can get going. All right, I will read the meeting notice and we can get started. Um, welcome everybody. Uh, please be advised that there will be a full committee meeting of the Medford Comprehensive High School Building Committee held via remote participation
only on Tuesday, March 17th at 6:30 p.m. The meeting can be viewed live on Medford Public Schools YouTube channel um through Medford Community Media on your local cable channel, which is Comcast 98 or22 and Verizon 4345 or 47.
The meeting will be recorded. Um participants can call or log in by using the following Zoom um ID 995-5752421. I will call the role. Jenny Graham here. Mayor Longo Kern >> present. >> Dr. Beluci
>> present. >> Marta Brawl >> here. >> Joan Bowen >> here. >> Ken Lord >> here. >> Libby Brown >> here. Marissa Desmond. >> Hi, Marissa.
Maria Dorsy is maybe absent. Um, she let me know. Brian Hillard >> here. >> Emily Lazaro is absent. She's got a council meeting this evening. Paul Malone >> here.
Nicole Morurell, Aaron Leady >> here, >> and Luke Pryer. >> Hi, Luke. >> He said here. >> Oh, okay. Oh, and I see uh Nicole on her
way in. So, we have 13 um present, two absent. Um and then um for the rest of our members, Bob Dickinson, Fiona Maxwell, Fiona,
>> Fiona said she was coming on, so give her a few minutes. Um Chad Fallon >> here. >> Kim Talbot. >> No, she's at She's at a literacy event at the McGlin Elementary. >> That's right. Um Will Pipelli
>> here. >> Lorie Hodgegen >> here. John Mclofflin. Paul Rouso >> here. Bill Santos and Lisa Miller >> here. >> All right. Um,
>> hi Jenny. It's Fiona. I am here. I'm sorry I couldn't unmute quick enough. >> That's okay. >> Okay. Um, so, uh, the first thing I see on the agenda here is an approval of the minutes,
um, for our meeting from 3:17. Is there a motion to approve? >> So moved. >> Matt, did we get did we get Oh, today is 3:17. I'm sorry, Matt. Did we get meeting minutes? I don't see any meeting minutes that went out.
>> Uh, they should they they're typically linked in the agenda. >> Yeah, >> they I I don't see them. So, why don't we make sure that everybody has access to them before we ask for a vote? Is there a motion to table the minutes?
>> So moved. >> Motion to table the minutes by Mayor Longo Kern. Um is there a second? >> Second. >> By Dr. Galooi. Um I'll call the role. Jenny Graham. Yes. Mayor Longo Kern. >> Yes. >> Dr. Galooi. >> Yes.
>> Marty Cabral. >> Yes. >> Joan Bowen. >> Yes. >> Ken Lord. >> Yes. Marissa Desmond, >> yes. >> Maria Dorsy is absent. Brian Hillard, >> yes.
>> Emily Lazaro is absent. Paul Malone, >> yes. >> Nicole Morell, see Nicole. Um, Aaron Olate. >> Yes. and Luke Pryner. >> Yes.
>> So, we have um 11 in the affirmative for zero in the negative four absent. The minutes are tabled till the next meeting. >> Um >> Nicole said that she's here. I don't know if you see that. >> Hi, I can see you. >> Yeah, I just couldn't unmute or I was
like stuck in the I couldn't do anything before. So, I'm here. >> Thank you. Um, thanks everyone for joining us uh tonight. Um, I'm going to turn it over to the team who is going to provide a
little bit of a an an update on where we are, why we and why, um, we've uh, been asked to change this timeline and then um, we're going to ask them to go um, through a review of the all of the
documents that they shared with us. So, I'm going to turn over to the team um pretty quickly here and then once they finish their um review of the documents, we can um open that up for discussion. >> I will go ahead and share my screen for
a minute and definitely Matt, you can uh lead us through here. >> Yep. And I think Jen is is gonna take the schedule slide tonight. Move it up a bit. >> That look okay for everybody?
>> Yep. >> Yes. >> All right. Moving through the minutes. >> All right. Uh, good evening everyone. Jen Carlson from Left Field. Uh, folks don't remember. just to to kind of bring you up to speed on where we are and kind
of talk a little bit about this um change in plans from the MSBA. Uh as you all know, we submitted the uh preliminary design program report, the PDP to the MSBA on February 25th. Uh all 29 options were accounted for and
documented per the MSBA's guidelines. They uh after their initial review, they followed up with us um with the project team to acknowledge that while we had met the minimum requirements uh in their documents, they wanted us um they wanted this committee to narrow the options
from 29 options all the way down to 3 to 5 no later than April 2nd. um so that we could further study fewer options as we move into uh the PSR the preferred
schematic report phase. Um so while this is all happening um between now and um our hopefully our next meeting we can get down to those three to five. I'll talk about about that in a minute. Um they are continuing to uh review our
submission to them. um they are not waiting for us to do this work to start um reviewing those uh thousand plus page document uh which is good news on our end. Um so this is part of uh what is
considered on our end as a normal back and forth with um every MSBA submission. Um each project is really different. it gets different feedback um at this stage and even you know as we move forward
through the project um as an example of another uh project that had a lot of um of you know over well actually we had 30 options on um another project we we wound up that SBC decided to take a few
options off the table ahead of submitting PDP we submitted PDP and their guidance at that stage was to add back the options that had been taken off the table prior to submitting PDP. So, um, every project is different. Every
project gets put through a different lens based on complexities, based on the project, but based on, you know, why there are the number of options there are. So um while this I'm sure is you know a frustrating um turn to uh to you
know be be you know recommended or requested from the MSBA to us. Um we are uh looking forward to uh you know being able to provide more information sooner on fewer options. So that I think is the
um the plus side of this uh this moving forward in a uh more expedited timeline. So um while MSBA's guidelines you know take us most of the way uh there is certainly uh project specific feedback that we hear on each project and this uh
downshift to narrow options quickly has been ours. Um, and I do want to say that the the project team really does appreciate your shift um to expedite this timeline um to line up with their request. Um, and it does allow the like I said, it does allow the project team
to uh provide more detailed information as we narrow the list down. Um, between now and um June 10th is when uh this group is scheduled to select a single preferred option. Um before I get into, you know, reading these updated uh these
um meeting dates, is there anyone else from the project team that wanted to add any color to that um as it played out? Good. I'm sure we'll, you know, there'll be time for questions as well. I do want
to jump into the updated timeline that uh Jenny did share in her email out to this group. Uh so our our timeline now um obviously we're reviewing the criteria uh evaluation matrix this evening. Next meeting would be next
Monday and we're that's where we're really getting into um taking a look to to narrow down those options um significantly from 29 down to 3 to 5. Uh and following that our April 27th SBC
meeting, we will be reviewing M MSBA PDP comments at that point. We should have those in hand and we should have uh responses ready um if not have already gone back to the MSBA at that point. Um we will also be discussing gross square
foot uh you know the confirmation of what moves forward and what um is estimated as part of the scope of this project in the next round of estimates. Uh we will be moving into May. Uh as I said, we'll be submitting uh information
in late April to the estimation team. Uh the two estimators on the project, they will um estimate the project. We'll have uh reconciled estimates and um packaged everything up in a way that we are able to present it uh to this group again um
well for the first time uh on May 20th. Following that meeting, we have another schedule for May 27th uh to review the costs as they apply to the options um as well. So, a little more detail. It might just be kind of a follow-up to that uh
May 20th meeting. From there, uh that June 10th meeting is the one we are looking to vote on a single preferred option to move forward into schematic design and and beyond. Uh we are I think
in talks with the the schools and some shifting that needed to happen um due to I think it was maybe 8th grade graduation or um >> yep uh we are looking to to move that uh June 22nd meeting I believe up but we
are confirming that date. Um but that meeting that final meeting in June would be to sub to vote for the project team to um to authorize us to submit that uh preferred schematic report submission with that single option and all of the
backup um to the MSBA. Uh from there once we do submit that PSR submission uh the MSBA would be looking to meet with the project team um and you know the um the the local u local folks um
either in uh in July, sorry, in July um either the 15th or the 29th um depending on how those meetings uh those meeting agendas fill up for them. they will let us know once we submit um at the end of June. Um from there the MSBA has an
August uh 26th uh board date and that is where we will uh hear their uh official approval of this committee's uh recommendation um on a single preferred option to move it into schematic design.
Are there any questions from the group or anything that my um my team would like to add? Seeing no questions, um we will firm up that final date, that 622 date, and send a note out to everyone um as soon as
we're able to coordinate the the calendar conflict there um in the NE but in the next week or All right, Helen, do you want me to take this one or do you want to take >> Thought I saw Helen hop on. >> Yes, I was able to free myself from my
other meeting. Um uh so as as we reviewed back in in February, we did go criteria criteria uh by criteria and and um you all engaged in that activity in a meaningful way.
And so we did take those uh comments and um we simply highlighted where we made those word changes andor added criteria based on that feedback. So um again this is the from two to 10 are the actual
criteria. Number one are these the simple facts about each option. And so um I don't know if folks have had a chance to um look at the look at the uh revised matrix prior to this meeting um
and we want to just double check that we didn't miss anything or um if this uh meets with what we discussed. So again, this is just the first couple of criteria with the change to 2.2.
I can cycle through these and and maybe stop if anyone has questions on any of the highlighted or any of the the non- highlighted potentially. And under five, we um had added um u a little bit more um
information on the maintenance um maintenance related criteria and the biggest changes you'll see are in seven and 10 um site. I think you um had asked us to um beef up those
criteria around stewardship and so we did work with agency uh particularly under the site criteria. And then uh number 10 um you all really did help us um just just really pulled apart some of those criteria to uh
better assess each item such as I think we had pool and gym and fitness together. So again, just kind of separating out um some of some of those um items as well as making sure we
accounted for MEEP and uh the CTE engagement with community and uh etc. So this is where this is where the criteria sit right now. >> Luke has his hand up.
>> Do you have a question? >> Um yes I do. Um, so I'm I'm reviewing the the matrix that Matt sent out um dated 312 and uh with the code compliance option. There's a lot of red
um and I wanted to clarify and maybe just get an answer for the record. Um what we're looking here uh what we should have in our minds when we see code compliance is our existing structure uh after four uh 437 million
has been invested into it. So it's not the current school, it's the current school plus 440 about $440 million worth of improvements. And so that's kind of what I have in my mind. And uh and and
for that reason, I'm surprised at uh some of the zeros I see um uh in terms of uh magnitude of maintenance cost. I I would expect it to be better um after $440 million. So I just wanted to
confirm with um uh the evaluators who have scored this on a scale of 0 2 and five that in fact um column F uh or or E maybe it's E um is in fact a our current
building with the benefit of $440 million of improvement. So, if it's if it's all right, look, I think the the point is well taken and we're going to get into the actual evaluation um that has that was distributed out to everybody. I think
what we want to do right here um until we get to this this there's a voting piece next is just um field comments on the actual criteria that are up here on screen um just to make sure that we have sort of the evaluation um metrics right um on the that are going to be in the
lefth hand column as we go through the document. So, is it is it all right if we just table response? >> Yep. >> Yeah. Are there any questions about the revisions to the criteria highlighted in yellow? >> I think this is the last page.
>> Yep. Okay. Um so, uh we have already voted to approve this criteria and no changes are made were made just now. So, we don't need to vote on that again. We did that in the last
meeting. Um, so I think we can move along to the matrix. Matt, if you want to pull that up and go through that. Obviously, A is the first column. So, we'll get to Luke's question first, but if you want to give a bigger point of view.
>> Sure. Um, and so again, this is not what we're going to be looking at. We're going to dive right into the live Excel file cuz this is one of those inherently legible um pieces at that scale. Um so what I just want to do is make sure that this is legible for folks as we go
through. Um what I've tried to do is make constant the um the the names of the different alternative the references to the alternatives across the top. Um I could also um freeze up the um the images, but then we're left with a tiny
little sliver of information down below. Uh but happy to field any comments there or zoom in if that if that was helpful for folks. But I just want to make sure that this is going to be a usable uh format for us moving forward. I don't know if anyone has any thoughts on that
before I dive in or if no one objects then I will just assume that this is legible for folks. >> If you could just zoom in a little bit. >> Sure. Yep. >> Thanks. >> Yep. Okay. Um
so um just to refresh, I think everyone is familiar with this. Um but for the benefit of folks that are maybe watching online and do not or have not been acclimated to this particular document, um this evaluation uh matrix that we have um the um categories that we're
evaluating on um are listed down the left hand side um on the column. And so these are all of the same categories that we were just looking at and any of them were that were modified by the billing committee um during our last meeting similar to how they were highlighted previously on those slides.
Um we've highlighted them here in the column as well. So if we get back down to all the way in the sevens and the tens you'll see those same highlights that we were looking at um just so you can understand the criteria that are there. And then across the top um of this document, we have the actual um set
of 29 different alternatives, cost alternatives um that were looked at um through the course of the PDP phase. Um and so really what the activity that we're going to engage in now is to um
look through um the the sort of seed populating um of this matrix um that SMA completed um at the request of the building committee just so that um there's an initial talking point that we can look at um and we don't necessarily
need to go item by item u because there's a lot of rows and there's a lot of columns and trying to do all of that in one evening uh would probably not be an effective use of time. >> Can we just can we just hang on one second? Um I am seeing a question from Lisa Miller about whether she should
have received this spreadsheet before the meeting. And Lisa, the answer to that is yes, you should have received this on Thursday of last week. Um and I'm going to forward it to you right now so that you have access to this because
this spreadsheet is really hard to manipulate. um given the way it has been like sized and pageentionated. So having your own copy I think will be um very useful. So let me just forward it to you. Um >> thank you. I appreciate that.
>> Yeah. Um yeah, it's um it's it's a rough one. So let me do that right now. >> All right. Um, so maybe just as you're doing that, Janelle, just just to finish up the explanation of the information
that runs across the top, we are grouped again into our A, B, C, and D sets of options. Um, with the A being this code upgrade option that's here, the A.1. Um, our B options are addition renovation options that um, keep and remove
different wings of the existing building um, all across the existing footprint. When we get to the C options, we have addition renovation options that focus solely on um keeping and renovating the existing gymnasium, pool, um athletic
wings um of the building. Um so those are the C options and then finally we have the D options u which are the new constructed options uh running across the top. So that is the 29 columns across the top that we see. I'll jump down into just a quick
explanation of what is in category one. Um as Helen mentioned, these are um more facts about each one of the comparative facts about each one of the alternatives. Um so that everyone can evaluate those in in one spot and see
them um up against each other. Um and then once we get into category two and then down below, these are the actual evaluation criteria. Um so the the criteria scoring that was used um was an unfavorable um which is a zero um
which cells have been shaded red for um there's a neutral um rating of two um in terms of the scoring and that's gotten this orange color. Um and then there's a favorable um rating which is a five on a score and that is um automatically
colorcoded to green. Um, so when we if we went back to the um I'll see if I can flip back really quickly to the PowerPoint. When you see the reds, the oranges, and the greens, you can get a visual um as you look down in terms of just getting a sense um of what the the
individual um alternatives are rated at. And then we do actually total those numbers down at the bottom for an evaluation score. Now the the outcome of this activity in terms of us filling out and and really um discussing um the criteria points um
as we go through this it will certainly modify I'm assuming the scores as we go through this. The scores are not um requiring uh the building committee to pick um say the highest score that's through here. This is for comparative purposes. Um it's really a measurement
of overall through the building um for the different alternatives how each of the alternatives u meets the the various criteria that were laid out um and agreed to by the building committee as we went through. So really it's a measure against that um and we can use the bottom line scores um to inform the
thinking moving forward but it's not like there is a requirement um to pick the highests um and move forward with those. that'll be um still a decision coming from the building committee um at the this time next week or on Monday of next week.
So from just an organization and orientation perspective um is that helpful in terms of just shedding light on how the whole thing is structured and sort of the activity that we're going to be going through today? Um and so we'll take that question then I'm going to I'll pivot
right into Luke's question to start off with on the code upgrade options. Luke, do you have a different different question or comment in response to the >> a different question? Um, easy one. Uh, who provided these scores?
>> Um, so it was SMMA that generated them. Um, a lot of it was going through um on my end um trying to synthesize the various pieces of information. >> Thank you. Are there any other questions about the general layout of this document before
we dive in? >> I have a question. >> Phil, >> yes. So the unfavorable, neutral, and favorable that is in relation to the
educational plan or or like what are you looking at when determining whether something is favorable or not? >> Y that's a great question, Phil. Thank you. Sort of a segue. Um so there's another tab in this document. There was a request by the building committee um
at our last meeting as well when we were discussing this to provide that exact rationale to explain what each of the criteria was judged on. Um some of the criteria are more subjective in terms of um how they were evaluated, some are more objective in terms of having sort
of a numerical basis tied to them. uh but this tab actually runs through and provides the alternative the the the assessment um rationale as as the tab is noted u behind each one of the criteria going through. So um if you do have this
document open um you're certainly welcome to flip to the u the tab here um so that we can get a sense of um what was used to evaluate um the different criteria in in some cases we are still very early in the process um and there
are some criteria where we may have uh a more objective um ability to sort of look at um a numerical comparison as we move forward in the process but um we don't necessarily have that information just yet in terms of the overall um evaluation
and I will point out also just while we're on this topic if we go down to the operational costs here in nine um there's been no um ratings assigned here u because all of these items fall into that category of we just do not have a
way of accurately representing um what a life cycle cost analysis would be um annual operating cost um or sort of the impact of the solar PV panel um on operating cost. Um we will start to get some insight um into life cycle
cost in particular um as we get farther along in the PSR phase. Um and that's actually one area where um being able to um focus in on a smaller set of options is actually going to help us um get um some insight into that particular topic
a little bit more quickly. Does that help answer your question, Phil? Yeah, it does. I think I'll just read through some of those as we go and pick and choose which ones we were looking at. So, thank you. >> Appreciate that. Um and happy to hop
over to the assessment rationale tab um as part of the meeting here if that's helpful for folks. >> Matt, can you um can you address Luke's question about code upgrade next? >> Yep. So the ratings for the code upgrade
option, we're assuming um that the building is improved um to meet accessibility code, energy code, um structural codes um as as part of that um that scheme itself, that alternative. Um so it does represent um the
investment of the $437 million um that is listed um as the cost for 8.1. um in terms of the evaluation criteria that's here and certainly happy to go through the dialogue on the code upgrade option
here um again this is is sort of the perspective um that I had going through it um but completely respect the fact that others on the building committee may have different perspectives and I mean that's why we're here this evening is to talk this through and to have a discussion if we want to make modifications to it um as a collective
that's that's exactly what we're here to And I think Matt um Luke's Luke was zooming in more on the um maintenance aspect of the uh >> Thank you, Helen. Yeah, I pointed out maintenance, but there's other ones. Uh
there's one, for example, 4.3 um talking about appropriate restroom and locker facilities. I would imagine for $437 million we would end up with appropriate restroom and locker room facilities uh regardless of what we started with. Uh there's other examples. Um and uh if uh
if we wanted um everyone could take homework and uh score this however they like and uh either left field or SMMA um could aggregate average or um apply some kind of statistical like meaningful
statistical uh aggre uh aggregation method um to have kind of a composite score so that it's not just one person picking between you know 29 concepts um it's a collect effort. Um, I'm not making a motion right now, but I'm just saying, you know, like uh one one way uh
to uh maybe capture the voices of the SBC. >> So, um the goal for tonight is that we will emerge with uh a chart that we agree is
reasonable to use for comparative purposes. That does not mean anybody has to agree with every single um item. Nor does it mean we must use any bit or all bits of this data at next
week when we make reductions to sort of narrow in on three to five. So, um, everybody is absolutely welcome to take this and make their own, um, version of it and use that for how they want to proceed next week in terms
of what they want to learn about, what they want to study further. But for tonight, the goal is for us to collectively get to um a matrix that we can put on the website and share as a working draft, as a
working document that this team is in agreement with. So, if you have a specific proposal, just like we did last time, if you have a specific proposal for something that you would like to change, um, and maybe let's just take this like
a chunk at a time. Um, we can pull the committee and take a vote about what those changes might be. So, um, let's start with A. I think the thing about A, it's my understanding that we must push
A forward. Is that correct, Matt? >> That is correct. It has to be one of the options that we shift forward into the PSR. >> So whether we like it or not, whether we love it or we hate it, this one is going forward. So I just want to add that
context. Um and I if anybody would like to propose scoring changes um to this category, please raise your hand. Uh Paul, >> good question. Are we sending the final
version of this document to the MSBA or just our three to five? >> They will get a copy of this document, but it's not again it's not a binding document. It's really there to illustrate the fact that this due diligence has been done, that this study
has been done. Um, so it's just part of the overall report submission that goes in. >> Okay. So, um, so A is going in no matter what anybody here says or does to that entire column. Um, so I mean whether we think something should be a two, a five,
a zero in there's seems little chance that we're ever going to have a number big enough to even make it into the top 20. Um, it is number 29 from the scoring we have now. Um, so just so that we're
not here until midnight. I would hope we could all agree that we don't need to talk about the code upgrade, but I'm sure that's not the case. Thank you. Luke. >> Oh, uh thank you. Um
so there are uh 59 almost 60 uh evaluation criteria. Um only four of them are cost. Um and you know the criteria uh are essentially equally weighted. Um but it doesn't really take
a scientist to understand that cost um actually outweighs uh a number of these. Um I wanted to ask if we could uh apply a waiting factor um just to the c uh the cost parameters. There's only four of
them. Um and uh we would uh apply a factor of 10. So a multiplier of 10 um to the cost scores uh however they are now. Um, and I think it's a mix of twos and fives um for the uh for the one
concept that falls within our RFP uh cost range. So when we put out an RFP saying, hey, we want a school, hey world, you know, um please propose concepts. Um we included a cost range from 200 to $600 million. Um, so let's
reward any concept that falls within our RFP range by applying a factor of 10 um to the uh to the score given uh for any cost parameters. >> Is that a motion, Luke? >> Uh yeah, that's a motion.
>> There's a motion on the floor from Luke to apply a cost factor of 10 to the cost variables. a multiplier a multiplier of 10 to uh the cost uh evaluation criteria.
>> There a second >> uh oh and also uh to only the concepts that fall within our RFP range. That's an important part. I want to reward the concepts that are within our RFP range. So, not apply to all, just apply to the
ones that fall within the range of cost that we asked um the design community uh to consider for our project. >> Is there a second >> member? Thank you. before I I'm not going to
second that, but there are none other than the code upgrade that fall under 600 million. So, I'm not sure what Luke is suggesting because there are none that fall in the 400 to 600 million range.
>> There's one. It's the upgrade. >> Um, I just wanted to I I I hear you, Luke, but the number we put in the RFP was like We're not cost estimators. We just put numbers in there. It was a huge range.
So like I don't even think that is a thing we should be measuring this by. It was obviously like we'd love this to be less than I think we went up to 600 in the RFP, but I I don't know if that is something we can really judge by because that was that was a range that was put
in based on information we had about what other projects were costing. >> I'm gonna ask one more time. Is there a second? >> Mayor Longgo. >> Paul was before me. I don't know if you have >> Paul. Is your hand newly up or did it
stay up? Oh, okay. Mayor, >> thanks. I'm I'm trying to un understand the motion, but either way, I think um I whether it's now is the time or it's I think the 23rd when we have to actually
go down from 29 to 3 to 5 or I noticed in the um presentation the beginning of the presentation that we will be having a meeting on cost or two in May. I I think with a being in there, I I I don't see
necessarily the need for the motion other than maybe to score that those cost sections just a little bit higher because of the fact I think few of us and I know myself are just nervous about the cost and the price per
household and what we're hearing when we're out and about. And we all on this call, I know, want to see the debt exclusion pass come May 2027. So there needs to be a time that we talk about the price tags that we are seeing
which are closer to the billion range versus the we know we're never going to get to the two to even 500 million range. Where do we when do we talk about the cost and making the tough decisions to try to figure out what this community w
is willing to vote for and pass and how much they're you know our residents are willing and able to pay. So that that does has to come come a time now that we know all these numbers and we need to narrow down
that we just need to talk about that >> respectfully now is not the time like we this is not the right time for us to be arbitrary in how we move forward. This is a time for us to commit to the study
that will help us refine these numbers because these numbers are based on very very very highlevel things for which we'll be able to know more precisely uh the cost once there is more work done
by the design team. Um so I'm still not hearing a second. Um Paul, did you have your hand up to provide a second? No, I'll lower my hand. >> Okay, I'm not hearing a second.
Um, in the interest of time, let's move on. Um, are there questions about the B1 category or the B2 category? And Matt, maybe you could just like
describe those two categories briefly for us so that everyone is oriented. >> Sure. Um, and I know it's a little bit tough to see these diagrams, but these will give you an idea of generally what's going on. Um, and someone will just have to help me with the colors to start off with, but the dark blue, I
think that's dark blue. That's sort of where my cursor is here. >> Yes. >> Yep. So, that is the existing building. Um, that would be renovated and placed, the footprint of the existing building. And is this like a blue gray? Maybe. >> That's good.
>> Okay, I'm good. I'm two for two right now. >> Yep. >> Um the blue gray represents addition um construction um in the overall scheme. So in this particular B1.1, you can see we're maintaining the majority of the existing building. What we're doing is
actually adding um I believe this was two floors um on top um or maybe just a single floor um over this section as well as expanding out um the CTE wing um in a couple directions um towards the east and towards the south. Um and so
this B1.1 and B1.2 is really um trying to keep as much of the existing building as possible. B1.2 is similar to that. Um, and this is the the one that is adding in yet another level because you can see that we go from stories four to stories five. Um, this also is in some
of these options you'll see that there are some white areas here as we go through in the um B-wing. Um or we're proposing that there will be some selective demolition, some essentially carving out of the center of the B-wing because we have science classrooms as well as general academic classrooms and
special education classrooms that all have no windows um in the middle of that B-wing right now. Um and so that would be something we're trying to alleviate um as part of these um initial B options that we're looking at. So that's that's
B 1.11.2. basically keeping um the majority of the existing building and adding to it. >> Are there any proposals to change the the rating or evaluation of any of the B1 or B2 options?
Bill. So, >> so I don't have a proposal to change the the option. So, I was looking at it just in one of the I was looking at the because there's so many options and then so many criteria. I was trying to streamline the analysis, right? So, I
was looking at like what what criteria have a vari a lot of variability in the rating. So, 2.5 to 2.8, they're all green, right? aside from the code upgrade. So there's no point. They're all they're all five. So there's no
point in looking at at that in my opinion. So I was looking at 2.4 educational program flexibility and there are a bunch of options that have the number two and then a lot of them that have number five. And my
question is on B4.1 and B4.2 two. Those are fives. And then and those have selective demo of wings A, B, and C. And then the column next to it is 5.1 has more wings
being potentially demoed and but it's only rated as a two. And when I went to the assessment rationale, right, it was evaluated on the percentage of existing con uh construction maintained which will drive program flexibility. So, I
was just curious on why those got a five rating. Did this is it just because those w even though there's less wings, those wings are more, you know, um demoed and and the overall square footage of those wings you supersede the the other ones on the other columns.
>> Yeah, know it's a good question, Phil. Um and again there there's some subjectivity on this in terms of trying to understand what does that educational program flexibility mean but the reason that the 4.1 and 4.2 got uh rated higher and again we're happy to modify as part
of this process um is the fact that the the classroom um heavy wings um are the ones that are being built predominantly new um in 4.1 um and 4.2 versus in 5.1 and and say 3.1 and 3.2 to um it was
just looking at the percentage of um existing classrooms with just the understanding that the the existing classroom wings have sort of an provide an inherent limitation um in terms of some of that flexibility or at least that's how the the scoring was viewed and the evaluations were made. um if
there is if there's something that doesn't look like it's aligning with that um that may have just been um sort of not having sort of a complete connection between the rationale but that was the thought process in terms of why some got five versus two in the ad reno schemes whereas when you move to
the new construction you'll see that they're all pretty equally five because we would have the ability to design in that flexibility. >> Okay. >> Yeah. I would say Phil I noticed the same thing. There's actually a small number of things for which there is the
majority of the v the variability and I did actually um spend more time looking at that than you know sort of all the places where there was like stuff in common to make sure that um I understood like where
those variabilities were. But it is a substantially smaller list than this whole thing. Um if you were to pare down this view to the things for which um there are differences. Um and perhaps
the project team could give us a a view of that that's a little easier to read somehow. Um where the the only thing that we're seeing are the things that are like materially different. Um we can talk about that or maybe
somebody can make a motion about that um a little bit later on, but um Lisa has her hand up. >> Yeah. I was just wondering if somebody could clarify what we mean by flexibility. Are we talking about like uh configurable spaces with like dividers that can be moved around and so
that the space itself, the physical space is flexible or are we talking about flexible usage and what what would that mean in terms of design? I guess I and then yeah, I guess that's my main question. >> I think it's the first um what you were
describing um Lisa in terms of having some ability to reconfigure um the program around and sort of put the program into the spaces um in a variety of ways. Um and that's that's really what was guiding the thinking by saying that if if the say the existing
classrooms and say the sewing um are a little bit smaller, you just have um inherently a smaller opportunity to consider putting something different u than a classroom or like having to to actually expand the walls in some directions uh to be able to get to the
the target um the target classroom size, the target program size um as part of the process. So just a kind of a followup with that. So uh it would mean having partitions that could be moved around it or
something some way of reconfiguring the space. Have you found that other schools that have been designed with that flexibility actually use that flexibility? >> Um there's some that do and there are some that don't. Um in terms of the operable partitions, I think it really it's part of the school culture. Um and
usually we you come from um in any project uh uh scenario where um usually that is not present as an option um in terms of the overall uh operations of the school. So whether there's professional development done as part of the project in advance of the new
building opening um some of that can be things that really help to um leverage the the flexibility that would be built into uh building in that way. >> Thank you. Can you describe um categories B3, four
and five to us? Um and then we can ask the same question about whether there's any questions or clarifications of those section of those um three items or three categories. >> Yeah. And I I didn't go through B2.1 and 2.2. Do you want me to >> I'm sorry.
>> Yeah. So, I I can capture all of those um because you'll see the pattern generally in terms of how they evolve over time because we're starting to look at um pulling away existing wings of the building um and providing more new addition space um just to to compensate for um the removal of the existing
wings. So, B 2.1 and 2.2 u really are looking at the removal of primarily the um the A-wing um the performing arts and arts wing. Um it's in the bottom lefthand corner here and you can see that the additions that are being proposed in this case um again if we
look at the number of stories that are here um this is a four-story edition um in sort of a U-shape um this addition actually proposes going over the top um of the existing D-wing um in a fivetory option. Um so in most of these options
when we're looking um at a 2.1 and a 2.2 we're looking at different ways of massing the building. As we go higher, um there's premiums that come into the construction due to high-rise construction considerations, um which have a variety of just premiums to them on a mechanical um system basis as well
as fire code um and sort of robustness of construction perspective. Um and so that's we're giving different options. We wanted to understand sort of what that cost benefit was. When we go higher as well, you get more opportunity uh to utilize the site area in different ways. And even though that all these sites
have not been fully designed yet, um it's really allowing for um some opportunity moving forward. So that's between B 2.1 and 2.2 um it is that removal of the A-wing um and then additions in different configurations. Um 3.1 and 3.2
um are looking at the removal of the A-wing um as well as the C-wing. Um so that p one of the primary classroom wings um I think actually has the most classrooms within the existing building. Um again this is building um a lot of these are going to build south um
towards the existing parking lot. Um some of them may consume the entirety of the parking lot. Some of them are just going to consume more of the uh entry plaza as it comes in. But this is all based on the addition sizing uh to meet the the overall area that we're trying
to hit. Um so 3.1 is um and 3.2 um are both taking C-wing and A-wing away. You can see in 3.2 um there's new addition construction being shown on top um of the C-wing footprint. Um 3.1 does not
have that. Um and both of those options again are looking at carving out um from the B-wing um to alleviate the issue of the windowless classrooms. Um and then 4.1 um 4.2 two um they start to now look at taking away the existing
B-wing right and so we're looking now at A B and C being removed addition constructed um to replicate or it's in all cases we're actually increasing the overall area of the building um that is what has been dictated by the program um
as it's been laid out to date um and so 4.1 4.2 again you can see number of stories is four u 4.2 to is five stories. Um so little less footprint um a little additional height in terms of the building configuration.
Do you want me to keep going with that or should we pause there maybe on the 4.2? >> Yeah, let's pause there. Um are there any questions about B 2, three or four?
>> I can get them all on the screen. Lisa, >> I'm sorry to ask again, but can you um help us understand um in the in the diagrams like if you're tearing down uh a building, that means like the theater is being torn down, but like if I look
at B22, it doesn't look like the new construction has a space that's big enough for an auditori like a theater. How are we supposed to make sense of these diagrams in terms of what's being removed and and how the the design uh
would accommodate things like the theater? >> So from a just a high level perspective to understand all of these we have to make the assumption that the new area um or the existing area that is in there because it's it's just working on a sum
total of areas between renovated space and new construction space the sum total of those will meet the program. Um that's how these have been all organized. Um how the program has been laid out. Um so that would include the auditorium. Um it include another space. Um exactly where those things fall um in
each of these schemes has not been u fully worked out. That's not the intent um of where we are here. Um we did indicate some potential locations um for um some of those major program areas like the auditorium um like the media center, like the dining commons. um in
these diagrams when we showed those threedimensional pieces up front. Um but those that those positioning elements really shouldn't be the determining criteria um in terms of how we're evaluating at these um at this early point. Um it's really looking at um sort
of the overall massing um and sort of what it does in terms of opening up um areas on the site um or any of the other criteria that are listed below. But sort of to to evaluate this one, looking at sort of where the auditorium is, a wasn't one of our evaluation criteria
that was listed down below. Uh but we're also just not at the point where we've um laid all those pieces out. That is exactly what's going to happen um as we advance with this smaller set um of options moving forward into the PSR phase. >> Well, that makes sense, Lisa, or did I
just make more of a mess of it? No, it it makes sense, but I also am trying to incorporate some of that thinking in how I'm looking at each of the designs. So, but thank you, >> Paul M. >> Yes. So similar
very similar question I have and what I'd like to try and is explain what I think the community access is saying broadly across the when we transition from the ones to the twos
what I'm seeing is if the A-wing goes away the existing auditorium goes away so any new auditorium base would have to be more accessible to community so it automatically gets a five. Is that fair
to say? >> That that's exactly the thought process. Yes. And and that would go the same for any of these um elements that are listed out in community in the in the 10 community grouping of criteria um for the individual items. So again, it we haven't designed all the way through. So
the evaluation was made if the existing um program is remaining um in the current space or in the footprint um that was scored lower. Um if we have the ability to ideally locate um a new piece um in an addition um because it's been
demolished um that's how it was scored higher and completely acknowledge the fact that we don't know yet where all these different parts and pieces would end up. It could be that something that even though the existing piece is remaining, um it could get put in a new building, a new portion of the addition
versus the existing building. It's it there's a little bit of a leap of faith there in terms of the rating. And again, happy to modify any of those if if people um have strong feelings about that one way or the other. Any other questions about or changes to to
B2, B3 or B4 or proposals? >> Matt, can you go on to B5? It's five and six and >> Sure. >> seven. >> See what I can fit on the screen. Maybe the five, six, and seven. Five, six, seven. >> Yep.
Um right so again we're moving forward with looking at different um permutations of existing building terrain um and new addition um for B5.1 um the the option that we looked at was
keeping the B-wing um replacing the entirety of the vocational wings um and so that's the entire length of it that runs through there with new addition construction um and again we're still um in this option thinking of demolishing
the A-wing, demolishing the C-wing, and replacing those with new construction. So, there's not a lot of um sort of organizational change in the building, but other than sort of a replacement um of existing construction with new um and again carving out um the existing B-wing
to alleviate the windowless classrooms. Um 6.1 and 6.2 two. Now, we're looking at demolishing um the majority of those existing wings aside from um the C-wing um as well as that collection of
athletic and and pool building wings, right? Um so, here we have the A-wing, the B-wing, and the vocational wings all being demolished and replaced with an addition. Um in this case, this is a four-story edition um with multiple
courtyards in the middle. Um this is a slightly different way of organizing um that same concept. Still the same pieces coming down, still keeping the C-wing um as well as the athletic portion. The seven, sorry I was scrolling over
because you guys that those are hidden from me behind everyone's faces. Uh but for the 7.1 options um these are keeping um similar to what was in B6.1 but looking at keeping um the northern section um of the vocational wing. Um so
this would be auto technology um shop space would be kept um the uh metal fabrication and I believe construction craft laborers are sort of in this grouping. Um it may also be carpentry but it also doesn't mean that exactly that those spaces are going to remain
where they are right now and they would get renovated in place. That may be the case. Um this is again looking primarily at sort of the balance of square footage um and at different options in terms of keeping existing construction and building new. Um 7.2 is a a slightly
different um way of organizing that geometry. again u more internal courtyards associated with that and um that one these are still at the fourstory condition in both scenarios just looking at different geometries.
One of one of the just small nuances here that I don't think is going to drive things entirely at this point um but something that people may have noticed down below in terms of the orientation of the buildings um where we have an east west geometry like this this is going to be the most um beneficial from a passive solar
management um building of the massing. really has to do with the fact in terms of where the windows the predominant quantity of windows on these buildings would be is on the north and the south elevation um which we have the best ability to control u from a passive standpoint. So from energy efficiency
standpoint this type of geometry has some advantage um though it's obviously just one criteria piece um in the the current list below. >> Libby did you have a question or a proposal? It's a question, but I might have found the answer in the assessment
rationale tab. So, sorry. I just curious on a lot of these options, like all the ones we've been looking at um down in the 10 section 10 about um facilitating facilitating community use and access to
the fitness spaces. Um assuming we're renovating them, I you know, I I don't see why there's like a big jump. And this is where I think I might have found your answer. So, sorry I'm maybe wasting everyone's time, but it was confusing to me like all of a sudden they get better when they're still just being renovated. Um, that's further down. We haven't
gotten there yet. And it seems like is that just basically because you're demoing something, providing better literal access. Um, like what's the big jump? >> Yeah, it I mean it goes right back to Paul's question actually in terms of the the fitness spaces being sort of right in this bar, right? And they're they're
just challenging to get into right now. You have to go into the building. They're sort of an interior location. So once we get to options where this piece um is demolished and rebuilt um that's when the jump happens in terms of the the the higher priority given to it. Um
and again we could we can probably argue that and you could probably easily convince me that it would be sort of a different rationale in terms of how we might be grading those things. Um but that was the approach that was using just to sort of have a a consistent brush across the different options. Cool. >> Sorry if that was already asked. I've
been trying to read all through this. So if I >> No, no, it it's good. I think it like it it does reinforce my response to Paul, which maybe wasn't as clear as it needed to be. So hopefully if like we can go through it a couple times at least like people will understand what the thought process was and again happy to to modify
um as we go through here. >> Well, it makes sense. I might have been heads down in the Excel doc. So thank you for clarifying. >> Yep. changes to four B4 five and six. Any last questions? Changes. Okay, Matt, do you want to keep us
moving with seven and 8? B7 and 8. >> So, I did just cover seven um.1 and two, so I can actually jump I think over to the eights. Um before you do that, are there any changes or proposals for seven?
Okay. Yep. Take it away. >> All right. So, the eights. So, I'll do the eights and then we'll pause because then we're going to jump to the C's. Um, so the eights again looking at um preserving different parts of the existing building. Here we're keeping um
the B-wing, the C-wing um which are sort of the the most highly um populated in terms of academic classroom spaces. Um and then um the entirety of the um athletic wings as well. Um so this would include replacing uh the vocational
wings um as well as uh performing arts wing um the arts wing wrapping around with the generation of a couple of additional courtyards and again uh modification of the existing B-wing. Um exact same um complement of existing
wings to remain in 8.2 too um but with a different geometry, less courtyard based um reaching out towards um Steve Miller Drive. Um and in some cases I this is a scenario where um we know that we're not talking about the design and the layout
of it yet, but sometimes we can't help ourselves and we want to look at um sort of what it would mean to organize the building geometry in a slightly different way and understand, okay, what does that mean to come up Steve Miller Drive? So that that's that's really the reason why you have um the 8.1 and 8.2
options here is just looking at some different ways of massing that geometry proposals about the evaluation criteria for B8 one or two. Okay, Matt, why don't you take us into the world of the C's?
>> All right. So, why don't we go these four first? The C1 options uh 1.1 through 1.4. So, just again a refresher that the C options are all dealing with um the salvaging of or the renovation of um the
existing um athletic wing. That's going to include the gym. It's going to include the pool building um as well as some um large proportion of the existing um wing that has the fitness room. It has the gymnastics gym. Um it actually
does have also the existing cafeteria spaces, but um the what this means is that we're not sort of renovating and keeping two different cafeterias on two different levels. Um that is not part of the educational plan moving forward. um it just means that that space um would be renovated and reused as part of these
overall schemes. Um so the C.1 C1.1 option um is looking at a series of um legs that extend out. Again, we're replacing and building on top of um the existing performing arts wing, the
B-wing, the C academic wing, and then the vocational wing as well. So, uh, all of those program spaces are going to get reconstituted to some degree within the footprint of the new addition as well as the existing renovated space. Some of the spaces obviously the gym is going to remain a gym. Um, but what happens to
locker rooms down below the gym that could certainly be used for other types of program space that we will um vet out moving forward as part of the next more detailed level of study that we're doing. Um, >> can I ask a question about C.1.4? And we just lost your share.
>> We lost. >> We may have lost Matt completely. >> Matt, >> that was very interesting. I came right back. >> Didn't even say that my internet dropped out. It seemed like I was like kicked out. I don't know if I said something to offend Will or something and he just got a little uh choppy to me. I don't
know if every people have >> Okay, so maybe it was. All right, let me share my screen again. >> We'll pick up where we left off. All right, can everybody see that again? >> There we go.
>> Okay, apologies there. Um >> um so Matt, did you hear my question about C.1.4? >> I did not. No. Um so um
actually I don't think I asked my question because I think I saw you um >> had it dropped off >> drop off. Okay. So Coint 1.4 um it preserves and renovates the gym and the pool in its current location.
>> Correct. >> But it disconnects it from the rest of the building and it separates it by playing fields. Is that correct? It >> it's a playing field um with parking below it. Um so it would be an elevated
deck. So there might be some ability for us to run to some type of interior connection. It would be a long hallway of some sort um running in between um or you could potentially walk at the field level in between the two, but it is it is a different um approach in terms of
how to potentially mass the buildings for sure. >> Thank you. Other questions about C1.1 through 1.4 comments, changes.
>> Okay. Do you want to go on to C2 and C3? >> Yeah. Let's see if I can I don't know if I can fit all all of them. So let me I'll start um with these four the C2s and then C3.1 and 3.2 and then I think it'll make sense when we shift over. Um
so the C I scroll up a little bit. So the C2.1 options um are looking again at the same same type of approach in terms of what we're saving the gymnasium and the pool um and that dining piece. Um but we're actually looking at building
on a combination of the hillside um that's just located to the west um of those existing wings and then stretching a bit towards Edgerly Field as well. Um and so you can see in both of these options as the massing stretches to the north towards Edgerly Field there would
need to be some modification of the extents of the field. Um and what we're suggesting um to help compensate for that is that there would be the creation of additional field space and to the south of the site um to um to essentially be located on top of the
existing footprint after that portion of the building um would be demolished. So these are just two different approaches um in terms of how to to mass and organize those parts and pieces. Um and there's a different number of stories that's associated with them as well in terms of the height. Um the seven
stories here is really indicated because this is stepping all the way up um from down below um at the the field level um the new field level that would be done up to the edgerly field at the top and then also trying to limit the amount of horizontal footprint uh means that you
would have to go higher. I think that may be the tallest option that we were showing um across any of the 29. Um and then C.2 2.2 to does a similar type of activity in terms of connecting that lower elevation up, but there's more
horizontal footprint here. Um, so we did not need to go up to seven stories. This would be a fivetory option going up. Um, and then the C3 C3 options um so C3.1 to 3.4 um are all
looking at building more of the existing construction um on Edgely Field itself. Um and so in that scenario and to varying degrees um with these um we're again recreating field space down below. In some cases we might have the ability
to to overall increase the field inventory on site um by maintaining some up top um and creating some down below as well. Um the a as we shift to building on Edgerly Field primarily um in terms of this addition um that could
be connected um down below or up above with some type of bridge or um connection down below the surface. Um, if we're building off the entirety of the existing footprint, uh, which is really what Edfield feel offers as an option, that starts to become the
scenarios that are least impactful to education because it means that we can we can build a majority of new construction without impacting what's going on down here other than um site construction access, right? There's still going to be trucks um that are accessing up the site and building things here. So, it's not like it's
going to be silent and everything is completely um serene. um that's going on down here. But in terms of having to use modular classrooms um to um alleviate or compensate for taking down some of the existing wings, um this C point C3.3
option is the one one of the ones that um we're not projecting would require any modular classrooms as part of the um the construction activity, which is why you see the zero down here. Um C3.4 four um is a is a different take on it. It's building on really three
sides um of the existing gymnasium and that would sort of turn into a core of the building sort of a central organizing element. Um and it does stretch a little bit down onto the hillside as well and there is some overlap here um on the sea wing.
I did have a question as I looked at some of these C options. Um if I look at um under cost and schedule 3.4 um there were generally these were all
the same with two exceptions. Um and um C3.3 and D2.1 had fives and everything else was leveled at a two. But when I look at the project duration, they are all the same.
Is there um is there something else in the criteria there besides project duration? >> Yeah. >> When we are evaluating allowing students to move into the completed new school the soonest. >> Yeah. So it the the trick here is that
there's more square footage to build um up front that would not be impacting the existing um footprint. Um and so that's why um the overall duration when we're just looking at the amount of square footage that would have to be built. Um it it doesn't present itself to be um
consequently different um at first glance. Again, that when the construction manager comes on board, we'll be able to get um a much more educated um view of what that is in terms of are there nuances there that would allow a portion of it to be opened early if they're going to build it in phases or something along those lines.
the the reason that the swing space um evaluation criteria for C3.3 and for D2.1 um were rated fives because those are the two that um are not um conceivably to they don't require the use of
temporary modular classroom buildings to be able to be built um in terms of sort of a high level analysis of it. So that that was the deciding factor on those that got the fives if that makes sense. >> Yeah, that's helpful. Thank you. Um
Will, did you have a question? >> Uh yeah, I did. Um so a lot of these like C options and some of the late B ones have better on-site traffic, but I'm noticing the buildings are kind of built farther away. What's kind of like the correlation? Is it just because
there's more room now to kind of play with driving, or is there something else at at hand there? Yeah, it it certainly is one of the more qualitative criteria in terms of how it was scored. I think the the rationale um which hopefully is is discussed a little bit in there, but
in terms of giving us a little bit more room um to have circulation um down towards the southern side of the site when you come in and not have the building be so close um was seen as just providing more opportunity to um provide a a more optimized condition at the end
of the day um just because you have more space. So that's why you start to see when you get into the C3 options for instance um versus if we went all the way back to like a 1.4 here coming in you're you're really um forced to move um all traffic up into the site and do
something up here which is just going to be a little bit trickier um given the grades that are going on there. Um just again high level um comparative analysis that that was the rational Paul, sorry. >> Yeah, I have a quick question about 5.1
for ease of maintenance. And my very basic assumptions were that as we move further to the right and more of the old structure is demolished and we have brand new facilities
that the maintenance costs might stay the same because of the square footage, but the ease of maintenance would improve. But once we get into the C's and then looking ahead into the D's, there are some of these that have a zero for ease of maintenance. So, actually a worse
outcome compared to just renovating the existing structure. Can you speak to why that is? >> Sure. Yeah. And again, I know it sound like a broken record, but happy to modify things as we go forward. I didn't intend for everything to be right going through here um on the first pass. the
the thought process there was the fact that once we get up to like those seven or eight story buildings um that maintenance just becomes um inherently more challenging just because we have to we have to have more floor scrubbers on every level as we go through or you're moving those things up and down on
elevators. Um so that was sort of the the guiding factor behind us. We go to those really tall buildings, it just seemed that maintenance was going to be more challenging. Um, we can certainly shift it from a a zero to a two um potentially as a as a modification um
just to make it more reflective of the fact that it's it's not horrible. Um it's just less than ideal as if you can potentially achieve that in a three or four story building for instance. >> Did you want to make a motion to adjust those scores or are you satisfied with
that answer? I mean, I'm sort of scared to because I I do understand the rationale behind. It's just it's hard for me to understand. Uh but basically, what you're saying is it it correlates almost exactly to the height of the building.
>> There there is that. Yes. And there was also sort of the the impact of the existing building um and sort of the challenges that are inherent with maintaining it. um that even like in the code repair upgrade, if we go all the way back to Luke's point initially, there are challenges in terms of maintaining that existing building. Um
in terms of getting out on the roof, like there's there's only two access points of stairs that go out to the roof and then you're forced to traverse across the entirety of it with during the winter is challenging um in terms of access and you have to carry filters and things up vertical ladders. Um so that
there is some inherent challenges from the existing building and so there is probably some blending of um existing building percentage um to height as we go up um that is sort of combining to give that overall evaluation on the the ease of maintenance. Okay.
>> Thanks. That's helpful. I'll wait and consider a motion till we get all the way to the end since it seems like these are also repeated in the the D and further. So thank you. Yeah. I was just going to chime in and support what Matt's saying. A taller building,
moving just materials throughout the building takes more time. It's not a zero, I don't think. Um, but maybe a two or a three compared to a five, but it does get more inherent difficulty within the building. Some of the equipment
becomes a little more complex as far as being able to push water throughout the building and whatnot. Um, so things become a little more challenging, but not a zero, I think. Do you want to make a motion around this 3
um 5.1? Sorry. 5.1. >> Yeah. I I would move that those be made a three instead of a zero because it's still essentially a new building. So >> So Paul, could you just clarify 5.1? Where where am I looking? Are we back in
the B's? >> Yes. >> Okay, got it. >> I mean, there are two now. sustainability, Matt. >> Yeah, ease of maintenance is at two, not a zero for those.
>> But I think the question if you if you scroll over, Matt, on 5.1, when you get into those C options, which all are newer buildings, but tall, they go to zero. And I think the question is,
is it really a zero or a two? Well, those are the C's. >> I see what you're saying. 5.1 in terms of the actual criteria. I did not realize that that contradiction just happened until now. >> Yeah. Yeah. >> Yeah. I would say those see 3.1. I would
move that those be at least a two. I would say move them to two so they're equal. >> And Ken, are you suggesting the same? Well, we haven't gotten to the D's yet, but since we're talking about ease of maintenance, um there are a couple of D's that are in that category as well.
>> Yes, I would say that um D1.1 as a sixstory building would be like a three, you know, as a brand new building at least. >> So, the only challenge is we don't we only have zero, two, and five right now as our three different points.
>> Okay, I didn't catch that. Yeah, they'd have to be twos then. So the the motion is >> C3 1.1 >> Y >> 3.2 3.2 C3.2
D1.1 >> and D2.1 >> become twos >> correct for 5.1 ease of maintenance. >> Is there a second? >> Second. Second by Dr. Galooi. Um, any questions
about that motion before I call the role? Okay, I will call the role. Jenny Graham, yes. Mayor Lungo Kern, >> yes. >> Dr. Galooi, >> yes. >> Marta Cabraw, >> yes. >> Joan Bowen,
>> yes. >> Ken Lord, >> yes. >> Libby Brown, >> yes. Marissa Desmond, >> yes. >> Maria Dorsy is absent. Brian Hillard, >> yes. >> Emily Lazar is absent. Paul Malone,
>> yes. >> Nicole Morell, >> yes. >> Aaron Pate, >> yes. >> Luke Pryner is absent. So, 12 in the affirmative, zero in the negative, three absent. Um, the motion is approved.
Um, are there other questions, comments about C 3.1 through C3.4? >> Okay. Do we want to go to D? slide over there.
So the D options are the all new construction options. Um so this means removing the existing gym at the 30,000 square ft um rebuilding it um as a 18,000 square foot gym which is the smaller gymnasium. Um and it also means
um building a new pool building, new standalone pool building versus um renovating the existing one. Um the reason that you don't see a separate geometry here is that it would be connected um in in some way to that existing form. That's what these um
volumes that are shown here represent that in that square footage there would be a pool building. Um it can be connected but still sort of a a separate entity in terms of how it operates from a system standpoint. At the same time, as we move forward, um if it made more
sense to separate it from that existing volume, that's certainly something that we could look at as we go forward. Um the D1.1 um option um looks at building the majority of the um the new building on
the parking lot right to the south of the site. Um as you can again sort of start to picture coming up Steve Miller Drive and having that building right there. um it it would in this scenario extend over u both the performing arts wing as well as the southern portion um
of the vocational wing. So there is still some phasing and disruption to the existing building footprint in this scenario. To alleviate that entirely, we maybe would have to be building like a 10-story building or something here on a tiny little footprint. um which we just didn't feel was feasible or responsible
to sort of illustrate as an option because it would not meet so many of the um educational plan goals in terms of creating a building um that we would want to see at the end of the day. So that's why this is stretched out a little bit further. It is still very compact in terms of the site and is
still going up to six stories um right on the parking lot. Um the D1.2 two option still takes that same approach but it says rather than going tall um it goes a little bit wider. Um and you can see when we start even on the parking lot and extend in we almost end up
consuming the majority of the existing building footprint. Um so this is sort of new construction phased in place. Um so it would involve building new portions of construction of the building opening that um potentially sooner. Uh back to your um question earlier, Jenny,
about sort of why in some cases you might be able to get this section of the building open sooner than the rest of it, but there would still be overall duration wise a long time associated with pulling it down um putting up new pieces. Um and would certainly involve the use of uh modular uh classroom
buildings to facilitate that phasing um in D1.2. Um and then 2.1 um is going back to the notion of trying to build predominantly on edgerly field at the top um which would um alleviate
the need for the the modular classrooms in this scenario. Um I believe that there is some overlap currently shown um on the existing gymnasium. So there might be some time um when that would have to get pulled down and removed as a resource. But um in terms of uh avoiding
any overlap with the um academic classroom wings, the performance um performing arts, arts wing, um vocational wings that could all all this construction could happen without impacting those footprints down below. So that's that's generally the different
approaches um on on the D options. Uh the geometry could certainly be studied um in either in any of those three as we move forward. It's really the general concept about where we're building and how we're building. See Paul has his hand up.
>> Can you all hear me >> and now? Yeah. >> Okay. Um Paul, >> thank you. Um you know, I was I was having a conversation, maybe it was on Facebook, um this conversation about the pool, which I'm sure we're going to have more than one more time. Um
there are no scenarios for at all where the pool is not closed for an extensive amount of time, whether that's building a new one or renovating the one we have. There's no pool available to the community for a very long time. Right. So I would say with the exception of
D2.1 um so what D2.1 offers in the promise and we could probably create this scenario or talk about creating this scenario in other options as well um if that's a primary concern but in this scenario we could build a new standalone
pool building outside of the footprint of the existing building and outside the footprint of the existing pool have that up and running um fully completed uh before we start demolishing the existing pool online. So that if that is a priority that that's something that we can certainly study and look at in terms
of where where it would potentially go on site to fulfill those different criteria. One site and this is on the hillside um in between or just to the west of the existing building. The other location for that where it might be able to happen is on top of the parking lot
um to the south if we were wanted to be thinking about a pool down there. Um, so we also want to think about like just long-term sort of campus orientation as well and what makes the most sense for the school's use and the community's use, right? Putting it on the parking lot um, makes it a lot more accessible
to people that are coming in off of Winthrop. U, but would also make it in this scenario, it's it's a little bit of a hike to get from the school down to the pool. Maybe that's a good thing. I think those are the types of things that we can we can study moving forward, but there are a limited number of options where you could visualize that
happening. >> Thank you. I I guess you know what I'm hearing is you know the people who are are who who have a primary focus around keeping the pool um seem to not fully be hearing or understanding that
if we keep the pool it will still be closed for what 18 months two years more >> I would say between 12 and 18 months is probably the a time in terms of renovating that existing pool but yes in a renovation scenario then there would be a time without the um for that
duration. >> I mean, and I certainly think that if we end up prioritizing pool access, uh you know, that's one of the reasons I, you know, I know we're not picking an option today, but you know, the the new construction on the field allowing us to
keep a pool or put a pool somewhere. um you know it just seems that the folks who are most concerned about the pool are unaware they will have no pool and for a year year and a half. Um and um we
have one option here that would actually allow them to not have that problem. So, um I think that's an important thing for people to mention when we have that as as the people on this committee have that conversation and we keeping the pool to most people means that they can
just keep using the pool through this project and that's just not true. >> Right. And I think Paul just to to clarify because I think is a good point to make sure that people we can educate uh everyone about what the options are. There are other scenarios that we could
look at, right, with C3.2 or 3.3 or 3.4 that says, okay, we're going to we're going to build a new pool again towards um this corner of the site. Um it just means that there's we're not renovating the existing pool building. And so that can be something that we talk through as well as the options as they move
forward. Again, if it's a if it's a priority to not have the lost pool time. In a related question, D2.1 shows a pool in the image
and it is a freestanding pool. So, we know for sure that the MSBA will not share in the cost of like erecting the new pool. But is the is the build of the new pool in the bottom line number that
has been shared with us about D2.1? >> Yes. Yeah. All the the D1.1, 1.2, and 2.1 all include cost and square footage for a a new pool. Um it's just not shown as a separate volume. Um a standalone
volume in 1.1 and 1.2, to but the costs for it um and the scope of it is included in those. >> And if I look at the cost table um it says the pool scope for those three
options is $12.7 million. So it's $12.7 million which is less than um the pool numbers and basically every most of most of the other options. So,
is $12.7 million enough to build a new pool on the site freestanding? And if it is, is it the same size as our current pool or is it something smaller?
>> So, the so yes, the the dollar value is intended to be um representative of building a new pool um freestanding on the site. the sorry and the the question um in terms
of the sorry repeat the last question portion of it I'm getting >> the same size as our current pool or is it a smaller pool? >> So it was not it was not originally estimated to be the same size as the original pool and the new one. We've definitely heard feedback since the estimating was done um that there is a
strong desire to maintain the existing pool size as we move forward. So that would have to be an adjustment that we would have to be making going forward um into the PSR phase. The reason why it is less expensive than renovating the existing pool and that's where I was
getting hung up on is the complexity of the fact that the existing pool by itself is sort of connected in with a lot of other square footage that's there that would have to be renovated at the same time. And that's why it's just it's not as easy as like a a onetoone
comparison between those two. But um yes, in terms of the overall cost of it um and then the smaller size. >> Okay, that's helpful. Thank you. >> And if I could just uh add in from an sort of an administrative standpoint
once the pool is is a new pool. It becomes a separate project. You need a separate committee and the you know it is treated as a wholly separate project. So just keep that in
mind as we move forward. >> Yeah. So just to add to that, we have incorporated the cost, but if a new pool facility is desired, the MSBA will not allow you to build it within the project. Similar to the allow you to go up to a,000 foot auditorium,
but if you do, 1100 uh I'm sorry, 1,000 seat auditorium. If you wanted to do, 1100, they wouldn't allow you to do that. Um, so it's just one of those MSBA uh kind of guidelines and processes that um we have to continue to study as we as
we go down this road with these options uh especially if there is a new pool facility included. >> Well, thank you Matt. Um Ken, >> does that also mean that it could potentially or have to be a separate contractor, a separate OPM, a separate
architect, whole nine yards? Yes, >> it's possible. Yes. >> And potentially would be incredibly complex to have two sets of contractors in the same site at the same time. And >> so, so I just I want to give Helen
though the example of what is transpiring out at East Long Meadow right now. Um that is a project that we're working on. Um the the pool building um is going essentially in a parallel track in terms of construction, a little bit behind the main school
building, but the same GC won uh or the construction manager won both of those projects. the same designer is working on both of those projects because all of the reasons that you just mentioned, Ken, in terms of why it would turn into an incredible challenge to have two different teams like there's that part
of the process ended up playing itself out and so that the community wanted to take advantage of those efficiencies and ended up selecting essentially the same teams at the end. But um but Matt and Helen are absolutely right that it needs to be separated from a process standpoint in terms of procurement um
even if it ends up with the same entities um being responsible for it. >> Does that also include uh if a debt exclusion is required to build a new pool, can that be lumped in or does that have to be a
>> separate vote? Yeah, separate vote. Okay. Thank you. And and just to circle back on one other detail in terms of the reimbursement for it. So in in no cases with any pool scenario will the MSBA give any reimbursement whether it's renovation or
new construction. Um the real difference happens between renovation new construction in this sort of parallel track of really separate projects um is when you go to a separate pool building. >> Paul, >> yes. Um, I think that that was a great
question about the debt exclusion. Um, and um, I mean I I like it also because having it separate lets the voters decide whether they want to pull. Having it part of the high school project means that the voters are they don't get to do
essentially an alleart decision-making process. So, I mean, I'd certainly vote for a debt exclusion for a new pool, but I also think that the whole point of debt exclusions and overrides is that the voters decide, not us as a group of
people or um or elected officials. You know, this is the the ultimate poll. People get to decide at the polls whether or not they want it. Um, and I think by putting the pool into
aside from the fact that in any of the in the options where it's not a standalone building, there will be no pool available for 12 to 18 months, we also take away the the very democratic option of letting the voters decide whether there will be a pool. So, um, I
really like this. Uh we also I I feel like having it as a separate items means we can have another group of people, another committee of people. I I assume I don't know if it be on the the school committee we created or the the
mayor or what, but to design and think about a pool instead of just like a thing with a bunch of water. Like do we want it to be something more? um and what how big do we want it and all that other stuff. Um doing it as part of this
project means that it's just going to be one of our 5,000 other things we're thinking about. Um so I I have a strong I I mean I hadn't really thought about it this way, but I have a strong preference to letting what is it we want as a community for a pool to look like
to really be a group of people who are focused on what the pool would look like. I I mean I I'm not on this school building committee because I care about the pool, frankly. Um um maybe I know a couple people here are in fact volunteered because I want to make sure that I don't lose the pool. Um but I'm
guessing most of us are not here because the pool was our number one priority. I think the a group of people focused on the pool would be the best possible group. So >> thank you Ken. I thought the MSBA would
participate in the renovation of the pool. How are they going to separate out things like the fire alarm and the sprinkler system and the HVAC system and those? You going to have to allocate costs out? >> So, it it does not need to be separated
out um from a financial standpoint into a separate project if it's a renovation. It can be connected to they're just not going to reimburse on that square footage. >> That's going to talk about the reimbursement for it. So, they don't reimburse at all. I I thought we were told that like they would participate in the reimbursement of the pool like they would participate in the reimbursement
of the fieldhouse but not building a new one. >> No, cuz there's there's no baseline pool square footage that is in an MSBA guideline building. >> Okay. >> Yep. >> Questions or proposals about the D
options? Lisa, >> yeah, I had a question about um I think it's criteria 6.4, navigating time between classes. And I noticed that in the the assessment criteria, I believe
it is based solely on um horizontal um distance. I'm just wondering about if the students like if the if the building is six stories high, are there students going to be navigating five flights of stairs between classes?
And how does that kind of get included in that navigating time? it. It's a great question, Lisa, and I I don't know um exactly how we would analyze it more specifically um at this
early point in time. I I can certainly think that that you have a a very valid point there. And as we go up, um, you may add the time in that direction. And, um, maybe it's people moving up and down, well, up at least slower, um, than
they would be going horizontally. Um, in which case you could potentially just normalize it, um, in terms of, um, the rating across all of them. Um, and maybe it's just neutral um, as opposed to fives. But presumably what you're getting at is
a is is about compact floor versus a more spread out floor situation. Correct. In terms of the horizontal versus vertical. >> Are you talking to me or to Matt? >> Both of you in terms of evaluating this
as a uh in a point situation. >> Right. I'm just I'm I do think that there are issues with having students go up many flights of stair. I got you know four flights of stairs between classes.
Um that is that will increase the uh you know the passing time between classes but it doesn't seem to be accounted for if uh we're only looking at horizontal navigation. Paul, is your hand up for this one or is
it still up from previous? Okay. >> Uh, it's up for this one. Um I I you know um Lisa that's a really I I see why this one was hard to figure out how to score because um Arlington High School
they had sort of um like one floor one wing or whatever it's called was the sciences and like another floor another wing was the you know language arts or whatever. Um, and so in
that scenario, nobody goes from science to science. They go from science to English, maybe that's one floor. Or English to math, that's down two floors. Um, but whether or not we make that kind of a approach to how we orient our
academics, I think none of us I I haven't thought about that. I don't know if other people have already made that. That's such a big decision. I mean, you know, that certainly I've never been in a high school um where
the things are that kind of stacked and separated. Um and you know, when we think about where we're going to put different vocational programs, you know, we're not we're very unlikely going to have them all just lined up in a row like they are now. Um, and so
figuring out and calculating the the how far from one class to the next is is going to be hard until we get past where we are now, I think. Um, you know, my daughter says she runs between two of
her classes every day. Has to run. Um, and it's just, you know, the way the schedule works and where the classes are and the kinds of classes she wants. Um, and so I certainly hope we can figure out how to have a design where that's just not a reality because we also probably don't want to have to add more
time to the school year when we open this so we can have longer trans uh transit times between classes. Um, but I also think we're so far from that kind of thinking and decision-m that um,
yeah, but I a six-story building I think inherently it seems impossible that it's going to be quicker to get around, right? So, I I don't know. It's a hard a hard one.
Can I could I could see putting twos across the board on this. Um, and just to acknowledge the fact that it's like you're saying Paul, it's it is very challenging at this early stage to be able to understand the schedule, the layout of spaces in terms of how one may be minimized and not. I would
acknowledge the fact that going up um a significant number of stories is still going to be timeconuming. >> Are there any >> I just Oh, go ahead. >> One last point on that one. Um you know there is the issue of um students that
will require require elev students and staff that might require elevators. Um, you know, when we talk about actually I don't know in new buildings there's always there enough elevators and it's not like in every building that we always go to now and it's there's never enough
I assume elevators will be driven by ADA standards etc. like I don't I don't know how um how many elevators get put in a building gets factored >> a combination of accessibility codes for
sure but also um I think gets to this topic of universal access and sort of horizontal distribution around right so we want to make sure that they're convenient elevators um acknowledging where um different access points into the building are um for after hours
community access and we need to make sure that we have approximate elevator to be able to traverse different floors. So, um it there's probably a formula there in combination of the horizontal footprint um as well as the number of stories. Um but it would certainly be a subject of conversation as we get into
the the design process a little bit more. >> Lucy, I agree with Matt's suggestion about maybe doing twos. I just feel like there's so much still. We're not at that phase to kind of
go through how this will be laid out on the inside. Um we've said numerous times this this right now is well beyond just a comprehensive high school. This is a community building. And so having that conversation about where you're putting
the ECC, where you're putting central office space also could be on maybe a floor that students don't have to necessarily traverse. The outside schools also have four floors. I know sometimes the passing time is different
absolutely at a high school. Um, but I just I agree that maybe just doing twos across the board is the best way to handle this right now because we just don't like that we just don't know right now in this exercise how things are
going to be arranged um internally. >> Is your motion to add to do twos across the board just for the D choices? Yeah, that was Matt Rice's suggestion maybe as like a way to move forward because Lisa
made a really good point about the difference between horizontal and vertical. So, >> so just the D choices. >> Well, there were some C's um that had seven floors. >> So, I think I think to me I would say my
motion is anything more than four floors. H. >> So, the motion is that anything more than four floors becomes a two. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. It's not a five. >> Okay. Uh, there's a motion on the floor.
Is there a second? >> Second. >> Second by Ken. I will call the role. Jenny Graham. Yes. Mayor Longo Kern. >> Yes. >> Dr. Galooi. >> Yes. >> Marta Bal. >> Yes. >> Joan Bowen.
>> Yes. Ken Lord, >> yes. >> Libby Brown, >> yes. >> Marissa Desmond, >> yes. >> Maria Dorsy is absent. Brian Hillyard, >> yes. >> Emily Lazaro, absent. Paul Malone, >> yes. >> Nicole Morell,
>> yes. >> Aaron Leady, >> yes. >> Luke Pryer is absent. So, 12 in the affirmative, zero in the negative, three absent. The motion is approved. Um, Matt, can you toggle back to the D's? >> Sure.
>> Are there any other questions, comments, changes to any of the D rankings? Dr. Lucy, >> I don't necessarily want to go back regressively about the pool, but I did
just have a question. I don't know if this is the right space to ask it, but does the new construction of a TUS pool factor in to this conversation at all? And do we know if
that's a community pool or is that just TU's use only? I don't know for sure personally, but my understanding is is not necessarily for community use. Um, but we could try to verify that before the next meeting
unless somebody else on the call has an answer to that >> through the chair. I think that that's correct. I don't think it's a community pool, but they are very good to the the their neighbors and in some cases the community, but I think it's mainly for
university use. >> Okay. Thank you. Are there questions about the D options? >> Paul, >> um I'm feeling a little silly. I should probably know this, but is there the the amount of athletic fields in outdoor
spaces, which we see on screen right this second, is there a rating for that as well? I don't want to add new categories, but like some of these have substantially more outdoor spaces. I think that there was
>> Yeah. So that there's increasing the field inventory on site as 7.1. I think in the in the assessment rationale you would see that if it if we're adding just a single field um that got sort of a a two um I believe and
then if it was we're adding a significant amount of field space then it was or anything more than one um is what got to the five questions about the D options. Uh is there a motion to approve um
this document as amended so that it can be posted on our site? So moved. by Nicole. Is there a second? >> Second. >> By Ken. I'll call the role. Jenny
Graham. Yes. Mayor Longo Karn. >> Yes. >> Dr. Galooi. >> Yes. >> Marty Bra. >> Yes. >> Joan Bowen. >> Yes. >> Ken Lord. >> Yes. >> Libby Brown. >> Marissa Desmond. >> Yes.
>> Maria Dorsy is absent. Brian Hillyard, >> yes. >> Emily Lazar is absent. Paul Malone, >> yes. >> Nicole Morell, >> yes. >> Aaron Leady, >> yes. >> And Luke Pryner is absent. So 11 in the affirmative,
zero and the negative for absent. Um so this document is approved as amended. Um, and I think, uh, we'll make sure it gets posted to the site, um, and, um, me and promoted in the superintendent's
um, Friday memo. Um, because I think the thing that is sort of clear to me as I look at the evaluation is that not everything is important to everyone in the same way. I think the pool is a good example of that. Like some people are going to vote based on like the the pool
variable. Some people are going to want to know about the cost. Some people are going to want to know about playing fields. Some people are going to want to know about modulars and how long it's going to take. And so this document gives people sort of a a point of view
to like jump off and think about 29 options, right? So I want to make sure we get that out onto the site as quickly as we can. Um Paul, did you have a question? >> Yes. I have a quick question about preparation for the next meeting for the SMMA folks.
>> Yep. >> Um to get into the narrowing options, the I have the presentation from you from January 14th that has the largecale pictures of the plans with aerial
massing. Is that still the most upto-date? I've been trying to follow along, but the thumbnails on the Excel are so small um that it's kind of difficult. I'll show briefly what I'm talking about. So, is this still accurate? If I want to
review these before we have to narrow it down to three to five, >> they they are generally accurate. There's a few clarifications that we made just actually earlier today to the plan diagrams um to make sure that what was being shown visually aligned with
the scope that was estimated and described in the PDP report. Um, we do have a an updated PowerPoint uh that we're going to be putting out through Mentometer um which was an opportunity for um the larger um Medford public um
to just provide some indication of interest. Um, and each one of those actually has at a full slide scale um the the the plan image um the updated current plan image as well as like a simplified description which aligns exactly with the text that was
circulated um earlier today to everybody um which is just sort of a simplified description of each one of the options. Um, I'm just I'm trying to think if we can probably take those three-dimensional images and layer them into that slide as well, just if it provides people a little bit of
additional clarity um as to um what each of the option represents because sometimes it is it is easier to see in three dimensions um if we're building over the top of something u versus just looking at that two-dimensional plan graphic and and that would bring it all current um and and make it all um
available to every for everyone to look through in sort of a a good way. So, I know Helen's probably thinking whether or not we can do it. I know. >> No, no. Or or just making clear which which ones have been adjusted because I it sounds like Paul, you're interested
in being able to have that that view. >> It would be helpful for us to send out the current version of what we should all be looking at. So, I think we can take that action item just so that there are no version control issues, no no
back and forth like let's all be on the same page about that. Um, so we can we can take that takeaway. Um, the other thing that I that is listed on the agenda is sort of like some thoughts
about how we uh go about narrowing this down. And I did have a proposal myself that I wanted to share with you all to see if we felt like this would be helpful. Um, I think
that my idea is to distribute um, essentially like a straw poll to the members of the building committee so that everybody can vote on uh, three uh, renovation options and
three up to three up to three renovation options and up to three new options. so that we could share how many people are weighing in on each of the options at the outset of our next meeting from the building committee and
we can use that in addition to the mentimeter polling and all of the feedback that we've um collected to date. So that I I think there's going to be options where there's just no support, right? And so I'm thinking that
if we all participate in like a non-binding straw poll ahead of time and can share that data, it might help um focus the conversation um as we are talking. So I think we can definitely
get that put together if there is strong interest in that from the committee. Um, I just am sensitive to um, like I've been digging in and looking at all these in lots of detail and I'll be, you know, sharing my thoughts with my mail list and people that I talk to and I'll be
asking people what they think and I think we're all going to do that between now and next week. Um, but at it does matter sort of what the committee it where the committee's mind is at. So, I think that would be helpful for me, but I will um ask the rest of you to weigh
in on that idea. Um Lisa, >> are you asking only the voting members to participate in kind of the straw poll or the non- voting members? Also, >> that's a great question. My my uh proposal is that we all weigh in voting
and non- voting. >> Thank you, >> Paul. Did you have your hand up? >> No, I was just hoping you would say just that as well because um aside from being a non- voting member, I do think that since this isn't a decision making
any in any way, shape or form binding, I I would hope we could all participate, but I also can't make that motion. So, you all get >> that would be my proposal. Um Dr. Lucy, >> I think it would be a great place to start and would really focus the
conversation rather than maybe having to go through all 29. So, I'm happy to um propose that we start the next meeting having completed a straw poll to begin the um 20 next Monday's
meeting. >> Is there a second? >> I'll second that. >> By Aaron. Any other questions about that? Paul, do you have a question about that? >> I do. Um and and maybe somebody else could make this motion, but um for all
of the rows in the spreadsheet for which there are no differences, um can we maybe ask that they all be hidden and we never discuss them again in this next meeting? I just feel like we can severely reduce the amount of
significantly reduce the amount of I don't want to say noise, it's all important, but when everything is a five or a three or a two or a zero across the board, it just adds a lot of visual uh overload. And when I I took a version of
this and I got rid of all the rows that were the same, of course, not based on the latest updates. And then I got rid of everything that scored really badly looking at the sums and it all fit nicely on a little screen instead of requiring my gigantic monitor.
So, um I think a lot of people would enjoy that, but that's not emotional obviously. >> I think everyone is like looking at this differently, right? So I think that's part of the power of having 25 people on this committee is that we are all coming
to the conversation with something distinctly different in mind. Um so I think people yeah I think people should feel free to do their analysis how they see fit um and and weigh in that way so that we're hearing from as many people
as we can. And I I do think like that, you know, we talk a lot about the open meeting law and about making sure this team is compliant. You all are free to talk to people in the community about what you think and you are free to ask other people in the community what they
think. Where you have to be careful is if you are asking people on the committee to be in alignment with you or what they think um and then sharing that sort of in a more broad way. So, if you are talking to your network,
to your spouse, to your kids, whoever, you're welcome to do that. I just want to make sure people like feel comfortable being able to do that because I think this is important. I'm expecting that there will be members of the community at our meeting on on Monday. And um we'll make sure that they
know how to to weigh in as well before we before we start voting. Um, and we'll package up all of, as I mentioned in my email last week, we'll package up all of the feedback we've received so far and make sure that gets out to you in the next couple of days. Um, okay. So, we have a motion on the
floor by Dr. Glooy, seconded by Aaron, that we will start the next meeting um with the results of straw poll. So, I'll call the role. Um, Jenny Graham, yes. Mayor Longo Kern, >> yes. >> Um, Dr. Galooi, >> yes. >> Marta Bra,
>> yes. Joan Bowen, yes. Ken Lord, >> yes. >> Libby Brown. Marissa Desmond, >> yes. >> Maria Dorsy. Brian Hillyard, >> yes. >> Emily Ozaro, Paul Malone, >> yes.
>> Nicole Morell, >> yes. >> Aron Leady, >> yes. >> Luke Presner, 11 the affirmative, zero in the negative. Uh, four absent. Motion passes. Um, Jen, can you bring up the schedule slide again? I just wanted to
like come back around full circle to this slide and address some of the other questions and comments that sort of popped up along the way. >> Is it Is it this slide, Jenny? You want me to go back to the beginning? >> Yes,
>> this one. >> Apologies, I'm driving. >> That's okay. Um, Matt, I can't see your screen. Oh, how did that happen? It's very, very strange. >> I took over to show you your January presentation. Sorry.
>> Ah, >> all right. >> Okay. Thank you. Um, so on Monday the 23rd, we'll narrow down to three to five options. The shift in this schedule does allow us to have a dedicated meeting that was already scheduled on 427 that
has sort of some space for a different kind of conversation. and um what the project team is working on between now and then um in collaboration um with um the district team who helped
write the educational plan and helped um provide all of the input that generated the space summary. Um certainly we will review the the MSBA PDP comments. Um, but there are also like any number of
scenarios for which this committee could make decisions about inclusion or exclusion in the program. And I since we've been picking on the pool all night, I'll use it as an example. So, we could we could as a committee
decide the pool is an absolute must. And we could also decide as a committee the pool is an absolute no. And the goal in this meeting is to bring some of those bigger proposals forward with some
considerations so that where there's data that can be provided about what the choice is. um that we can put that on the table and examine some of those choices that could change the square footage before that square footage for
the 3 to five options goes to the estimators. So we will dedicate this meeting to like as I like what I think of as scope, right? So um uh you know I'll pick on um you know uh the the teen
health center for example. It is listed as a program for which space was allotted on the space summary and this committee has not talked um in depth and ask questions about like what does that
proposal entail, right? So, we're not quite there yet. But in this meeting on the 27th, that is an example of something that um I'm expecting to be able to like have the project team bring forward and say, "Here's what this would
entail. Here's what it would mean. Um here's how many square feet it is. Here's how much it would cost." and um allow this group to sort of consider that as a choice and make a choice so that if we say yes 100% we want to carry
that forward some more and understand a little bit more about the cost estimating with that in mind that we can do that. But if we say we're we're not in for this at all, we can remove it from the scope. we can
take it completely off the table in an official capacity and then we cannot sort of muddy the cost estimate with that which we don't intend to carry forward. So those kinds of questions are what I am wanting to dedicate that 427
meeting to. So that there is some dedicated time and space to talk about questions people may have about gross square footage which is you know the the honest biggest driver of cost right. So, um, and all of those decisions that we
make on the 27th will be packaged up and sent to the estimators so that when the 3 to 5 estimates come back, um, they will they will reflect any decisions being made by this team on the 27th. Um, I think that's a really important step
and I'm actually kind of glad we have a dedicated meeting to do that because that is its own set of variables outside of what does the building look like, where does the building go, what's in the building, what's not in the building. So, um, we'll have some dedicated time and space to talk about
that in our April meeting. Um, so I'm glad for that and I look forward to those discussions. Um on the 20th, as we mentioned, we'll then look at the cost estimates that will reflect anything that we changed or decided on the 27th. Um and then um we
will use um our meeting on 527 um to sort of dig in deeper and um continue to answer questions um from the com the committee um and the community. Then we'll in the leadup to our vote on the 10th um where we will vote on a
single option sprinkled throughout here which is a schedule that I did send to you uh last week is also a a huge series of community input sessions where there's formal community forums and this team is getting ready to take its show
on the road and be out at tables at all kinds of city and community events and if you have littles you can find us at the egg dash on Saturday morning. Um, so we'll be there to answer questions, to collect feed, feedback and input and all
of those good things. Um, so, um, we'll see you at the egg dash and, um, at many, many more meetings as we head into the gauntlet that is, um, May and June in a public school system. Any questions about the schedule?
Uh okay. Is there a motion to uh adjurnn? >> So moved >> by Dr. Gupsy. Is there a second? >> Seconded. >> Is that Mayor Longo Kern? >> Yes. Seconded. >> Okay. Um I will call the role. Jenny
Graham. Yes. Mayor Longo Kern. >> Yes. >> Dr. Galooi. >> Yes. >> Marta Bra. >> Yes. Joan Bowen, >> yes. >> Pen Lord, >> yes. >> Libby Brown, >> yes. >> Marca Desmond,
>> yes. >> Maria Dorsy is absent. Brian Hillyard, >> yes. >> Emily Lazaro is absent. Paul Malone, >> yes. >> Nicole Morell is absent. Oh, >> yes. Sorry. >> Yes. >> Um, Aaron Lead,
>> yes. >> Luke Pryer is absent. So 12 in the affirmatives are in the negative, three absent. The meeting is adjourned.