didn't do that. So if we do continue this, we're going to need to, you know, Dessie's requirement here is about surplus space. Well, we won't have surplus space. We'll be building explicit space. And I'm a little concerned whether Dessie would allow that. Forgetting about the whole, you know, we're going to pay 100% of it. You know, we were flush with cash and we're like, whatever, let's build it all. DESE has to approve it and it's specific to excess space. So for long-term leases, which is what we have to call the long-term lease. Maybe it's not a long-term lease because we just do a contract every few years. But I mean, at some point, you know, after 50 years, that seems indefensible to suggest it's just not a long-term lease and we're just avoiding DESE's involvement. You know, one of the challenges I also have is that when it comes to renting out our space, if we decide to rent out our space, we have to be neutral around the purpose. You know, it has to be, what is it called, opinion, viewpoint neutral. What I'm reading is that for viewpoint neutral, that just means we had a new space because we had excess space and we were going to put it out to see who wanted to rent it. We couldn't decide who would get that based on whether they're educational or religious or any other kind of thing. But again, this isn't what we're talking about at all because we're not going to have excess space. So You know, I understand the superintendents like JLS is educational oriented. I did look up. They don't even charge very much for their students, like a shockingly low number compared to what you'd expect from, well, probably anything and everything nowadays. So they really are doing this as a benefit, not an attempt to make a gazillion dollars. the educational component of it is very attractive to me, but I feel like when we make a decision here, we are making a decision that covers the churches and anybody else who also is using the space. It's not, we don't get to pick one. Maybe we could get rid of, give me one second. So, Yeah, I'm just struggling because again, we are asking the Medford taxpayers to build a new space for JLS, for churches. I'm going to give up on the church and state thing. We have Supreme Court that wants to turn us into an actual Anyways, I don't want to get into that, but there does not seem to be any legal separation of church and state anymore, so. My discomfort there is sort of irrelevant at this point, but. Yeah, I'm really struggling. I mean, it's a 50 year relationship. They're educating, they're doing language and culture stuff that I feel like everybody here wants that to continue, but. I just, how do we figure out how to get that to happen? I wish we had more space in Medford where we could perhaps offer it up and they could rent it and renovate it to what they want. I don't know. I'm just kind of rambling here because I'm not finding any strong guide for how to feel and think about this. And that's not very common for me.
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: Thank you member Rousseau.
[SPEAKER_03]: Member Parks. I think she already spoke. I did.
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: Okay, so do we want to keep going with the presentation? We have a long agenda tonight.
[Suzanne Galusi]: You need guidance from us, right? I do need guidance. And I definitely am hearing it seems that there is some consensus around that guidance for storage space.
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: I think we need a legal opinion if we need an RFP. And if we needed an RFP, maybe there's other ideas we can explore. Okay, can the city of Medford build a space for one school that's not associated with the city of Medford is a great question. Member Mastroboni proposed.
[Mike Mastrobuoni]: I think the question is more general. It's like member Rousseau sharing like, first, are we able to build discretionary space, right? Number one, number two, if we do, what's the process for booking that? And I think this is the, again, the fundamental unique challenge of this is it's a library, right? It's like physical media. So it's not people coming in and out, it's things staying there and people, well, it is people coming in and out. It's not just the people coming into the building, it's the resources that they need to have there. So, yeah, I mean, I think I really, you know, I think it's I think superintendent use the word slippery slope. Right? I suspect it's illegal for us to build a space. Suspect it's illegal for us to build a space specifically with 1 vendor in mind, regardless of how awesome or long history that vendor is. So, yeah, I mean, I think we build it's incumbent on us to build a school that. we think we need, and then if there's extra space, we'd love to have folks in. Unfortunately, that turns into a City of Medford problem, right? And I think there's going to be a number of those. There may or may not be a number of those that come out of the project that become City of Medford problems or opportunities to solve. This feels like a pretty straightforward, more likely to go down that route for me because of the challenges of Antiaid because the challenges of it sounds like I'm just learning this from from from my colleagues. So I think those are those are the questions that I have going forward. That being said, like. If the choice is right now, keep it in the keep it in the project and we can take it out later. Like, if the school building school building committee follows that process, like, I'm fine to let them work through that and get the information out. I don't think we have the information to decide that right now.
[Suzanne Galusi]: I think the other piece just to like keep in mind is that we have the guidance that we're looking for is to bring back to the building committee. We have that meeting this week. We have it on Wednesday. So that's going to give clear direction to the building committee as to what the next steps are going to be.
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: Member Reinfeld and Member Ruseau.
[Erika Reinfeld]: I think the position I would take is that to the school building committee is to build the building that our students and the people of Medford need, but to build in some perhaps minimal capacity to provide the flexibility to have community schools and rentals. that allows us to rent the space and bring in that income back to Medford Public Schools to cover the cost of being part of the community of providing spaces that the people of Medford need. The core value here is to build the space that Medford students, teachers need and the community spaces and to make those spaces so that the broader Medford community can come in and take advantage and give back to the students and the programs that we're running here.
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: Thank you, Member Reinfeld. Member Ruseau?
[Paul Ruseau]: Sorry. I would agree that the direction I think makes sense is to keep it in, until we can get some more solid information. I mean, I think I don't, I mean, I am wondering what Leftfield or SMMA are thinking about this around, you know, the requirement that DESI approve excess space. Well, I mean, that I think is what we used to have in the Medford situation. We had this giant building and then we had extra space. And then whether we actually got DESI involved or not is six of one, half a dozen of another at this point. But excess space is very different than building space. So I'm just wondering if anybody has thoughts on that.
[Matt Rice]: I'll certainly let the left field team chime in if they have different experience. But I will say, Paul, that this is not something that we've come across in terms of our interactions with DESI. And it may just be that this particular scenario has not arisen previously. DESE has had a chance at some level to review the submission of the preferred schematic report and didn't make any particular note of it, but it could also be that the nuance of the rental agreement was not at the level that they would need to have it in order to comment. So there could be some feedback down the road, but it's not something that we have any precedent from SMA's experience dealing with it. And at the same time, I can't say that we have experience building purpose-built space in a new or renovated building for an outside non-school or non-city entity as well. So there's a couple of unprecedented pieces here for us. So I apologize for not being able to give some clear guidance.
[Matt Gulino]: Yeah, Matt, I'm kind of in the same boat as you in terms of the amount of community spaces that are being proposed here. And specific to certain programs within the city of Medford, it is a bit of a unique situation. We will go through a DESI submission process during the schematic design phase. but as far as how deep of a dive they actually do into confirming what rental spaces are is something that I haven't been through before.
[Paul Ruseau]: We won't give much guidance for Wednesday other than we need to think about it more.
[Erika Reinfeld]: I mean, I definitely have a hierarchy of which community spaces are most important to me, which will come out momentarily.
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: So is there a motion on the floor that we need more time?
[Suzanne Galusi]: Well, the only thing I would like to just get clarity on is, is it more time on both? But I think that the two things right now are, you know, the JLS partnership and then there's the storage piece. I don't know if we need more time on, am I hearing that we need more time on both of them?
[Erika Reinfeld]: I mean, we didn't really talk about the storage specifically. I think the storage space needs to be built into the places where, into the spaces that are going to be used, not being a dedicated special place for storage that adds a huge chunk of square footage. The storage space should be custom for the space and if people are using the space, they're using the space with its embedded included storage.
[Suzanne Galusi]: Yes, I just want to be clear. I'm not an expert at these projects, but I know in a lot of these new builds, the things on all of the tours that I've gone on in other districts, one of the biggest things people talk about is you're just not going to get that much storage space. And we already know that a lot of our spaces are going per deci regulations are going to have to be shared spaces, that is definitely going to be a shift for a lot of our staff. So I don't know what there will be for storage. And to say, we're going to build separate storage for partnerships or rental spaces, that would not be covered in the cost is something I think is going to be really tricky because we're not going to be building extra storage space necessarily for staff. It would be for this purpose. And I do think just for clarity, I think we have to just be clear about storage space, because I do think that that just opens up a great wide Pandora's box.
[Erika Reinfeld]: Member Reinfeld, then Member Ruseau. I do not support taking storage space away from staff and giving it to community rental partners. That's non-negotiable for me. Priority storage needs to go to the classroom and extracurricular educational needs of Medford public schools. That that's my position on that. And if we need more space so the teachers can do their jobs, let's build that more space. But I don't think we should be building it. For community partners, if we haven't built it for our own staff and students.
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: Remember so.
[Paul Ruseau]: Oh, I certainly agree with what member Reinfeld just said. I think. You know, I don't know why it's just dawning on me, but like You know, if a certain amount of square footage is rented, and they're renting it, you know, 24, seven, 365, it's not just there for an hour, they can make their own storage in this space. That's different than us building storage. So I guess I'm really falling on the line of no storage in these rental places. If you wanna use 10% or 40% of your space to store your stuff, Well, fine, but us building it that way creates this scenario where it's not as multi-purpose. You know, if you decide to stop being a renter, it's not a big square space or whatever the shape is. And then, you know, what if the next renter doesn't need any storage? We've literally wasted a whole pile of space that we can't rent out in any other fashion either. So I guess I'm coming down on the side of no storage. Now, I know the logistical challenges that, well, no, again, like you can build your space inside there. And by build, I don't mean, you know, bring a construction crew, obviously, but if you look at most of our basements, you probably find lots of storage that didn't require inspections, so.
[Suzanne Galusi]: Can I just say one thing? I just want to make sure it's clear for people that are listening. All of the space that's rented is instructional space that is used in some fashion during the day. And quite honestly, that is a lot of what we are constantly challenged with, mostly at the McGlynn, because I know it's been 25 years, but it's a newer build than this high school of 1970 that was built for a much larger enrollment population. And so we have these little spaces that aren't used and they've turned into storage spaces. But the problem we're running into at the McGlynn with some of the renters is, is the storage on our stage on the wings. And it does restrict the use sometimes during the day for our students and our MPS programs. And again, I have said, I very much am happy that we are community focused and that we are using our spaces in that stance. But I would say, It is tricky sometimes when that impedes our day-to-day functioning of the space for rental reasons. I, to a lot of the members' comments here, it's important that we have community organizations in our building and that they're giving back to Medford Public Schools. But it really should not, their logistical need for however they rent their space should not be on us to figure out. And right now, storage, as I said before, is not part of the rental agreement or policy through the Medford School Committee. And even that right there would need an update to the existing policy as storage is not listed.
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: Member Reinfeld and then Member Parks.
[Erika Reinfeld]: I just think the discussion of storage space at the McGlynn should be referred to perhaps our built our facilities subcommittee. It sounds like an important conversation, but I don't think it's the guidance that the SBC needs right now. I can motion that the subcommittee meet if that's helpful.
[Suzanne Galusi]: No, I was just giving an example of what I don't want the high school to turn into. But I agree that the subcommittee would. Okay.
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: That was all I wanted to say. Thank you, Member Reinfeld. Member Parks.
[Jessica Parks]: I guess it may have answered my question, which was going to be of this, the square footage listed here, how much of it is actually full? And is that all of it? Um.
[Suzanne Galusi]: Do you mean do these numbers represent current use of. Storage space right now at Medford high school.
[Jessica Parks]: Yes, I mean, is there really 750. Uh, 750, uh. That, uh. is filled with stuff from our rental partners, plus another 300, give or take? Yeah. OK. Yes. And so having that removed and making sure that it does not reenter our buildings is what we're talking about. So we're not talking about literally just A, you know, cabinet in a hallway. No, I just wanted to clarify that this space was actually filled to the brim and not that, like, we're talking about this space exists, but they're just sitting in cabinets. Um, and. These users I'm going to ask the same question. I mean, we're getting the same are we getting an equivalent. Um. The same question I asked for the Japanese school, are we getting the market rate? No, okay.
[Suzanne Galusi]: It's not even in the policy. So we are not, there is no fee being associated right now to rental space.
[Jessica Parks]: And then what they're paying though for renting the spaces they are using minus storage space. Are they at least current in whatever the most recent community. Nope. Okay. We're getting we're getting we're getting there. Got it. That's fine. Um, I know that it was completely revamped this year and sat down and looked at everything. So um, God, um, and Is there an opportunity to include all storage space? And I still find providing this much storage, I don't agree with it. I feel like they should be figuring out other places to keep things that are not our school buildings. I also, I won't even touch the McGlynn because we're tabling that for now. But I think that if they want any, use of even the cabinet, they should be paying for it. Um, but I do not think that these numbers should be allowed in our buildings as excess when we are going to have teachers who are struggling with storage and having to get used to operating under new ways of working in their day to day. And then our renters will have all the space they want. I just, I don't see how that is even remotely a message we want to be sending. So that's where I stand on this one. Have they indicated that if they don't have this storage, they are going to leave our schools and we will not receive that rental income?
[Suzanne Galusi]: Explicitly no, possibly yes. I mean, I think they do know that a lot of them are already starting to kind of think about other options in terms of, you know, renting a U-Haul and bringing that back and forth each week. I think some of the conversations, as I said before, are some of the storage is audio equipment that may not be needed in this new facility because everything will be updated, but the those small like instructional pieces or signage things that they need, those are things they may have to take back and forth with them.
[Jessica Parks]: Okay, well I mean I guess if renting a U-Haul may suddenly prove cheaper than renting storage space, then it may have to be that way. I don't know. That's kind of where my thought process is, but
[Suzanne Galusi]: So I would say, Mayor, we just need some sort of guidance or resolution from the school committee as to how we should proceed, whether it's, however we're, whatever the majority rule is in terms of informing the building committee on Wednesday.
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: Just to our left field and SMA, do we need guidance or is this enough for now, do we actually need an actual vote?
[Matt Gulino]: I mean, I know the plan is to discuss some of these spaces with the full committee to decide whether they are not, with the full building committee on Wednesday to discuss if they should be included or not. And I know that they will be looking for a recommendation from this committee. just based on our current timeline, that was the original goal.
[Paul Ruseau]: May I'd like to make a motion?
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: Member Ruseau?
[Paul Ruseau]: The motion is to not build any storage space for rental use in the new MHS.
[Erika Reinfeld]: Is there a second?
[Mike Mastrobuoni]: I will second that.
[Erika Reinfeld]: Second. Friendly amendment can to prioritize necessary storage space for educational use and not build rental space for community rentals?
[Paul Ruseau]: I think the storage space we're getting is a storage space we're allowed. Right? We can't prioritize. We can't get more than we are getting. Or is that not true?
[Suzanne Galusi]: I believe that's true. That's all part of. I withdraw them.
[Paul Ruseau]: Sorry, I wish I could say I would love that. I just didn't.
[Erika Reinfeld]: Yeah, I guess I'm just trying to put the value in the values component of this that it is that that our priority is to. The educational users Medford's educational users of Medford High School.
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: Okay, there's a motion on the floor. Is there a second? I think I heard a second by member Mastroboni. Yeah. Roll call.
[Paul Ruseau]: Member Mastroboni?
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: Yes.
[Paul Ruseau]: Member Olapade? Yes. Member Parks?
[Erika Reinfeld]: Yes.
[Paul Ruseau]: Member Reinfeld?
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: Yes.
[Paul Ruseau]: Member Ruseau? Yes. Mayor Langenkern?
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: Yes. Six in the affirmative, zero in the negative. Motion passes.
[Suzanne Galusi]: Thank you.
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: Yeah, thank you.
[Suzanne Galusi]: On to the Teen Health Center. Thank you so much. So another area that is right now in the space summary is the teen health center. And so this slide talks a little bit about what that space is for. So it would eliminate traditional barriers like cost and scheduling and transportation. for our students to deliver both medical care and mental health services. There are a lot of our surrounding district neighbors that have existing school-based health care centers. That includes Cambridge, Chelsea, Everett, Peabody, Revere, and Somerville. And the data around those SBHCs is that In the buildings, about 97% of students are able to get the care they need in a visit and return to their learning in the classroom. So while we do prioritize physical health care, the data that we have in front of us, at least specific to Medford Public Schools, is the 2025 Youth Risk Behavior Survey that did talk a lot about the acute mental health emergency. and 20% of our high school students were reporting poor mental health and 25 experiencing debilitating depression. Next slide, please. And I think we all know that trying to find mental health care services is very difficult at this time. So we do feel that right now Medford High School's location We wonder about the hurdle and the barrier that it might cause, meaning that it is not located centrally in the city. We are located really to one side of the city that borders Winchester. And so there is a query around how the full-time use may be tapped from day to day. A lot of our, so Director Silva and Dr. Shulman did do a lot of research, they spoke to a lot of the neighboring districts, they spoke to Cambridge Health Alliance, and a lot of the feedback that they were receiving and a lot of the data that they received did say that the volume of medical appointments didn't always necessarily pay for the staff that are housed in the medical portion of the health care center. Right now we have Dr. Sabia. He is our kind of resident pediatrician. He does care for some of our students. He does provide physicals, especially around sports enrollment time. And so continuing to have someone like that in support of our community is very helpful, but there is still a very high demand for mental health services. So the issue here is that a fully funded teen health care center needs a nurse practitioner, a medical assistant, a health advocate, and a behavioral health provider. There are state grants, which can sometimes provide about $150,000 a year. But the data that we did receive is that there's a wide range outside of those grant funding that leaves an operational gap for districts somewhere between, and it might be even less than this, it might be like 80,000, but about 100 to $200,000. There is, however, Medicaid reimbursement. that could bring a large amount of money back to the city to kind of close that gap with school districts. But it would need that redirecting so that it would need the city to say, okay, we're going to give the Medicaid reimbursement to the schools to kind of close the operational gap, depending on what that would be. And the next slide, please. And so this shows you a snapshot of the space for the teen health center. There would be a waiting room and a reception area, a toilet, an exam room, an office, a staff room, and then a storage room for medical supplies. You can see here the construction cost is about $2 million with a total project cost of about 2.4, I'll just round up. The next slide, I believe, shows you where it would be located here, which you can see where the blue dotted circle would be, which is here on kind of the outskirts. This location provides some access externally, as well as some privacy and confidentiality. One of the pieces that really kind of came up in our many discussions were about the need to have a location that's not at the front of the school for transport. of students sometimes via ambulance. So this location also allows for kind of around the corner or back part here of this wing to allow for that pickup and that access. And also depending on where we go with the Teen Health Center, Matt Rice has spoken before that this location also provides a lot of flexibility to the current plans in terms of inclusion or exclusion from the plans. And then I believe the next slide shows you an example of what Somerville's footprint is in this purple area, you can see first and foremost, it's adjacent to the nursing suite. So there's a lot of, you know, shared capability there. And then you can see what these spaces look like. So you can see that there's the exam rooms and the staff rooms. There are private consult rooms to have meetings. There's a lab. and a medical safety area for disposing of equipment and additionally storing equipment. And then the next slide talks about the guidance from this body. If we should seek to create a new teen health center at Medford High School, and whether these spaces would be built at Medford High School, knowing they're not reimbursable, and then whether the school committee is able to accept or absorb potential annual operating costs, And whether the school committee explores additional potential partners. Right now we are partnered with CHA, Cambridge Health Alliance. Are there other potential partners? Would the city allow the Medicaid reimbursement dollars to Medford Public Schools to defray the operational costs? And would there be grant or philanthropy funding to help support the construction and whether a plan must be cost neutral to receive approval? And I'm happy to answer any questions or expand. Member Mastroboni?
[Mike Mastrobuoni]: Happy to go 1st on this. I think this is 1 of the most amazing investments we can make in our students, a student who has access to mental health care, physical health care, reproductive health care at school without relying on caretakers or parents. Without relying on transportation, I think this is 1 of the best investments we can make. It's right now ballpark, a quarter of 1% of the project cost. And in terms of your questions, Dr Lucy, I think this is something that is a really 1 of the huge value as we can make in the new high school. I think it's worth it to absorb potential annual operating costs. My experience in Somerville is that Medicaid reimbursement really does a lot to defray the cost of the operations here. It's a lot of work for the district to contract with somebody to do this Medicaid billing. It's complicated, but it's not rocket science. There's contractors that can do it. And I think with the right plan, this will cost a minimal amount of money. Um, for the district, um, you know, happy to continue working with, with Maryland concurrent on, you know, what, what the future, um, funding plan looks like, but I can't imagine a Medford high school in 20, you know, planning in 2026 without, um, having this resource, um, a student who, you know, is well, is a student who's ready to learn. Um, and I couldn't just couldn't possibly, um, um, um, think that, that, that, that there's any, any better investment we can make here. So I just wanted to start off by sharing that.
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: Is there a motion on the floor?
[Mike Mastrobuoni]: I move that we, that the school committee recommends that the high school building committee continue to maintain a teen health center space within their planning document process and documents.
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: Second. Okay, I'm going to ask you to call the roll number. So I'm going to abstain just because I'm a member of the vote. I'm a voting member of the building committee. So I'll hear all this on Wednesday. Call the roll, please.
[Paul Ruseau]: Let me try that again. Member Mastroboni?
[Matt Gulino]: Still yes.
[Paul Ruseau]: Member Olapade?
[Matt Gulino]: Point of information. I'm also a voting member of the building committee. Do I? Doesn't matter. Okay, then I vote yes.
[Paul Ruseau]: Member Parks? Yes. Member Reinfeld?
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: Yes.
[Paul Ruseau]: Member Ruseau? Yes. Mayor Lanko-Kern?
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: I'll abstain. Five in the affirmative. One abstains. Motion passes.
[Suzanne Galusi]: Thank you, I think this is where I turn it over to Matt Rice from the project team SMMA.
[Matt Rice]: And I will quickly hand it over to Martine, but I'll also just say I appreciated the brevity of that second vote versus the first topic that we covered so. Martine, you have to try and keep this one quick as well.
[Martine Dion]: I will. I will try. I will try. Good evening, everyone. Martine Dionne, Syms Mini Mickey, SMA's Director of Sustainable Design. So we're going to talk here about the LEED certification that's required through MSBA. And tonight, we really need your confirmation of the LEED version. MSBA offers either LEADV4 or LEADV5 and just to give you some context, because maybe not all of you followed us you know, the whole team and the school building committee from the start. But when we started this project, LEED v4 was going to be sunset in June 2026, so about a month ago. So the project was to be under LEED v5. However, there's been a sort of a development that happened through from USGBC and GBCI and basically they extended the sunset date for V4 until next year, June 2027. So this allows projects to still pursue on their LEED V4. And what I'm going to go through here is show you the justification for considering going back to LEED V4. Just a quick overview, MSBA requires LEED Silver certification minimum. They support the fundamental and enhanced commissioning part of LEED. And then they provide for additional reimbursement with meeting the specialized stretch code, which Medford has adopted. So we will pursue that. And then an optimization of specific LEED material points can bring another 1% additional reimbursement. And we're looking to optimize those additional reimbursements as part of this project. And what LEED is looking to do basically is from 2025, after the 7-27, June 27 on LEAD V5, new versions of LEAD are going to be updated every five years. That's their goal. So the LEAD V6 would be coming in 2030. The sunset for the full certification, final certification for V4 would be in 2032. And then about five years later, the sunset for V5 in 2037, and so on. Next. So we started the project on the learning curve on LEADv5. It's very recent with the understanding that the project would have to be certified under LEADv5. It presented considerable challenge as part of the early assessments. And I know that there's been discussion about achieving certification beyond the minimum LEED silver required by MSBA. So, what we also have learned recently, there's been peers that have shared nationally, that have shared projects that have actually gone through the certification. There's very few of them, and there's not a lot of schools. So, the certification feedback that I will bring, talk about here, bring some of the highlights, were on commercial buildings. They mentioned considerable challenges with the review process with GBCI, which is the entity that does the review and approves the credits and the points for the certification level. This is common when there's a certification version change. And we've seen that in early 10 years ago with V4. A minimum of 10 points will be denied versus when you do a LEADv4 now or LEADv4.1, it's usually just we work and we know the process, and there's usually only one or two points that get denied. So it's a challenge if a project wants to achieve a high level of certification. The whole set of criteria in LEADv5 is much more stringent and very different than lead V4. So when you achieve a lead V4 gold, this means you would probably achieve not more than a lead V5 silver. That said, lead V5 gold is challenging, and platinum is even more challenging, and I'll talk about it in a minute. MSBA reported to us a few weeks ago that Medford would be the only project seeking Lead V5 at this time. There was another project that was also considering going for Lead V5, probably within the same timeline we were last year, and now they are fully reconsidering back to V4. All of the other projects on MSBA's list that are currently in design are all seeking V4. So Medford would be the only sort of a bit of the guinea pig going for V5 at this time. Next. So when we look at the certification, the design and certification impacts, between V4 and V5, there's just a few highlights I want to go over. And then we're going to talk about the Platinum, which is the highest certification. So as I mentioned, Link V5 is more stringent. They're pretty much all of the credits have had either an update or a complete modification from V4. So that's all the criteria for site energy, water efficiency, et cetera. There is a considerable number of new prerequisite that require more documentation, more early assessments. LEED v5 commissioning must start a schematic design. And we've had challenges with this because MSBA only assigned an agent at DED design development. And so the cost of hiring a commissioning agent that may not be the same commissioning agent as the one assigned by MSBA would have to be, you know, provided through the current budget and that cost was not in the original budget. And then there's a set of credits that used to be somewhat inherent in any projects and they would contribute to get to help to get to the gold level and some they were easy credits. site master plan, joint user facilities, and site assessment. Those no longer exist in V5. So this means that there's a set of criteria that we have to, you know, there's extra criteria that we have to look into the project to replace those easy ones. And when looking at platinum, which is the highest level of certification, so MSBA requires silver, then there's gold, and then there's platinum. I know that there's some interest in Medford to go to at least gold and maybe platinum. Platinum for V4 means 80 points. Not an easy thing, but feasible in many projects. Whereas V5 requires also 80 points, but it does also mandate a fully electrified project. There is a minimum percentage savings from their baseline, the LEED baseline, which is similar to our code baseline. They require 100% renewable energy installed, which is not currently included in this project at the 100% level. Um, and then, uh, 20% reduction embodied carbon, uh, which involves including mass timber as part of the structure. Next. So what we're looking for you to confirm tonight is, um, do, does the project continue to pursue LEED V5? Or we would need a change for the school committee to adopt LEAD v4 as the version that we would be pursuing to get the MSBA grant, as most of the other projects currently in design with MSBA have done. They've gone back to v4. And then we need to understand and we need your confirmation on the lead certification goal beyond the MSBA lead silver. What we also want to clarify is Would it be a silver level and an aspiration and sustainable design features included in the project without specifically getting the gold plaque or the platinum plaque, just getting the silver plaque? Or would we go for the gold or the full gold or platinum certification? The third element that we would like you to confirm or provide tonight is, are there other sustainability goals to convey to the project team? So the project is considering renewable energy at a PPA level at this point. Are we looking for that? solar PV and renewable energy to be equivalent to the net zero energy. We are looking at all electric heating and cooling systems, the heat pump technology, and then the approach sort of a ground source versus air source. This is something that actually we're going to dive in more in schematic design. and provide a lifecycle cost analysis for. And then the reduced embodied carbon with the use of mass timber. If the project goes to LEED V5, we will have to include mass timber. If the project goes to LEED V4 and we are seeking gold, or platinum, then we will also have to consider reduced embodied carbon. So those are the three things. Matt, do you want to cover that? Or I could go through it, but you're the one who's closest to it in terms of having developed it and work with it with the estimators.
[Matt Rice]: There's a lot of numbers here, so I'll try to just simplify what we're looking at. It's essentially going through those three topics that Martine just listed in terms of where we're looking for some guidance for potentially. other sustainability focused areas. So there's a collection of these non-program cost alternates. We've talked a lot about the program cost alternates previously. These do not, they're not associated with particular programs in the building, but rather parts, pieces, functionality. And these are all sustainability related in one shape or another. There's three groupings here. The first, the PV1, 2, and 3 non-program alternates are different levels of additional investment related to photovoltaics. The baseline assumptions, and the baseline assumptions are listed down at the bottom in the notes. But for photovoltaics, we have a solar ready roof that would have photovoltaic panels put onto it to a power purchase agreement. So there's no capital outlay by the city as part of the project to purchase those panels. But that also means that the city does not own the panels and the tax credits, the green incentives that are associated with them. But it does get solar on top of the roof without any of these alternates being accounted for. The first alternate actually says that the city would own purchase the panels as part of the project for an estimated construction cost of $2.7 million and the total project cost of $3.3 million. The second PV alternate is associated with providing ground-mounted canopy structures to essentially increase our PV capacity to a net zero level so that we could generate the energy that we need to run the building on site. Again, the PV panels here are neither on the roof nor on the ground-mounted canopies would be purchased as part of that alternate, that additional cost of $23.6 million construction cost and $28.8 million total project cost would just be buying those ground mounted canopy structures. Again, PPA provided for the panels or panels provided via PPA. The PV3 option is sort of that's the all in cost alternate option that purchases both the canopy structures at ground as well as the PV panels on those canopies, as well as the PV panels on the roof. So that will also provide a net zero energy building, but it means that the city owns all the tax credits associated with the panels, the renewable credits that are associated with the panels. So that's at a cost of $48.6 million estimated construction. and $59.3 or $4 million for total project cost. The next group of cost, non-programmed cost alternates are all dealing with the HVAC system and specifically the heating and cooling portions of the HVAC system. And for a baseline HVAC system, what we've accounted for as part of the project cost right now is a full geothermal system. So probably the most costly system here, but also the most cost effective from a life cycle. standpoint over time and the most efficient in terms of the lowest energy use in terms of just heating and cooling the building. So all of the program cost alternates for the HVAC system are all credits back. There are all potential reductions we can make in the total project cost by considering different modifications to the system. The HVAC-1 system changes that. So geothermal is also known as ground source heat pump. So when you see GSHP, that is a ground source heat pump system. We can change that to an air source heat pump system, which is an air to water type of heat pump. That's a saving, a potential savings of $47.7 million on the construction cost and $58.2 million on the total project cost. The second HVAC option that we have would be changing that ground source heat pump 100% to a hybrid. Maybe, I think it's probably 50% ground source heat pump at that point, and then this air to water type heat pump system as well. That could be a savings of $25.3 million estimated construction cost, total project cost of $30.9 million. And then that last HVAC option is changing the entirety of the geothermal system to an air source heat pump or VRF system. So that has the potential highest initial cost savings of $57.5 million, estimated construction cost in $70.8 million. $2 million on total project cost. Again, when we would make that change, we're going to be shifting to one of still all electric systems. All of these are all electric systems, but one of the less efficient systems in the VRF system, air-to-air source heat pump. And then the last two non-program cost alternates are dealing with a mass timber frame, replacing a portion of the structural steel frame with mass timber. Again, our baseline cost estimating assumes a steel frame throughout. the building. That timber one option suggests that for our new addition, our existing building that we're renovating has a concrete and steel frame that would remain as is, but for the new addition we would replace 50 percent of the steel frame and components with mass timber versions of those same. That would come at an additional cost of 14.6 million dollars estimated construction cost And then, timber to is envisioning replacing 100% of that structural frame with mass timber that structural steel frame with mass timber and estimated construction cost of $29.2 million or total project cost of. $35.7 million. And again, there is infinite number of options in between the percentage of mass timber that we could be using. And so we're just putting in these two data points so that we can understand the range of what may be involved from a cost standpoint.
[Martine Dion]: Now, Matt, if I may just add that on the HVAC 1, 2, 3, we, as part of the MSBA life cycle cost analysis for schematic design, we are going to look at a full 50-year or 75-year life cycle cost. I believe it's 75 years now, right? And so that's going to look at, because these systems, obviously you can see how they save first cost, but however, you know, air source heat pumps are slightly less efficient than ground source heat pumps. So there's going to be utility costs that are going to differ throughout, you know, the lifecycle of this equipment, as well as maintenance costs. And so the comprehensive lifecycle costs and replacement costs. So the comprehensive lifecycle costs will look at and compare those systems on the basis of replacement, maintenance, utility, and first cost. So the next steps here, so we're looking for your confirmation on the lead version and the lead certification level. And we are going to bring this and share this with the advisory committee, the advisory team tomorrow. There's a meeting with them tomorrow. Um, and then the advisory team will provide recommendation to the SBC, um. On the solar PV, the heating and cooling systems in the mass timber as well. From your recommendations tonight.
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: Member Ruseau.
[Paul Ruseau]: On the previous, um. page where we saw the numbers. So this doesn't tell us anything like the 59 million for PV3. That doesn't describe what our tax credits would be, how we may end up getting a higher number of percentages back from MSBA. And it also, I mean, I know that it does not include like the life cycle costs, but none of those things are included in that number.
[Martine Dion]: Not yet. We will be doing this. We're looking to this as part of the SDLCCA. The PV will not impact the MSBA reimbursement. They do not support it, though. They do not include it when they look at your project costs. Am I right, Matt?
[Matt Rice]: I don't think they explicitly exclude it, but when we start to get, they cap their project cost per square foot on the building, right? And we're already going to be at a point that exceeds whatever that square foot cost is before we get to funding the PV. I think you could put a lot of other things into that same category if they're not funded or supported necessarily, but I don't think they're picking on the PV specifically. Thank you.
[Paul Ruseau]: My other question is around the HVAC. I have an air source heat pump. It's an enormous piece of equipment for my condo. How much room does air source heat pumps take to cool a building of this size? Are they special equipment? I mean, I'm sure they're special, but I just can't comprehend how they can, they're just huge.
[Martine Dion]: Yeah, these are going to be different than what you have on your condo. They're not the split systems that you have or the smaller source heat pump that you have. These are large, roofed up, you know, pieces of equipment. that go on the roof, and they do impact, to some extent, the roof area for solar PV. So as we move through schematic design, we're going to take a look at, as much as we can, we're going to take a look at the impact of the different VRF in sort of in our experience, VRF, for example, is going to probably use more roof area than the hybrid and the ground source heat pump.
[Paul Ruseau]: And I think that's all.
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: Thank you, Member Ruseau. Member Parks?
[Jessica Parks]: Thank you. And thank you, Matt and Martine. So I know that this high school is going to stand for a really long time. And I know that we've talked about these items a lot. I'm part of the MEP and sustainability subcommittee. We've had a bunch of these discussions and I think, you know, the choices we make now are going to shape our operating costs, our kind of impact staff and student health, and just pretty much our climate impact for decades to come. And so given that Medford's been an early leader in the fight against climate change and to align this project with Medford's carbon neutrality commitments, since I think it was in 2021, Medford committed to the global race to zero, which is basically pledging to cut up, for those who don't know, It's a pledge to cut greenhouse gases half by 2030 and to become carbon neutral by 2050. So that is something that the city of Medford has committed to. I think that to align with that and to deliver long-term financial savings, as well as a healthier learning environment, I have a motion I put together that I'd like to propose if that's okay. It's kind of lengthy, I can read it. I can also pop it up on the screen if that's allowed, I don't know. But it basically says the comprehensive Medford High School project shall achieve the minimum of LEED V4 silver certification to meet the MSBA requirements. However, the project shall prioritize building performance, occupant health and life cycle costs over point accumulation. To that end, the project shall one, strive to achieve net zero energy as technically feasible through integrated passive design strategies, all electric high efficiency systems and onsite renewable energy generation. Specify red list free healthy materials. for all materials except MEP and fire protection to ensure indoor air quality for students and staff, prioritize water efficiency and stewardship, reducing indoor potable water consumption by a minimum of 35%, which I think you had identified as a yes on our LEADV4 scorecard. Correct me if I'm wrong, though. I don't want For water efficiency, I know that one is always a tricky one. So I don't want to commit us past what you did show as a yes on our scorecard.
[Martine Dion]: because I'm sure you- I think right now, yeah, I think right now we have 30%. And part of it has to do with the gender neutral portion of, because what gets us to 30, what used to get us close to 35 or at 35 were the urinals. And so if you have less urinals, then you end up- Oh yeah, I know the urinal game.
[Jessica Parks]: I'm really sad to say that phrase, but yes.
[Martine Dion]: Yes. So I would say 30 may be a more feasible goal, and we're going to strive for more. But to get to 35, we'd have to start looking at rainwater harvesting and other more costly systems.
[Jessica Parks]: And we can talk about that maybe in the subcommittee. I would want to try and push us towards limiting uh, potable water for irrigation use, if at all possible. Um, I know that we will have fields which will have turf, so that may be possible, um, given that we will not have to water them. I don't know, but it's something to look into. Um, and then I, um, as number four, minimize the total cost of ownership, um, by, um, designing operational systems controls and monitoring to substantially reduce energy, water and maintenance costs over the life of the building. Bottom line is I want the long-term cost of operating and maintaining the building to remain at the forefront of every design decision though. This building is a large building. It has the potential to be expensive to operate. And I think with creative, sustainable solutions, we can make it so it is not expensive to operate. If it is commissioned well from the start, the systems can operate well. I know that Hopefully Ken will be happy if it's commissioned well from the start. And that would be my proposal. I can pop this language into the chat maybe. But that's what I would, that would be my motion.
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: Thank you, Member Parks. Is there a second? Oh, Member Reinfeld, then Member Ruseau.
[Erika Reinfeld]: I had questions. Do we need to deal with the motion? There's no second, so you can please ask a question. Okay. So I was going to ask about operating costs because I agree that is a priority, but I think that was covered in terms of we don't have this immediate information. I heard from another Medford resident who is currently on vacation to ask about innovations credit. Is there an innovation credit in LEED V5 for responsive design?
[Martine Dion]: I'd have to check the specific for responsive design, but there is definitely similar credits in V4, and we usually fully optimize the innovation credits in V4.
[Erika Reinfeld]: Okay, and so whichever rating we opt for, that will be possible.
[Martine Dion]: Responsible design.
[Erika Reinfeld]: Yeah. And then I... Or equivalent, depending. Right. Yeah. And there's a resilience component as well, as I understand. Yeah, we've perceived that, yeah, in before. Okay. And then my other question was, Of these possible courses of action, which are there ones that align particularly well with the program formerly in place that any CHIPS program because I know that got kind of absorbed into. I don't know if it's fallen out of fit. I'm not sure exactly what happened, but I know that that was really specific to school buildings. And when we put out the RFP, we made the particular recommendation that any chips be prioritized along with V5. And so I'm curious how we maintain that commitment since it is a school-focused design approach.
[Martine Dion]: Right. And lead, the lead we're talking about is lead for school and it's specific for schools.
[Erika Reinfeld]: Okay. And so that's what any CHIPS became?
[Martine Dion]: Pretty much. What happened is there was a choice between, it is since 2009. There are nuances, but they're pretty much the same. And CHIPS now has been bought by USGBC. CHIPS doesn't exist on its own anymore. Last year it got purchased by GBCI. So that's where that stands and everything is pretty equivalent throughout the system.
[Erika Reinfeld]: Because what I really want to make sure is that we're maximizing the in-school environment protections that were in place there. And I see both you and Member Parks nodding vigorously.
[Jessica Parks]: And GBCI, just to clarify, is the overarching organization that is USGBC, basically, like their parent organization, just as a clarification.
[Martine Dion]: They basically oversee everything to do with the certification process itself. USGBC develops, lead, and GBCI oversees the certification.
[Erika Reinfeld]: Okay, thank you. That's helpful. I will just say before I re-mute myself that net zero is probably my environmental priority on this. I'm not in the field, but that is where I land for decision-making.
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: Thank you. Thank you. Thank you, Member Weintraub. We'll just see who's next. member Ruseau, and then member Parks.
[Paul Ruseau]: Thank you. One of the things about the waters, I'm looking at the screen and not at the actual resolution, sorry. You know, I don't know what kind of water use is going to be required, but you know, whatever we have for plantings that's going to require water is only going to require more water. Well, I mean, I don't know for sure forever. I don't know. I don't remember the exact predictions for what our water situation is going to look like in this area as the climate crisis intensifies. But I do want to make sure we we don't, you know, plant trees and flowers and some grass and then it's just all dead or requires our maintenance teams to go out there and hand water. I know that isn't necessarily what anybody was going to do, but we have very long stretches of not exactly plant-friendly weather and it's going to get worse. And so I want to make sure that while we are being cautious about how much water we're using, I want the building to also be inviting and to not, you know, right now you go there and there's a bunch of planters in the front which are all falling up off the railing and I think I've seen them get fresh plants a couple times in my nine years, but you know they can't get watered and they just die and that's that. So I very much. Interested in how we can collect rainwater and I don't know what the I know they've done that in Somerville in a couple of places, you know, but collecting the rainwater, reusing it. I mean, does it end up becoming so absurdly expensive that email will just turn on the tap? I don't know, but it's an issue for me, because I just. You know, I like everybody else here who has been driving up to the high school. Some of you for your whole careers. I'm looking at you, Joan. The fact that the building is structurally and architecturally not inviting is one thing, but you know dust bowls of sand all over the place and you know that kind of stuff is also a big component of it. You can take a frankly a dreadful building and with enough proper landscaping you just can't wait to get there. So the no water potable water. I'm fine as long as we actually have plans for an alternative to that. So thank you.
[Martine Dion]: Very good point. Thank you. We'll bring that back and we'll be able to present options that responds to your point. And there are strategies to address without the potable water. But to your point, you know, and LEED excludes the fields So, you know, depending on what you do at the field. So there's a lot more discussion, but we get the gist of your preference here and your goal.
[Jessica Parks]: And we could, I mean, I'd be amenable to saying while striving to eliminate potable water, Paul, if you want.
[Martine Dion]: Yes, and we could, you know, there is an option to do some irrigation as long as you have sensors and control and there's the whole 50%.
[Jessica Parks]: And focusing on drought-tolerant species. Right, right. Thank you. Motion on the floor. Quick question. We talked about mass timber and I, you know, So I only know a small amount about it, but the things I've heard talk about kind of efficiencies and construction timeline. I've never been on a project that has worked with it really, but I've heard about efficiencies and timelines and kind of better site conditions with less dust and debris, just in kind of the papers that I've read about it. Is that actually true and is that, in a sense benefit given our site constraints? And would it be that much of a savings in timeline that it would have a monetary flip in terms of duration of project and having kids on a site? Like, would it be that beneficial?
[Martine Dion]: Yeah, Matt can speak to that, but we've addressed some of those, right, Matt?
[Matt Rice]: Yeah, Jessica, we did look into it because I'm very much of a like mind and I had heard the claims as well, right, that when we can combine the various efficiencies in terms of construction, in terms of lack of some finishes, in terms of shortened timeframe, that we could sort of push it towards a cost-neutral decision. And after a lot of pushing, I don't think that the industry is there quite yet. I think our sort of conservative assumption is that we might be able to save two to three months, maybe from each phase. But that is not enough of a swing in terms of the savings on general conditions to push us towards that cost. It certainly reduces the overall cost premium. but it doesn't get it to the point where we should be making a decision on that. I do think there is something in terms of a cleaner site environment as well, but it's tough to quantify that and think about all the parts and pieces that tie into it. But we did do a pretty deep dive into trying to validate it and see whether or not that there was that cost neutrality position. And I just don't think it's quite there yet. I still think there's a lot of value from an embodied carbon reduction standpoint in terms of what we're going to be building, but it's tough to make that decision solely on cost right now.
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: Thank you.
[Paul Ruseau]: Thank you. One of the things I feel like we haven't spent much time on yet is, you know, early on, we're like, we're concerned as a school committee that we're going to build this high school and the MSBA's estimates of how many students we have is going to be woefully inadequate, and that there'll be this barrage of new people who decide, oh, I'm not going to go to private school, I'm going to go to Medford High. And I think, you know, we did beyond our due diligence to get our number up. But Does the use of mass timber versus whatever other materials we're using, does that have any impact on the ability to add to the building? Or is it totally irrelevant?
[Matt Rice]: Again, I don't think it's going to be a large decision making factor for us, because the steel frame that we're designing with would be designed to accommodate the additional loads. But that would be exactly the same scenario as if we were designing it with mass timber, we would give the structural engineer some additional loads they have to account for in a section of the building, because we are planning to go up as part of our expansion strategy on an area of the six stories in the building. There's a section that stretches out only to five stories. We would already have elevator access, stair access up to that level, and it's really extending out that top level. But from a structural standpoint, I do believe we could do that with either steel or with mass timber as a frame.
[Martine Dion]: Just a quick comment, Mrs. Parks, your motion includes LEAD V4 versus LEAD V5? Yes. Okay, thank you. That's because we're going to be looking to register the project. In the near future, and we are to the whole as the process has to be based on the version we're going to adopt.
[Jessica Parks]: Yes, I don't think the extra costs associated with v5 nor do. I think that we need to be a guinea pig for V5. I always hate being a guinea pig for the lead process, so let someone else figure out how to do it first, to be quite honest, and pay the price.
[Paul Ruseau]: On a smaller project, too.
[Jessica Parks]: Exactly. Let someone else figure out all the nuances and pay the extra costs associated with that. I mean, the bottom line is, I think it's the performance and what you're actually putting into the project. It's not the points, but that's my own personal feeling. Others may disagree.
[Erika Reinfeld]: Member Rantl. May I also ask Member Parks, why silver and not that stretch to gold? This is also where I was leaning on the four versus five, particularly the guinea pig, but I'm curious about silver versus gold, because I think there are some advantages to aspire to some of those points. gold.
[Jessica Parks]: So I put it as a minimum of silver. My belief is we will actually fall solidly in gold. But I did not want to sacrifice. I would rather pay to have the PV canopies than run around chasing another point for something that wasn't as important to us getting to net zero. Say running around and getting a point to put in place monitoring a point in the system that we didn't actually care about. Like a point monitoring a BMS point or something that we didn't care about. blanking right now, but there are a lot of credits that may or may not be 100% important to our goals. And I think the biggest, from my vantage point, and again, this is just my vantage point, for me, getting to net zero was the most important goal. And so I would rather take The money that we have input it towards that, because I think that also generates the biggest bang for your buck from long term operational savings. And so what about reimbursability? Reimbursability, the 2 things are indoor air quality and energy and indoor air quality is covered with basically the red list. And so that is my other big one, which is the red list free, which should be, I think, covered for that additional reimbursement.
[Martine Dion]: No, it's actually not specifically red list. It's a certain number of points. And those are mostly through getting HPDs, EPDs, environmental, and then the materials points and the VOC points.
[Erika Reinfeld]: And we can get those even if we haven't declared in advance we're going for gold, even if we land in gold.
[Martine Dion]: Right. You can pursue those, even if your minimum is silver, you can pursue those. They may contribute to get closer to gold, you know, but the idea is we pursue them because you want the reimbursement, right?
[Jessica Parks]: So would then, so I think, I mean, Red list free is from a health perspective, I think, where we would wanna be. Getting those would get us the credits, I think, necessary to get us that point. But if I'm wrong, Martine, then let me know, because then we should add on any additional credits we may not have kind of captured.
[Martine Dion]: Yeah, I think all you need to say there is you want the additional 1% for healthy materials, and then we will associate the lead points for that. The red list would be in addition to that, the red list can be an innovation point in lead. And they do have a health impact. I mean, we're applying them. There's a set of red list materials that we're able to apply on our other school projects. There's a set that has three equals. So the ones with three equals don't really bring in additional costs, right? And we can explore beyond that. And we've, you know, we've applied it to other types of building types as well. We've done the red list, but the red list materials in themselves will not obtain the 1%.
[Jessica Parks]: Okay. I thought I had gone through and saw that they did. Okay. Then we, then we can thank you. Remember, we should then capture that. That's a very good catch.
[Paul Ruseau]: Are you going to tell me what it is I'm writing?
[Jessica Parks]: Um, here, um, under item two teams, you think you could, um, what should it.
[Kimberly Talbot]: Martin, do you want to for, um, modifying number two? basically saying that prioritizing points that will allow the project to capture the additional 1% reimbursement?
[Martine Dion]: Prioritizing lead healthy materials points to optimize or to obtain the additional 1% MSBA reimbursement.
[Jessica Parks]: You catch that, Paul?
[Paul Ruseau]: I did. Perfect. Both are accurate. I am Paul also.
[Erika Reinfeld]: Naive question. If we achieve gold through this process, can we be recertified as gold or it's silver? Oh, no, no, no.
[Jessica Parks]: You get whatever level you achieve, basically.
[Erika Reinfeld]: Got it. So we were that's just we're setting this as the minimum, but if we. If we do achieve that, we would okay. I wasn't sure when that declaration commissioning. It process works, but I don't you can you can brief me offline on the details of that project. I will.
[Martine Dion]: We'd be happy to follow up with the process. Thank you. It goes through design and construction, and you only get the certification way at the end after the project's completely completed.
[Erika Reinfeld]: OK. That's what I thought, but then I knew we had to declare something now.
[Martine Dion]: We need to register. And when you register, you register under that's the most important, the version. And then you just design. target your points and your credits and we can target per what you were talking about tonight and that may lead to gold. Okay. But our goal here is clear, the minimum is silver, right?
[Erika Reinfeld]: And then we're making decisions based on our energy goals, our prioritizing reimbursement and not adding lifetime project costs. And I hope keeping any cost fluctuations minimal from what we've currently got. That sounds good to me.
[Paul Ruseau]: Take the roll, Mayor.
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: Yes, please. Motion by Member Parks, seconded by... Second. Yep. Roll call.
[Paul Ruseau]: Member Mastroboni.
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: Yes.
[Paul Ruseau]: Member Olapade. Yes. Member Parks.
[Erika Reinfeld]: Yes.
[Paul Ruseau]: Member Reinfeld.
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: Yes.
[Paul Ruseau]: Member Russell. Yes. Mayor Lungokirn.
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: I'm gonna abstain five in the affirmative, one in the abstaining. Motion passes. Thank you for the presentation. I think we're on to member Ruseau's resolution 2026-06. Yes.
[Paul Ruseau]: So mayor, I had only sent this to the school committee this evening. So I don't know, I think people should have a chance to review the final document. So I'm going to make a motion to move to our August meeting and hopefully people will come in having read it.
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: Second. Okay. Motion to move the 2026-06. Motion to table the 2026-06 to the August meeting. Motion by Member Ruseau, seconded by Member Reinfeld. Roll call, please.
[Paul Ruseau]: Member Mastrovone?
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: Yes, please.
[Paul Ruseau]: Member Olapade?
[Mike Mastrobuoni]: Yes.
[Paul Ruseau]: Member Parks? Yes. Member Reinfeld? Yes. Member Rizzo, yes. Mayor Longo, okay.
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: Yes, six in the affirmative, one absent. This motion is tabled. 2026-17 offered by Member Reinfeld, whereas K-8 statewide graduation council was established following voters November 2024 passage of ballot question two, eliminating the use of MCAS as a graduation requirement. Whereas the council released its final report in June, 2026, whereas the report includes updated recommendations for a graduation framework that students support college career and civic readiness through core and embedded components and an implementation timeline beginning in 2026, 2027. school year now, therefore be it resolved that the curriculum and instruction subcommittee shall meet with the assistant superintendent for academic and instruction no later than October 15th to review Medford Public Schools alignment with the K through 12 statewide graduation council's recommendation. Member Einfelder, you move in approval?
[Erika Reinfeld]: I can move to approve. Happy to answer questions about this.
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: Seconded by Second. Member Parks. Roll call, please.
[Paul Ruseau]: Since 2026, number 17. Sorry, let me just fix my notes.
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: Yeah, number 17.
[Paul Ruseau]: Member Mastroboni? Yes. Member Olapade? Yes. Member Parks? Yes. Member Reinfeld?
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: Yes.
[Paul Ruseau]: Member Rossell? Yes. Mayor Lungo-Koehn?
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: Yes. Six in the affirmative, one absent. Motion passes. Offered by Member Graham, 2026-18, a resolution thanking the Medford State Delegation for securing investments in public, Medford public schools through the supplemental budget and fiscal year 27 state budget, whereas the Medford School Committee recognizes the critical importance of strong partnerships among local, state, and federal leaders in supporting high quality public education Whereas the Commonwealth of Massachusetts continues to face significant challenges related to school funding, special education costs, transportation expenses, facility needs, and educational equity. Whereas the Medford State Delegation has consistently advocated for the students, educators, and families of Medford and has worked diligently to secure direct investments in Medford Public Schools through supplemental and state annual state budgets. And whereas these investments provide important support for educational programming, technology, facilities, improvements, student services, and other district priorities that enhance the educational experience of Medford students. Whereas the school committee wishes to formally recognize the efforts of representative Paul Donato, representative Christine Barber, representative Sean Garvely, and Senator Patricia Jalen on their leadership and advocacy on behalf of Medford students now therefore be it resolved that the Medford School Committee hereby extend its sincere gratitude and appreciation to the members of the Medford State Delegation for securing $632,000 in additional funding for Medford Public Schools through the recent supplemental budget in the fiscal year 27 state budget, and be it further resolved that the school committee acknowledges the following appropriations secured on behalf of the Medford Public Schools in the supplemental budget, $40,000 for Medford High School theater lighting system, $50,000 for McGlynn Auditorium seating repairs and maintenance, $180,000 for interactive whiteboards, $12,000 for pottery wheels, $100,000 for McGlynn Auditorium's rug maintenance. And in the fiscal year 27 state budget, 100,000 for programming at the Medford Family Network, 50,000 for CTE transportation, and 100,000 for expanded robotics curricula. Be it further resolved, the Medford School Committee expresses its appreciation for the delegation's continued commitment to supporting educational opportunities for all students and looks forward to My dog was even excited about this. For all students and looks forwards to continuing collaboration in advancing the mission of the Medford Public Schools. I'm sure one of my colleagues will move approval of this on behalf of member Graham.
[Erika Reinfeld]: Move motion to approve.
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: Seconded by member Master Boney. Roll call, please.
[Paul Ruseau]: Member Master Boney?
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: Yes.
[Paul Ruseau]: Member Olapade?
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: Yes.
[Paul Ruseau]: Member Parks?
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: Yes.
[Paul Ruseau]: Member Reinfeld?
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: Yes.
[Paul Ruseau]: Member Ruseau? Yes. Mayor Longo?
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: Yes. Six in the affirmative, one absent. Motion passes. 2226-19 offered by Member Reinfeld, Member Ruseau, Member Olaparte. Standing with MPS students, families, and staff affected by TPS terminations, whereas the Supreme Court's June 25th, 2026 ruling in Malin v. Doe held that federal courts may now review non-constitutional challenges to the termination of a country's temporary protective status designation and reverse lower court orders that have blocked terminations, whereas the current presidential administration has terminated TPS for Haiti and Syria, and the court's ruling allows those terminations to proceed, whereas Medford is home to residents from many countries who contribute to the educational, civic, cultural, and economic life of our community, and the Haitian community is experiencing particularly significant uncertainty as a result of these decisions. Whereas the United States Supreme Court held in Flier v. Doe 457 U.S. 202 1982 that all children residing in a state are entitled to a free public education regardless of their immigration status. And this right is unaffected by the termination of any TPS designation. and whereas the Medford Public School Committee is committed to fostering a safe, supportive, and welcoming environment for all students and staff regardless of race, ethnic background, national origin, and immigration status, now therefore be it resolved that the Medford School Committee directs the superintendent to ensure that all staff have the necessary training to uphold policies, immigration enforcement, AC, non-discrimination including harassment and retaliation, which collectively affirm and support the district's commitment to providing a discrimination-free public education to all children whose principal domicile is in Medford, regardless of child or family immigration status, ensure that students' educational records continue to be maintained in accordance with federal and state privacy laws, in district policy and that all associated staff understand procedures governing requests for student information. Remain in regular contact with the Medford Connects community engagement team to ensure coordination between families and schools sharing of available... My page eight is not coming up for me, I'm sorry.
[Paul Ruseau]: It's page seven, I think. Although I don't know which version you have, Mayor.
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: Okay.
[Paul Ruseau]: Do you want me to keep reading?
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: If you don't mind, I don't have it. The rest is same, Mike. Sure, sure.
[Paul Ruseau]: Remain in regular contact with the Medford Connects Community Engagement Team to ensure coordination between families and schools and sharing of available resources to support students and staff experiencing uncertainty about their legal status related to TPS designations, including work authorizations within MPS. Continue to provide know your rights information to students, staff and families impacted by immigration policy via the NPS website, talking points and other relevant communication tools and 5 ensure that school and classroom libraries and curricula include stories. make that a little bigger here. Stories and depictions of immigrant experiences from multiple times and places connected to Medford's history and present-day community, as well as content where people from different cultures, countries, and backgrounds are represented in stories that do not focus on the circumstances of entry into Medford or the United States, and be it further resolved that the following statement of support for Senate Bill 4814 be transmitted to United States Senators Elizabeth Warren and Edward J Markey. The Medford School Committee thanks Senator Markey for introducing S4814 and Senator Warren for co-sponsoring it. The ending of TPS will cause deep and lasting harm to Medford as well as unimaginable pain for our neighbors who face removal to a country To a country the State Department designates level four, do not travel, where armed groups control much of the capital and where the United Nations reports more than 2,300 people killed and 1.5 million displaced this year alone. Tearing families apart, destroying local businesses, removing critical staff from our schools and social service organizations will leave a scar that will not be will not just be felt today but will become a stain on the dream so many come to associate with our nation. The House of Representatives has already acted passing companion legislation H.R. 1689 on April 16, 2026 by a bipartisan vote of 224 to 204. We urge the Senate to follow the House's lead without delay. Thank you for your service to our nation, and please let us know if we can do anything to assist in passing this important legislation, respectfully, the Medford School Committee. And be it further resolved that the following statement of appreciation be sent to United States Representatives Catherine Clark and Ayanna Pressley. The Medford School Committee thanks you for your leadership in securing House passage of H.R. 1689, a bill to require the Secretary of Homeland Security to designate Haiti for temporary protected status. Representative Presley's discharge position and Representative Clark's advocacy on the floor delivered a bipartisan 224 to 204 vote at a moment when our Haitian neighbors in Medford needed it most. our neighbor's protection now rests with the Senate and we have written to Senators Warren and Markey urging swift passage of S4814. Thank you for your service and please let us know how we can assist respectfully the Medford School Committee.
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: Is there a motion on the floor? Would anybody like to speak on this? Member Reinfeld?
[Erika Reinfeld]: Yeah, I just I wanted to amend if my co sponsors are amenable in between items two and three to make reasonable efforts to ensure that all MPS students have emergency contacts on file. This is a really important piece of being able to get information and respond to emerging crises. And then I also noticed that director McNiff is on the call and. invite her to say anything if she wanted to weigh in. I'm not sure if she does.
[Paul Ruseau]: But just before we get to that, I just want to tweet number two and three.
[Erika Reinfeld]: I put it in the chat.
[Paul Ruseau]: Oh, thank you. That's even better.
[Erika Reinfeld]: Again, happy to answer. Oh, thank you.
[yGcuIBQZTjc_SPEAKER_06]: I was just going to say thank you for adding that about emergency contacts. That's really crucial for us. So I appreciate that addition to this. Thank you.
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: Thank you, Chelsea. So that's a motion for approval as amended by Member Reinfeld. Is there a second?
[Suzanne Galusi]: Before you vote, could I just say one quick thing? Yes, Dr. Lucey. I do want to say, first and foremost, we definitely appreciate this resolution. A lot of this work has been ongoing, as we have definitely had regular internal meetings as a team to make sure that our information is current and built out on the website, to work with our local emergency response, but also partners at City Hall. Chelsea has been, she's on the call, I know. She also has double duty sometimes, a very little one at home, but she can speak further to this, but she's been working very closely with the Medford Connects team, specifically Catherine Dingra and Patrick. Oh, I've done it again. Thank you. And so there already is a scheduled staff information session, which we will be communicating out, but for September, so that directly with the Connects team. So that way we can put the Connects team and make that connection with staff and the team and do so virtually. So there isn't an accessibility issue after school and staff can hop on and meet the team, get some information, find out support. and be able to have that information and support at the ready so that they can really make sure they're continuing to build their classroom environments of belonging and cohesion. So, I just wanted to make sure that that was stated so that people know that we are very committed to this work, but the resolution is much appreciated and absolutely will update this committee as the work evolves.
[Erika Reinfeld]: And I will recognize that this resolution was made with the knowledge that the district is doing this work and is doing it well, and we appreciate that and we wanted to publicly state that this is a unified effort. So thank you to everyone who's been working on this.
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: Thank you. Yes, we were on a meeting today with Catherine and Patrick and Chelsea, so. City and school are working hard. on something very unfortunate. Motion was approved as amended, seconded by Member Ruseau. Roll call, please.
[Paul Ruseau]: Member Mastrobonni?
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: Yes.
[Paul Ruseau]: Member Olapade? Yes. Member Parks?
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: Yes.
[Paul Ruseau]: Member Reinfeldt?
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: Yes.
[Paul Ruseau]: Member Ruseau, yes. Mayor Langenkorn?
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: Yes. Six in the affirmative, one absent, and motion is approved. Member Ruseau, if you could just let me know if there's anything else on the agenda.
[Paul Ruseau]: Oh, yes. The next regular meeting, there are no reports requested. The next regular meeting of the Medford School Committee is August 24th at 5 p.m. virtual only. And the following meeting will be in person on September 14th at the Alden Memorial Chambers at 6.30 p.m. And that is all we have.
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: Is there a motion to adjourn?
[Jessica Parks]: I see a hand up. I have one question. Did we need to make a motion for a facilities subcommittee to talk about the sprawl of stuff at the McGlynn? I thought I heard someone say that. Maybe I didn't say it.
[Erika Reinfeld]: I said I was willing to make a motion if we need it, otherwise.
[Jessica Parks]: You just call a meeting. If we move done, then that's cool.
[Erika Reinfeld]: I mean, our rules say, yes, our rules say that the subcommittees meet at the direction of the school committee. So I motion that the facility subcommittee meet to discuss rental storage in school buildings.
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: Okay, seconded by Member Parks. Roll call, please.
[Paul Ruseau]: My toes, people.
[Erika Reinfeld]: Just let me make the motion when I first said I would.
[Paul Ruseau]: Motion is that the facilities subcommittee will meet to discuss the storage situation at the McGlynn. Member Mastroboni?
[Mike Mastrobuoni]: Yes.
[Paul Ruseau]: Member Lopate? Yes. Member Parks?
[Jessica Parks]: Yes.
[Paul Ruseau]: Yes. Yes. Remember?
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: Yes.
[Paul Ruseau]: Remember? So yes, Maryland. Okay.
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: Yes, six in the affirmative. One absent paper passes. Motion to adjourn by me. Member Reinfeld, seconded by me. Member Parks. I think that was you. Call, please.
[Paul Ruseau]: Me, me, me tonight. Yes. Member Reinfeld.
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: Yes.
[Paul Ruseau]: Member said yes. Mayor Lungo-Koehn.
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: Yes. 16 affirmative, one absent. Meetings adjourned. Have a wonderful rest of the week, everybody.
|
total time: 55.61 minutes total words: 1575 |
total time: 18.86 minutes total words: 1288 |
total time: 16.39 minutes total words: 1270 |
total time: 18.12 minutes total words: 1268 |