--------- Will Will you Will you do that? >> Are the waiting room people >> real people? >> No, they're not. >> One of them's not. Okay. I knew one of them wasn't. >> You're good to go. Mayor, >> one of them wasn't. >> Okay. Thanks. The 11th regular meeting
of the Memphis School Committee will come to order. Uh Monday, June 1st, 2026. Executive session 5 p.m. for one second. >> U Thanks. Thanks, Jerry. 5:00 um p.m. Remote only.
And this meeting is being recorded. The meeting can be viewed live on the Medford Public Schools YouTube channel through Memphis Community Media on your local cable channel, Comcast 98 or 22 and Verizon 434547. Participants
participants can log or call in to the meeting on June 1st, 2026, Memphis school committee 11th regular meeting. Um Zoom link is in the agenda on the city website and school website and the meeting ID is 9232618-5567.
Um member if you could please call the role. >> Graham >> here. Madam Master >> here. >> Member Olati >> here. >> Member Parks >> here. >> Member Rinfeld
>> present. >> Member so present. Mayor Lingo Karn >> present. Seven present zero absent. If we could all please rise to salute the flag. >> I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands. One nation
under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. We have executive session upon a motion to enter into executive session pursuant to Mass General Laws Chapter 30A section 21A. Executive session to conduct a strategy session on the basis that an
open meeting may have a detrimental effect on the bargaining positions of the Medford School Committee. Specifically, the Metford School Committee will convene an executive session to discuss collective bargaining with the Massachusetts Teachers Association, the MTA, regarding a teacher's grievance in the chair so
declares an executive session pursuant to general laws 30A section 21A to conduct a strategy session on the basis that an open meeting may have a detrimental effect on the barding positions of the Memphis School Committee. Specifically, the Medford School Committee will convene in executive session to discuss strategy
for potential litigation and the chair so declares. And then lastly, also pursuant to chapter 3A section 212 to conduct strategy in preparation with non-union personnel or contract negotiations with non-union personnel specifically but not limited to
elementary principles, middle school principles, high school principles, executive director of CTE, the assistant superintendent of academics and instructions, chief operations officer, the director of student services, and the director of human resources. Please refer to the appendix for the complete
list. Memphis School Committee will not reconvene in public session following the executive session. And our next regular meeting while we are on is um June 8th, 2026 in the in the chambers Medford City Hall. >> Motion to enter executive session
>> and without convening in public after >> after. Yep. Um member Rinfeld seconded by second. >> Member Graham. Roll call, please. Member Graham, >> yes. >> Member Master, >> yes. >> Member Olady,
>> yes. >> Member Parks, >> yes. >> Member Reinfeld, >> yes. >> Member Rouso, yes. Mayor Lungo, >> yes. 70 affirmative, zero in the negative. Uh, motion to enter executive session and not reconvene in public session has been approved.
And then there were two. >> You want me to add you just in case they go out of order and then if you can >> She'll text to come in. It's fine. >> What's that? >> She'll text when they need to come in, right? >> I I would assume so. Yeah. >> Yeah, it's fine. Okay. Part: 2
Do you think we're mostly good to go with the committee? >> I I do. Yes. >> Welcome everyone. Um I'm going to go ahead and read the meeting invite and call the role while we're still letting people in. So bear with us. Um, please
be advised that there'll be a full building uh committee of the Medford Comprehensive High School Building Committee being being held via remote participation only on June 1st at 7 p.m. The meeting can be viewed live on Medford Public Schools YouTube channel or through Medford Community Media on
your local cable channel, which is Comcast 98 or 22 and Verizon channel 43,45 or 47. The meeting will be recorded. Participants can log in um or call in by using the following information. Um the
Zoom meeting ID is 959356298. Um I'm going to read I'll read the public comment rules in just a second, but I'm going to call the role um so that we can get started. Jenny Graham is here. Mayor Longo Kern present. >> Dr. Gichi
>> present. Mica Brawl, >> present. >> Joan Bowen, >> present. >> And Lord, >> here. >> Libby Brown, >> here. >> Marissa Desmond. >> Maria Dorsy >> here.
>> Prank Hillard, >> I'm here. >> Emily Lazaro >> here. >> Paul Malone, I think, will be joining us a little bit um a few minutes late. Nicole Morell >> here. >> Aaron Lady >> here.
>> Luke Fryner. >> Uh here. >> Uh Bob Dickinson >> here. >> Fiona Maxwell. >> What >> is Fiona here? >> Here. Sorry about that.
>> Hi Fiona. Uh Chad Fallon >> here. Um, Dr. Talbett >> here. >> Will Pepeelli >> here. >> Lori Hodgton here. John Mclofflin is absent. Paul Rouso >> here.
>> Phil Santos and Lisa Miller >> here. >> So, we have 13 and 13 present, uh, two absent, and we can get started. Um, thank you everyone for joining us. We have um a big meeting ahead. So, we're
going to um do a couple of um a couple of brief updates and then we have um some presentations both from the city of Medford and um from our project team. Um I think the first thing on the agenda is the approval of the meeting minutes um
from our last meeting. Is there a motion to approve? >> So moved. >> I can. Is there a second? >> Seconded. Maria. >> Maria. I'll call the role. Jenny Graham. Yes. Mayor Londo Kern. >> Yes.
>> Dr. Galooi. >> Yes. >> Mica Brawl. >> Yes. >> Joan Bowen. >> Yes. >> Ken Lord. >> Yes. >> Libby Brown. >> Yes. >> Marissa Desmond. Maria Dorsy. >> Yes.
>> Brian Hillyard. >> Yes. >> Emily Lazaro. Yes, Paul Malone. Nicole Morurell. Yes, Aron Lead. >> Yes, >> Luke Pryner.
>> Um, there there's a misspelled name in the minutes. Um, so >> that can be correct. >> That can be corrected without um needing an approval. We'll just take care of it. Yeah, if >> you can just correct the spelling of my
name and I think Nick Jerello. Um I would uh I guess vote to approve these. >> 13 affirmative, zero in the negative. Uh two absent. Uh the minutes are approved.
>> Um okay, item number three, just um a few project updates and some followups. So, um I ju I did just want to let the group know that um you'll probably start seeing some shifts um from our Luckfield team. Um we're getting ready to send
Matt off to get married. Um so he'll be taking um some well-deserved vacation time and he has not invited um any of us to his wedding so we'll have to carry on without him. So, if you see some shifting around in terms of like, you know, who all um who all we're hearing from and who emails are coming from,
that's part of that's part of what's going on. So, um we'll see Matt, I think, in at least one more meeting, but then um he has informed us that we're not invited. So, um we'll have to just uh all be sad together while Matt's off getting married and having fun. Um
>> limited capacity. >> Thanks, Matt. Um, I think the other thing I wanted to make sure that we um provided an update on is right before uh Memorial Day, the project team, the mayor, and myself had a chance to have a
meeting with the MSBA where we were able to talk to them about um a number of things um including some of their comments and um it was like a super productive meeting. Uh we were able to um talk to them a bit about the deed
restriction. Um we gave them an update on some of the changes that we made to the um the C22 and the C34 option. Um and let them know what had happened earlier that week um in our elimination of the of the D option that was um up on
the field. And they were um pleased by that. I asked them very directly whether we were like in violation of their regulations or in trouble in some way. Uh and they said no that that we are not. They understand that these things
do happen. Um and what they did ask for was a statement from the city's attorneys um sort of weighing in on the changes that were made and the the issue the the sort of prevailing issues with
the deed restriction and how um that would work with the project going forward. So all of that work is in motion. They went on to say that this like is it's super common that deed restrictions sort of pop up um when you're talking about school building
projects because of the way schools were built over time on land that um changed hands many many times. Um so they were satisfied with um the disclosures that we had provided as well as with um what we had done to adjust for it and um they
were like really pleased by that. The other thing that we talked to them a bit about um and I know that I asked them some direct questions about was their one of their requests and um their comments about our PDP submission was
for us to explore a 9 to12 only option. I highlighted for them that the reaction here in Medford was sort of a a question about whether we had done something wrong or whether the MSBA was telling us that they were going to disapprove of
our project going forward if we did not make um reductions to only accommodate for a 9 to2 school. And they unequivocally said that was not the case at all. um but that when they saw that we were evaluating a bunch of options
that relatively are the same from a square footage perspective, they felt like it was important for us to put some options on the table um for comparison purposes that would um explore different square footages. And so that's the genesis of their question. They went on
to um say that they're very supportive of our community building the building that we need it to be. Um and they just wanted us to sort of explore all of those choices in a variety of ways so
that as we go forward um we can all confidently say that we left no stone unturned in the feasibility study to to make sure that we were um you know sort of checking out all the all of the possibilities before us because this is
the time to do that. So um I know I felt good about their comments. um and uh the the communication that we had um we did talk to them a fair bit about our pathway forward through the month of June um including a decision on June
10th and um overall um they were helpful and forthright and collaborative and the good partners that um you know we we have always expected them to be and they continue to be. So, I just wanted to share that update in case it's helpful
for anybody um and to make sure that um we are continuing to um address um some of the community's concerns particularly around the deed restriction. So, um, all signs are a go for the options that
we're moving forward with. And I'm excited, um, for our community forum later this week where we'll get to, um, hear from our community about the things that matter to them in this project and the, um, uh, help us make that choice.
So, we're we're down to four or five options and we need to get to one. Um, and I'm excited to hear what folks have to say about that. Um so those are the updates I wanted to to share. The other thing I will mention um for the entire
group is that we have begun working on scheduling for our next um phase of the project which is really going to take us from July um through February of next year through schematic design. And in the coming weeks, we'll finalize that
schedule. Um, and we'll be sort of trying to check uh the as many calendars as we can um to make sure that we're not um tripping on other community meetings. I know that's always a huge concern and that we're making decisions um when uh
people can tune in and be part of it. So, all of that to come and to um to say to look out for um an updated meeting schedule in the next couple of weeks. Um, with that said, we'll get on to the
main event. Um, and we have two things um happening uh two big things happening tonight. The next item on the agenda is an update from the city of Medford on its capital projects and the preliminary um thoughts around cost impact. So just
like we have been saying all along in terms of our cost estimates, right? This is a kind of a funnel of information that's going to continue to be refined really all the way through February. On the cost side when we have our final schematic design and the estimates um so
everything that we've been doing so far is based on lots of broad assumptions and many many unknowns, you know, substantial contingencies and all of those good things. the same kind of process has to happen on the how will we pay for this side of the house. Um so
tonight I think we'll see um from the city team some of their first steps in framing um you know sort of the the the work ahead on the city side. And um just a quick note that the t this is sort of
the again the beginning not the end of the conversation um which will continue with the project team later this week as we keep talking about how do we refine these assumptions? How do we how do we fund this project? Where do we look um and all of that good stuff. So we are at the
beginning. So here we go. I'm going to turn it over to Mayor Langokarn. Thank you. Um, member Graham, I'm going to just first introduce city staff that are on the call. And I'm sorry on my phone because my camera wasn't working for my computer at home.
But we have Steve Smeary, who's our communications director, is going to um probably put up the slideshow is as he gets access. We also have our CFO who's a member of this committee um Bob Dickinson.
We have Jared Yarian who is the city assessor who helped us with these um calculations and Paul Riggy who is our he's our facilities maintenance uh director was our facilities maintenance director still staying on with the city
to do several hours a week. So, I just want to thank them all for um joining me tonight as we get through this presentation. So, Steve, if you could put it up, I'm going to just make a few comments first and then we'll work through it um as a team. I first want to start and just let everybody know um
that as a graduate of Medford High School, I'm well aware of the challenges of the existing high school building. I'm also aware of the opportunity that our school programming provides and how this is an important step for Medford and our students, educators, staff to
have an ed an educationally appropriate modern facility that supports the exceptional education that our school system is known for. While there are other comprehensive high schools in the Commonwealth, Medford is unique in the path we took to get here to to provide a
kids access to a broader selection of our offerings under one roof. Our community asked us to merge the two high schools that operated separately side by side for over 50 years. This year was the first year the school operated as a single comprehensive high school. While
this is a great first step, the current building does not support the collaboration and cross-pollination of ideas that we know are possible. Medford currently has one of the most robust career technical education offerings in the state. We have 723 students enrolled
in CTE courses across 15 programs. That's over half of our students. We also have 628 students enrolled in honors and AP courses. again over half of our students. We should be in incredibly proud of this of our teachers and staff and educational leadership
that have made this school so exceptional. Their vision for a brighter future for the children of Medford is inspiring and has my full support. We are designing something incredibly special and we have one opportunity to get it right for the entire community. We do have work to do, especially in the
early fall, to reduce the scope and cost, but I'm confident this committee will do the hard work with me to make this a reality for our students while also keeping in mind how this will affect everyone who lives in Medford. I'm about to present a look at how our high school project, as it currently
stands, costs out from different perspectives. Whether you're a renter, a condo owner, homeowner, this is a picture of how the debt exclusion will affect you. Um, please note this is a snapshot in time and again we have a lot of work ahead of us through the summer and beyond to make sure this building is
right sized for our community. It's my commitment to you that this project team will continue the work to bring cost down to ensure that residents of Medford can afford the type of excellence that our students deserve. So, if we could go to the Yep. First
slide, please. Um this is just reiterating my commitment to wanting a new high school for many many years. Um obviously one that our community can afford and this presentation um will let the public know
project cost, tax impacts and factors residents should understand in order to provide feedback to this school building committee we got here. This is one building built to support two schools built in in 1970. In 2017, the school committee voted to
combine the two high schools. And in 2025, like I said, the new schedule supports comprehensive high school model. And this is just a little bit of why we're doing it. again um existent buil building is
oh sorry not supporting um what our students deserve. Vocational spaces and academic spaces are still separate which does not support um crosspollination of ideas and the current buildings layout and infrastructure do not support modern education that seeks to prepare students
for the real world. Just a little bit of the stats that I already spoke about. Um, in addition to the first two, 300% increase in fine arts and music participation with our new schedule, three seasons of unified sports teams. Um, and we have
awardwinning winning clubs and athletic teams. Also, you have a list on the right of this slide of all the programming that our vocational technical school um, offers. And we have new programs um coming on next school year and
additional programs through the MSBA process. I'll start start us off and then I'm going to turn it over to um our assessor Jared Yajin. Um, but these are the numbers that came out over the last couple weeks. And we chose for this
presentation the high and the low and then one in between which was um cuz we do know that the C options are very people do love the C options. So, what you'll see in this presentation is the high of um 67,000,
which is the the city district share um of a high school. That's going to be 53% covered by the MSBA. Um but this MSBA will only cover 53% of allowable um spaces. So that that that's probably
the highest debt exclusion we're looking at if we were to go for a debt exclusion today. The lowest one you'll see throughout the presentation is the 440 440,200,000. And then we did pick a middle range of
532,700,000 as our mid-range. And and because we want to include a C option, which is the ad rena option. Um I'm going to take you through and and Paul Riggy's on the call who is well aware of a number of these needs that
we've listed out in two slides. These needs are um ones that we would or wouldn't have to um quote to bond for ourselves, but in an average given year or two years,
we spend about 3 million um in equipment and vehicle costs for all of our different departments. We have our pension liability of 96 million. Our recreation center um as of recent is having major flooding issues. So we have
to do a number of things to make sure that we waterproof the building if we want to continue to offer recreational opportunities at the center on Forest Street. We're we're estimating 3 million, could be a little more, could be a little less, but we are doing our
best with estimates. We have our OPED obligation. Um Bob, please also chime in anytime you'd like to of 257 million. Shiovalia up is always needing upgrades. We do have some casino um funds, but we
put some some money in there cuz we always are upgrading Shiovalia theater. Hormemell stadium upgrades to get it in a place we needed to be before we um rehab or build fields at the new high
school location. We need to put in new turf. We need to put in a new press box. And we need to put in a new um a scoreboard. So, we're estimating that about 2 million. City hall HVAC anywhere between 1 to 2 million um because we
need a new HVAC at city hall. accounting software. We are pretty behind the times and um we've have some money to start the process which we're we've been doing but we estimate approximately two 2 million more is needed to fully get a
new software on board on in line. The city hall bathrooms um they none of them are up to code and we are currently doing two right now. We have then six more to go. the Hegner Center remodel. We have a million dollars from the
federal government. We do have another grant application in to the federal government for additional uh monies. That would be an additional space for recreation um city services, but also our m municipal vulnerability preparedness site. And that cost
estimate is coming in at 5 million. There's also lead service line issue that Medford has. We're lucky enough to to be one of the worst communities in the in the Commonwealth and um we've our engineering department, our department of public works are are plugging away at
it. We're making great progress, but there's 70 million more that we need to do to remove all the lead service lines in our community. If we could go to the next slide and then I'll turn it over to um Paul and
Bob to outline anything else that I might have missed on these two. These are projects that we they we will need to put on the city debt. Um we all know we need a new fire headquarters. Police station came on online about 7 years ago. Um so we're long overdue for fire
headquarters. 30 million was the cost we were looking at back 2 years ago. That's anywhere from 30 to 3540 million. Oakrove Cemetery as you see listed at a few different spots on this slide. design and construction of our the
buildings. We have two buildings on the site that need need full full rehab um if not um full reconstruction as well as the cemetery ro roads
um and the expansion of the we only have about four or five more years of plot space. So the expansion is going to cost 4 million as well. We have the school district HVAC. Those are also MSBA projects, but the city
district share is about 16 million. So we have listed here at 15.8. We also have freedom way reconstruction. That again is for the entire community, but mainly for our schools um to do with soup to nuts based on the roadway and
all the sidewalk work that needs to be done. We're estimating about 20 million. And then we have a street sidewalk backlog as well as water and sewer infrastructure work. Our um water and sewer infrastructure has a lifespan of about a 100red years and we're at
20 years. So we have to really get started on um we we've been planning um the last two years but and doing work but we need to continue to do that over the next 10 to 20 years. So that's at 250 million. Um
Bob or Paul if you want to chime in on these two slides. I know you've got the f better finance background, better facilities background than I do. Um so please feel free to >> chair just um the the pension liability and the
liability. Those are those are very numbers. Um we're gradually paying off the pension liability which is great but then the opa other post employee benefits but people who are not aware right now I calculated
32.15 city is paying 7.8 $8 million or lean as before the GIC gave us a 9% increase for 2026 and another 99% increase for 2027
just to pay for expireies health insurance that's the big part of of other postal benefits and also other living like the city provides 50% of of dental insurance
And the point is that those we need to start putting money away. We have to pay things to reduce the amount the city has to come up with just like we do the pension line. to reduce the amount that the city has to run for before actually
before at some point the commonwealth was required to roll off the side as the executive pension to fund. >> Sorry Bob, I'm having a hard time understanding you and there I I'm not
seeing any um uh captions, but can you repeat the last thing that you said? I'm I'm confused about the pension and how it relates to the high school. >> Well, these are these are expenses that the city will have to come up with.
I mean, the pension liability, you know, what the schedule is to pay that off. I'm just pointing out that the opt liability is another large number. It has to do with the retirey health insurance. And just like pension
liability, at some point the Commonwealth will be trying will be requiring cities and towns to put aside money to pay for those obligations. As I I don't know if everybody heard
that this year it was 7 by 2025 it was $7.8 $8 million in obligations to just in health insurance that the city have to put out for health insurance for retirees.
That make sense? >> And um folks, if you could if everyone could just hold their questions until the mayor's able to complete her presentation. I want to give you all a chance to to give us your presentation until the end and then we can come back
with um questions. >> Thank you, Member Graham. Um thank you, Bob. Steve, we could go to um and I I just want to also point out um Tim Tim McGyvern, the Department of Public Works Commissioner is also on the call. So, if anybody had questions on
capital items or anything DPW related, the cemetery, um, we can hold questions till the end, but this is this next slide is the Medford's debt debt plan. I know it's small and we will have this up on the website and hopefully the
school building committee website. Um, but this this kind of plays out the next several years down if you can see to the the left hand column down to 2064 and it shows what the city's projected debt would be once you
add the fire station once you add Freedom Way to the to the debt as well as street sidewalks. one or two times. Plus, the street sidewalks are placeholder for emergencies come up all the time. And as
you can see, we we're struggling um to balance a budget this year. We're we're doing a decent job, but there is a gap of about 2 million in on the school side plus the Medford family network
and our the debt we're paying back was about five. Bob, I don't know if you have that number, but it's not on this slide, but five five million 500,000 >> to try to try and try and simplify this
one. This for 2027, um the current general fund debt circumstance, a little over $5 million plus the uh short-term debt we've incurred for first school HVAC program, which is another million bucks.
when you start to model what we're going to have to come up with given we know schools HVAC number one second school HVAC $15.8 $8 million for that. The fire station, I'm putting it at $55 million.
Freedom Wing, $20 million. We know we have to do those projects. They're inevitable. Um if you you can push them back for a year or two, etc. But once those once those projects are fully funded
with the debt service, you're talking another $6 million that has to go on debt service for the general fund. do that. And then when you're looking at, for instance, like 2031, I think the schedule has 2031 for the first new
capital $19 million. Those that's in general, we'll have to probably have to come up with a ban for other capital projects. And 500 another that one and $6 million for streets and sidewalks.
The first one is roughly $1.3 million a year. The next one is those streets and sidewalks are roughly five, you know, 550 million. Um, these are all projects that are going to have to go on to the the general film debt service. And because right now the general fund isn't
carrying a lot of debt, we don't actually have a a good reduction in the general fund debt service in college until actually the the big the big payoff is around uh 2035. So we can't
uh we can't rely on retiring debt service to fund future debt service until roughly 10 years from now. So I mean that's what I'm seeing when I run these things and I'm trying to be as
generous as possible about when we actually have to pay for these projects. There's a certain line I guess there is with the school um because we don't have to come up with all the money at once. We tend to have to pay you have to pay
the um interest costs down the road. Um but still those those are large numbers that will all have to be borne by the general fund. And when you look at the um other capital obligations, you know, city hall, the city hall HVAC
and and 88 bathrooms, that's, you know, you're looking at two $2.7 million for an alpha 2 wagner center. That's about $7.7 million. And hopefully we can get that off cash. But as the
city's budget walls become make all these budgets tighter that you wind up generating less cash every year. So we have to be careful with that one. So these are expenses that come for I
don't think there's a board. >> Thank you Bob. Um, next slide. Jared, if I could ask you to take over um the average tax bill dollar change and we'll start with the 440.
If we were to do a debt exclusion for 440. >> Sure. So, as you see with these slides, we did basically two modeling. We modeled out to when the full debt exclusion would hit, which would be fiscal year 33. And then we also did a
modeling using FY26 numbers with the full debt exclusion at the three different levels. So this one is a multi-year projection which includes assumptions. So the assumptions are that the new growth grows at 2% a year that the residential
values increase roughly 5% a year and we take the full 2 and a half% prop 2 and a half on the levy and then we shift the uh levy to the maximum loan over to CIP commercial industrial personal property.
So the other assumption is that the residential shift or the minimum residential factor will remain roughly the same as 26. So any of those threes change these numbers would change. Just want to make that clear. So it's using those assumptions these figures you have
in front of you here start and they gradually work up till fiscal year 33 and that's when the full debt exclusion would hit and it would stay on the levy until it was paid off and then it would come off.
Does that make sense? >> Yes. Thank you, Jared. So, you a fiscal year is on the left and it's showing you gradually if based on the the borrowing um how much you would pay at the full once it's fully implemented in fiscal year 2033. You see that line which would
be the full um increase to a single family, a condo, two family, three family. >> Correct. >> Apartments. Yes. >> Next slide please. >> So again, same assumptions but just at
the 532 million. Uh and um as the mayor said, we ramp up from fiscal 29 through fiscal 33 and then the full debt stays on the levy until it's paid off. So 34 35, they'll all carry the same tax
because the tax is a a constant tied to the constant debt exclusion that stays uh on the levy until it's paid off. And then again, same but with 607 million as it exclusion.
>> Yep. And if maybe you could explain so keep this up for a minute. Um the these are based on the average you know average single family home which is 860,000 and then a condo. Do you have any of those numbers?
>> Yes. So the average, right? So we do the these are all based off the average from 26 and then we modeled it out. So the averages are going up roughly 5% a year. For 26 we had 860,000 for a single family average, 611,000
for condo average. Uh just over a million for a two family, a million8,000, million100, million18,827 to be exact for a two family. and then 1,800 1,182,000
for a three family and roughly 7.5 million for an apartment. Thank you. Next slide, please. >> And then these are our as it says top 10 uh in terms of apartments on fiscal year
fiscal 26 value. So they typically bear the burden of most of a good portion of the residential levy given their evaluations. So this was just to show uh in fiscal 26 if we had implemented the full debt exclusion for the various uh
three different levels how it would change uh the total value and then we broke it out annually and uh per unit. So it just takes the annual change and divides it by the number of units in that building respectively.
>> Next slide please. So again, same slide except a different amount that is being added to the levy. And as you can see, the numbers gradually increase uh for each of the 10 uh largest apartment buildings.
And then again at the 607 million and same slide, same math, just a larger debt exclusion amount. And then we looked at the seniors. This is part of another study that we had done. So this just breaks down based on the registar of uh voters that we got
the most recent census. the number of seniors that are in Medford and then we paired that against the uh database that we have for parcels and the numbers on this slide here show the number of seniors that own a class 101 which is a
single family 102 which are condos and then the remainder uh 104 105s are two and three families and then the uh number that was left seniors in other parcels there there was nothing to tie them to in terms of
ownership. So, they were living member assumed they were in apartments or some kind of a mixeduse apartment where they rented. And this just is uh from the state. This is a state uh uh level tax relief program. So, uh anyone could apply for
this if they're a senior. Uh there's certain credentials that need to be met that are spelled out there in terms of income uh limits and the assessed value on the home and also if uh there's a renter the percentage of uh annual rent
that uh 10% of the annual income. So, as I said at the beginning, this now gets into this is more uh I should say this is more concrete numbers because we're working with 26 values now. So, this is just saying hypothetically if we
added 440 million to the fiscal year 26 uh debt fiscal year 26 levy which we know and it's already been approved by the do this is what would have happened. Um and the percentages are the same across
uh all the different classes but the uh numbers vary because of the averages. So the averages are across the top. The second line down would be the uh it's the average tax bill. So it's just our fiscal 26 residential rate time uh into
the average assessed for each class. And then the next one down would be what the tax bill would have been if we increased the levy. And then it's just the difference in terms of dollars and the difference in terms of percentage.
Same math but again at the 532 instead of the 440. And as you can see the percentage is going up. And then at the 607 would be the highest percentage roughly 23% across the residential classes.
So this now is the levy. Um so as I said before the the the tax that's tied to the debt exclusion or the amount borrowed is a constant until the the debt falls falls off because the debt payments will be a constant. Uh so but
the percent of the levy will gradually fall off after after it peaks in 33 because new growth continues to increase because we still increase the levy by prop 2 and a half. So uh I think there was some people that thought that the
tax bill would start to decrease after 33 and it's not true in the sense that the tax is tied to the amount borrowed and the amount borrowed is a constant. And then again, same slide, just going through the different numbers here. This is at 532,000.
So this would peak at um you know, roughly 13% and then gradually fall after fiscal 33 in terms of percent of the levy. And then the same here at 607 that would peak roughly around 15% of the levy and then start to gradually fall after 33.
And then this here is just the uh debt itself and what how it would be. It's a percent of the levy was borrowed. And as you can see uh in fiscal 33 is when it peaks and it stays that way until the debt is paid off.
Same for the 532,000 uh million. So these would be the numbers tied to that amount. And then lastly, the 607 and the numbers tied to that amount and the percent of the levy. And then again we went with fiscal 26 no
because that was our last known year. Uh so the fiscal 26 tax this is just uh no class. This is just if your house fell at 400 500 600 all the way up to 2.2 million. This is what your fiscal 26
real estate tax would have been in the second column. The third column is with the debt exclusion added at 440 million and the impact would just be the difference. And then that's the annual difference. The second to last column going left to
right and the last column is just your annual tax impact divided by 12 which gives you your monthly. So again, 532 million, same slide, just a different amount added to the levy. And those are the numbers for each uh
dwelling value. And lastly, 607 million. This would be the most impactful and numbers again for the dwelling values. Thank you, Jared. Um, I'm going to turn it over to Paul Riggy, our facilities
maintenance um, prior director who's still helping us out some. Um, we we did these estimates um, just knowing that the current square footage is um, 640,000 square ft and what that impact would be as it relates to cleaning and
maintenance. So, Paul, I'll let you um, take this one. Sure. So, um, good evening. The one thing everyone needs to remember is that once we build a building, we need to take care of it. Um, something that has been neglected
um, over the years in Medford and is starting to turn around. And this is what projected costs would be to the school system. This is in today's dollars. This is not projected out what it would be in five, six, seven years.
Cleaning could be a million dollars. Um, if a standard compensation ordinance is enacted, um, today's dollars would be 1.2 to 1.4 million. Um, HVAC maintenance, that's not for repairs. That's for a company to
maintain the system. A P&M comp um contract which is going to be needed with this new building. Um the HVAC needs to be protected, needs to be taken care of annually. A company needs to be
brought online to do that. Same thing with the elevators. Currently that does not happen. Um just repairs take place. a contract needs to be put in place for an elevator company to come in monthly and PM the elevators in the building.
Now, that's per elevator. So, if you have five elevators, that's going to be $50,000. Um, and then utilities. Now, this is a hard one to project. Currently, the cost for the electricity for the current high school is about $690,000
a year. Um, but if you electrify, that cost is going to go up. I have a 40,000 square foot building totally electrified. I'm paying $220,000
a year for electric because you have to remember when heating season comes, it's being heated by electric boilers if it's designed that way. So a very careful choice in HVAC system needs to be made
made that it's not only green, it's not only electrified but also it's going to provide cost savings and real savings and not just use electric. Um, I just need to caution everyone that I really
don't want to see the city go the way of Lexington, who just approved their building and their superintendent was just faced with um cutting 65 FTEES from the current upcoming budget. And one of
the reasons is because they're so extended on their debt exclusion that they have no room to go out and ask the voters for more. So we really need to be careful in Medford. I agree. We need a
new high school, but we need to make very careful choices not only for the students, not only for the staff, but also for the taxpayers. Thank you, Paul. Um, last S slide, I believe.
Yep. Where do we go from here? The city and Metro public schools will work together over the summer to develop a plan to reduce costs by reducing spaces that are beyond the high school educational programming needs. In September, beginning in September 2026, that plan will be presented to the
community for consideration and feedback before asking the school building committee to vote to finalize scope for this project to rightsize the building and in doing so to reduce cost. And the city will continue to think creatively about project funding and ways to lessen
the impact as well as um we are looking into the Curtis TU school doing an assessment on that building hopefully will take place before Labor Day. um for the city of Edford. I believe that's the last slide and I
know I mentioned that we have our CFO, our assessor, somebody's from our facilities maintenance team and our commissioner of public works on the call if anybody has any questions. Thank you. >> Thank you for that presentation. And just a point of clarification,
the comments that were made on the last slide are news to me and I think to the project team. So, um, of course, we're going to keep working together as we have, but this was the first I've heard that we're going to make the plans that were outlined. So, I'm going to take
some questions from the committee. I'm going to ask you all to be uh brief and to um follow similar rules to what we are asking of the public which is to limit your comments to three minutes per individual. Um we'll take committee
questions first and then we will take questions from the public. Are there questions from the committee and you can use the raise hand feature to get in line? >> Um Jenny, I have a question. I I don't see the raise hand, but I'm joining
through a browser, so maybe that's >> it's in the react section, Luke. But, um, why don't you go ahead? >> Oh, I see a heart there. Okay. No, I see it now. Um, so, uh, question to the team. Um, well, first of all, I want to say thank you, uh, for assembling this information. Um, it's good, I think, to
have, uh, this, um, dimension added to the, uh, larger discussion. Um certainly uh you know you don't buy a house uh without understanding how much you can afford uh for a mortgage. So uh this is
an important step. Um I wanted to ask the team in the course of the analysis um was it possible to determine um where the uh citizens who fall in the 65 and older retired category who are on fixed
incomes um where uh they reside spatially within Medford. Um, are are there concentrations? Um, do they seem to be more in one group of wards versus another? Uh, was that looked at? And if
it was, uh, what were the findings? >> Jared, I don't know if you looked at that at at that. I know um it's pretty spread out throughout the community, but Jared, I'll >> Yeah. Um, I didn't analyze that specifically, >> right? So, we didn't do it. We didn't um
analyze it by neighborhood. It was looked at holistically. Uh, very large list and uh someone in my office was working on that project. So, uh short answer is no, we don't have it broken out by neighborhood. Um
that is just the entire city. >> Thank you. And I think there was a comment about the last slide that was given to us by the project team. So I I'm not sure what that comment was about. Um any other question?
>> News to the chair. >> Okay, >> Nicole. Sorry about that. One question about the Hegner building. Is all the space in the Hegner building spoken for? We talked about the money that's going to renovate that, but is all of that space spoken
for? >> Yes. Um the design, we've been working on a design now for almost a year. Um and we've programmed every space um with the exception of there's a small loft space on the second floor, but we're not
doing anything with that because we would have to build um some somehow handicapped accessible um to get to that space and with the footprint of that building um it's
basically virtually impossible. >> Okay. So, so safe to say as I know some of these discussions about the comprehensive high school have been where can we find and put these programs in other spaces and knowing that the Hegner building is one of our few kind of vacant spaces in the city that is even potentially available. It's helpful
to know that all the space in there is already spoken for. So, thank you. Um, also about the um electric cost numbers, I'm curious, was that done in consultation with the um architect team or how does net zero play into that? You know, obviously I live in a much smaller
footprint. I have electric heat through the heat pumps. I know it, you know, raises things substantially. I have solar that offsets a lot of that. So, I'm curious where we're getting this big number where we're tripling, quadrupling what we're currently paying at the current high school to get this giant number when I would assume we're going
to have a much more efficient building. >> Well, you get a much more efficient building. Um but it's you have to also remember part of the service at the high school right now is gas not electric because you know the heat is not coming through
um electric. So you're converting all your heat, you're electrifying. It's all to equipment choices. Um, there is a new building in the city of Medford that my feeling is the incorrect choice as an
HVAC system was made. That's the building where the city is paying $220,000 a year for electric for 40. >> Can you say what that building is? >> I'd rather not. U maybe privately I can tell you. Um I >> Isn't it a matter of public record,
Paul? >> Um if the mayor wants me to talk about it, I can. Um, >> I mean it'd be helpful. We've built a few new buildings yesterday. It'd be helpful to know which one is it. >> In my feeling, the police station, they picked the incorrect HVAC system for
that building. Um, that building is eating electric in the winter. It had it's built that electric boilers come on in the winter. Um, they come on when it hits 32 degrees. Well, we're in the Northeast. Our winter is usually 32
degrees or below. So the electric boilers are on almost 247 in that building starting sometime in December through probably March. So the amount of electric that building is used. But when
they built the DPW in the library, they made much better HVAC choices and much more efficient choices. all electrified, but the buildings use much less electric to not
only cool, but also to heat. And that's why I'm saying is that you need to be very careful when designing a building and when picking HVAC systems. They really need to be vetted. Um, and you really need to ask the tough questions
about usage and am I getting my dollars for the usage? I mean, a a high school building is open what, 16, 17 hours a day, almost seven days a week. So, it's using a lot of energy. So,
it's an important choice. It doesn't seem like an important choice, but it's a very important choice for money savings. you electrify but can also realize some savings if you make
some very good wise choices. >> Okay, thank you. And I just have two more points, Jenny, if I could. Um, one, you know, I I appreciate the inclusion of the senior data in the presentation. I think I understand the point that was trying to be made there. I would have liked to see the inclusion as far as
student data, you know, how many students are going to be served um by this high school. And then also I think it's a little frustrating to um be a Leila leading towards the end there as far as you know the capital budget and debt exclusion and then the budget for our FTEEs. Uh Medford historically until
two years ago. We've never had an override. We don't go to the community to ask for that override every few years like Lexington does. So I think it's a little frustrating to compare us to cities when it's convenient to make a certain point and not otherwise. Um but that's just my last point. So thank you.
Thank you, Nicole. Um, I would also encourage people to stay on and listen to our project team talk about life cycle cost analysis and the actual assumptions that have gone into the pricing of the building um, and what the continuity and the lifespan and the
payoff of those um, are because they um, are in conflict with what was just presented. So, please stay tuned for that later in the presentation. Um, other members of the committee, are there um does anyone else have questions before I take questions from the public?
Okay, I will um go to the public. Um, Michelle Barkson, and if you can say your name and address for the record, you have three minutes. Hi. Um, I'm Michelle Barkson. I live at 23 Diane Road. Um, first of all, I just want to say how very excited I am and
thank everybody on the committee for all this incredible work and the amount of time that it is. Um, I'm a teacher actually in Lexington. So, I wanted to kind of center some of my points around that. Um, so first of all, a functioning high school is just imperative not only
for students but really for a full community. Um, I think I I think the high school and the school system is the cornerstone of a community and I would hope that all of Medford can rally behind that. Um, second, I want to clarify some points. Um, Lexington did
not lose 65 positions because of a debt exclusion um because the new high schools passed that those were totally separate funding mechanisms. The reason we lost a lot of positions about 85% of them had to do with low enrollment. Um, we're losing students at Lexington. That's why we're cutting positions. So,
I just want to clarify that the new high school had nothing to do with the loss of positions and um I just wanted to make sure people aren't afraid to pass a debt exclusion here thinking that it would end up cutting somehow cutting teacher positions because they're the debt exclusion is an entirely separate
funding mechanism than the um yearly budget which is what staffing is paid under. So, my po my question to perhaps the mayor or I guess anybody that can answer this. So, we just saw a lot of competing priorities. Um, I also I guess I guess since I'm talking about the debt
exclusion, my my other question is I'm I'm I'm wondering why the debt exclusion would actually affect all of these other city services considering like I said, it's a separate um funding mechanism. But I guess my larger question is what are we doing as a city to um bring down
the cost? We need a new high school. Our students deserve the best experience they can. I'm so proud of the vote and the comprehensive that we have here. So instead of talking about all these other priorities, my question is what are we going to do to make sure that this gets funded? Um uh thank you and again thank
you for everyone's time. I guess I can answer that. I I think the presentation was to show the lack of capacity in our debt. Just so everybody is aware, um the city is assessing the Curtis T building. We hope to have um
a price tag on what that building will be to rehab and see what services we can shift to the Curtis Tus. Um but this presentation was really just to show to to give nothing more than than facts based on um our evaluation of the
numbers. Um, I see Zachary Chertok as the next hand. Name and address for the record, please. >> Uh, Zachary Chertok, five Almont Street. Um, first I want to thank the mayor for assembling the team here and presenting what she did regarding the cost that the
city's entire debt services and what the impact of adding that sizable exclusion would be to our ability to continue not just funding our entire operations with leverage, but also, you know, looking at what it would do to push us to the to the edge of that leverage and what that
would mean for our ability to exercise that leverage um for a multitude of things that this city has to service, not just the high Um, I also appreciate that the effort to show what the impact would be to residents based on range cost projections at the high, middle, and low
in the absence of committed costs for the high school project. At this point, the numbers are sizable, and I would ask the committee to really honor the mayor's request to think seriously through the cost, what's nice to have versus what's imperative, um, and really rightsize this, especially relative to
the number of students it's going to serve because the student limit set by the the MSBA is public. you can see it and what we're looking at relative to some of the comparable projects in the last five years is to serve a smaller number of students with an equal if not
bigger capacity building and that includes the dees for the vocational school. So I would really ask that the two sides work together towards what the mayor has asked in her last slide and that's also coming from someone whose relatives were recently involved on the
Salem High School project. Thank you. Thank you, Ellen. >> Name and for the record. >> Yep. My name's Ellen Rushman. My address is 52 Stickney Road. Um I guess I'm pretty disappointed and confused by the presentation that we just um heard from
the mayor and her staff. Um my understanding is that a debt exclusion um provides additional funding for a capital project from taxpayers. So the two slides about capital projects that I assume are already included in your plan
for our taxes between now and60 whatever you said. I don't understand why we're comparing a debt exclusion to that list of city services. Um, I feel like there's a lot of value judgments being made about money right now and about what's too
expensive and about where we should spend our money. Um, I was pretty disappointed that the presentation had so much data around the senior citizens in our community and no data about the children in our community. So, I guess I would just like to hear from the mayor
and her staff why we are comparing debt exclusion numbers to our capital planning budget and what you want the public to take away from this cuz I'm just like disappointed as a parent. Thank you, Ellen. Um, we were asked by
um the committee to talk about the capital improvement plan. We have a new six-year plan. Um, so what what you saw were the major projects that we know of that need to be paid for in the next 10 to 20 years and how that models out. The
point of that is that we are being asked to put some of this debt on on the general fund and I think we had to outline that to show the committee and the residents that there's really not capacity if you want to do you as it is
you already have to push the fire station and freedom way and some streets and sidewalks because the modeling shows that we are just not going to be able to pay that act in the general fund alone,
meaning most of the school new school building is going to have to be on a debt exclusion. So with showing that we then showed that the 607, the 3 532 or the 440 will be the vote depending on
what numbers we pan out in the end. Hopefully by the end of the fall that will be the number that the taxpayers will know will be a debt exclusion. And these are the facts to show what that would be per household, per apartment
unit renter, per condo owner, per apartment complex owner, per per year, per month. This is very fact-based. I know people could be disappointed, but I it's just a disappointment about the facts. This is $800 $900 million
proposed high school and I'm just trying to show the facts so that the entire community knows where we're at. You Ellen. Um Susan Wilson. >> Hi, this is Susan Wilson. Can you hear me? Okay. >> Yes. >> Great. Um I live at 97 Winchester
Street. Um I'm a parent of three. I agree with Ellen that I find it really upsetting how unrepresented children and to a certain extent parents are in this conversation. Um, you know, I think a lot of parents of small children have a hard time with these meetings and aren't necessarily as active in these
conversations because they're just challenging and we're all overwhelmed. But our kids are going to be at this high school. And I think if we focus exclusively on cemeteries and people on fixed incomes, we're not engaging with the people who do vote in Medford, who move to Medford, who want to stay in
Medford and pay taxes in Medford. Um, so, you know, the tone I think is just really really kind of offensive. Um, I also wonder I I fully agree this is about a debt occlusion. This is not about the city's budget. The city budget has issues like every city in our state
and country at this time. um a dead exclusion is separate and to a certain extent we haven't asked the voters if we want a dead exclusion yet. So creating an incredibly negative sense based on facts that I don't think are true. I mean I followed a certain amount of these meetings so far and we we don't
have a final plan. So without a final plan we don't have final numbers. Those numbers are guesses. Those numbers are estimates. We don't know what the MSBA is going to cover or not. We have a guess. Um but that's a really broad range. So to have seven slides of incredibly granular detail about what
numbers we all are anticipated to pay is premature at this time. Um I think a lot of the conversations that need to happen between now and June 10th are about the pool and like other things and later we can kind of figure out how we want to narrow down to make this something that we can all afford. Um but the truth is
this is something that we need. So you know if we need this how do we make it happen? Right? And that's part of the city's job is to help figure out where the money comes from. Are there other ideas for revenue? Um I think to a certain extent the debt exclusion can cover a lot of this. I think also on
that one slide um what was it the to get the school up to code is 500 million. So you know I think there's also like a separate conversation of it's not just a new building is expensive. It's getting this building to be habitable and legally acceptable is also something
that we as a city have to prioritize. So, how are we going to do that? How are we going to put the different needs that we have in this school building currently into a new universe that's not this unsafe, unhospitable building? Um, so, you know, I think I think that's part of what the role of the city needs
to be here is to help propose how we can afford this. Are there new ideas? Are there different places we can put things? Um, are there creative ways that we can look at things that is outside of the scope of this high school committee and things that this this citizens can't come up with on our own? That's that's
stuff that the city has access to and I would love to hear more information about ideas to give Medford the school and the community center and all of these things that that we deserve. >> Thank you. Susan Gunning, you have three minutes.
>> Hi. Um Gunning for Meun A. Thank you for having me. I wanted to thank everyone here for volunteering so much of your time over this past year on the building committee and for the mayor for putting together this presentation. Um it was
interesting to see all the numbers. I think for me, you know, I have kids who are five and seven. I'm very excited and eager to have a high school that does not look like a prison for them and one that can have a climate where they're
not burning up or they're not freezing where they can learn all the subjects they need to learn and um get their educational needs met. And I think what's missing for me is like what is the city's vision for this high school? I hear it coming from the building
committee and it seems like a vision that we can be thinking through like what are the pieces that we want to include in the high school? What are the pieces we don't want to include in the high school? But I'd love to hear from the mayor like what would you like for
the high school to have? And what are you going to be doing to improve our funding streams? How are you going to be presenting this to the public to gain support from the public to make sure that we get more people on board? Because people in Medford, we want to be
proud of our high school. We want to be excited about this high school and we want your leadership to make this happen. And then my other question is I'm fairly familiar with like the lack of options um around the city when
it comes to buildings to house different programs. And I'm just thinking through the different programs that are currently housed in the high school that have um been discussed as maybe we want them in the high school, maybe we don't.
And I'd also love to hear from the mayor like where do you propose putting these programs? How do you propose funding a move of those programs to a different building? Like I just would love to hear your proactive vision and how you're planning to sell this to the public.
Thank you. >> Thank you, Ada. I I think that's been my stressor since the numbers have come out um upwards of 900 million. It's how do I
first get this committee to reduce space and scope so that I can be an advocate for and knock on doors to ask people to support a high school. So, I I put a number of space reductions proposals
before this committee. Um, I think two or three meetings ago, we went over the we we were going to start working through those. Um, but I agreed that it was the right thing to do to table those until after Labor Day, trying to listen to the project team on when the right
time to do that is. So, yes, we're always trying to increase revenue in the community. I have 26 departments um that trying to manage 18 city buildings plus all the school buildings. Um I have the
students and schools who I've really tried to um over my 6 and 1/2 years really tried to push to the top of our list as you'll see some some year one year we gave I think 9 to 10% increase to the schools. Um, but the reality is
that we I also have to worry about people on fixed incomes or people that are having a hard time affording groceries and gas or people and I hear from people as I am out and about on the weekends and evenings, you know, family
I recently talked to can't afford to take their family away on vacation. So I I I have to worry about um all 60,000 residents, all 30 buildings, all 26 budgets. Um, so my my vision if I if it
I was just a resident, sure, I I can afford it and I would love to um v vote yes for the be biggest and best high school in the nation, but I I'm the only one that has to truly
hear from and worry about every single person in this community. And I've been very stressed about it because I too would love an extra playing field on top of a parking lot for our students. Like if anybody knows me, uh it's like
athletics, myself, my husband, my family, athletics, athletics, athletics. But is that a luxury that we can afford or is it is it not? And I think that's something we're going to have to decide. Um, when you talk about the city council
and the school committee meeting in the what I consider the school committee and city council chambers in city hall, I feel like that's doing uh is serving its purpose and everybody has Monday nights for school committee, Tuesday, Wednesdays for city council. So when I saw a school committee auditorium or
chambers plus school committee conference t room and school committee office in this build, I I I did propose to cut those things. I think they're something that yes, we'd love to have space for our school committee, but
again, a luxury. So, while I'm trying to increase revenue and trying to take care of our buildings and balance a budget and care about our students, of course, number one, but then our residents who
really can't afford this and my mind going to if we have more people that can't af that can't afford this and this debt exclusion fails, that's that's my fault too that I'm not that I am not speaking up and I really am trying to be
factbased tonight and I really am trusting in the team both you know the full team this committee as well as the project team to guide us and make the tough decisions come the fall because there's nothing I want more than to say look at how we've
reduced this look what we're still offering our students and our um faculty and let me knock on doors to support this even though you know of course some people are never going to be able to afford some of these numbers. But
there's a lot of work that we have to do and I'm just trying to get through that through to to the committee that and the project team that needs to make the tough decisions so we can be on our way to get a past debt exclusion. That is like the underlying we must get a past
debt exclusion because this building is outdated. It is it needs to be torn down and we need something new for our students and faculty. But it needs to be something that where we have the whole community um in mind when we're doing
>> Miranda Brcino. >> Hi Miranda Bceno to Taylor Street. Um I don't have any kids in the schools. Uh, but I babysit for a lot of families in Medford and so seeing the success of this project, especially for the families that I babysit for their young children, um, is something I'm invested
in. Um, and as someone who enjoys the Beastro, Medford community media and whatnot as well. I will say a lot of this feels very hypothetical and unhelpful to the process of actually moving a building choice forward. Um, I myself I'm a renter, so I'm not seeing
these tax bills myself, but even when we passed the overrides two years ago, my rent was not significantly affected. So, I'm I'm unclear on how an effect on renters is being calculated, especially because, you know, there's no rent control that we're mandating landlords
cap or um, you know, we the city has no say in what landlords are charging for rent. Um, so and even if a landlord was suggesting that um an increase in their tax bill would mean they need to significantly increase rent, I think
that's more of a comment on the irresponsible landlord for not budgeting rather than it is on the project price tag. Uh, so I just hope that we can move past, you know, a sort of fear-based approach to this project and choose a building that meets the ed plan and
meets the needs of students and the community. Thank you. >> Thank you, Mike Masterbony. >> Uh, thank you, Mike Masterbony, 73 Fulton Spring Road. Um, I'll be brief. I think, you know, first and foremost,
nobody pretend is pretending like this is a a cheap project. Um, school buildings in 2026, they're just not cheap. Um, but we got to remember this is we we have to compare this to the cost of doing nothing, right? Having our kids in a building that that um that
eats gas and uh um that that isn't heated heated or cooled properly. Um I think calling it the biggest and most expensive project in the country, that's not fair. Um that's not going to be the case. Um, even comparing this to projects from 5 years ago is irrelevant, right? Because construction costs have
practically doubled or tripled. The cost to of bringing our current building up to code. We've learned through this process is probably the most expensive thing we can do. Um, and so I I just want to make one um last point that, you know, I really appreciate sharing of financials. I think a lot of residents are feeling like they want to get to
that phase as fast as possible. I think we'll be able to have much more um you know healthy conversations about trade-offs and costs and impacts um you know once we get down to one one design. But um something that I'd like to see in future presentations from the team um
mayor is is context around projections like this so that everyday residents can understand like what these big numbers mean. Um I think there's a lot of power in sharing financial information but without context like um there needs to be
a lot more teaching um that's done in these presentations so that everyday residents can understand it not just um you know folks who who live and breathe the stuff like your team. So I I appreciate that but um I'd love to see more of that in the future.
>> Thank you Jessica Parks. Uh Jessica Parks, 38 Corey Street. Uh thank you very much for the presentation and I just want to follow up. I've you know we've heard about all of the costs and expenses this the city is facing and
it it is a lot and I I get that. Um, but one of the things I haven't heard, but I think I've heard asked a few times is about revenue. And you know, we we saw a list of the costs of for the next few years, but do we have a list of the
projects coming online in the next few years um and the associated revenue um that are associated with those projects? do we that might kind of offset some of the expenses we're going to be facing. Does that exist? And is that possible to
see in kind of relation to what we are going to be owing for many of these projects? That's all. Thank you. Mayor, did you want to answer that before I move on or um should I move on?
>> We can um we'll be posting our CIP plan so it outlines what will be done each year, but we just have to figure out when we'll be able to put, you know, something as big as say the fire station on. Um so we
evaluate that year year by year based on what emergencies come up as well. Um but basically everything on those two slides is you know needed within the next two to 10 years and it's just a matter of what we how much we can afford when >> that's done it.
Um, I just wanted to say I'm really grateful for seeing all the numbers that were there. Uh, that was very helpful to me to see for the foreseeable future what we're going to be dealing with financially. Um, the cost for freedom way kind of blew me away. That was a
very expensive proposition there. the realism of we have this sort of give and take with our school schools currently. Um the population is seeming to lessen in some spots. Uh we our elementary
schools that were built are all going to start needing more and more work. So we have to be realistic about what we're spending money on there. There's no question that we need to look at uh the the current state of Medford High School. It was built I believe the first
graduating class was 1974. Uh so it's an older building and when it was built it started with issues. We've had to replace the roof on the gym multiple times. We've had to fix the pool. All of these expensive things that
have taken place over the years, some of them very recently like the science labs. So, as much as everybody wants to sit there and have this most pristine, state-of-the-art, large place for everybody to go to, it's just not
realistic at this time. In my opinion, I think it's a problem. So, that's that's just I just wanted to say thank you for showing me all the numbers, all the stuff that's coming up. I've been a homeowner in the city of Medford. I've grown up in the city of Medford. I went to Medford High School. I go in there
frequently so I understand what we're dealing with, but we have to be realistic about all of the expenses that are coming up and I we can't put all our eggs in one basket. Thank you, >> Dean. Can you give us your address for the record, please?
>> Uh 19 Martin Street in Medford. >> Thank you. Harrison Green. >> Hi, Harrison Green to Ronald Road. Um, I'm echoing an earlier kind of much earlier pro uh comment and >> listen
up to that >> for the presentation. Um, I was hearing that the city doesn't have the debt capacity to f to fulfill the design and requirements that the building committee is is developing right now. So, which leads to my first question for the mayor is what priorities are higher than the
requirements that will be cut on this project. That's what that's what I'm hearing from that presentation. And then secondly, the last bullet point of the presentation said that the city is looking into alternate sources of funding. What what are those and what
are you expecting or hoping the outcome to be of those possible sources? Thanks. Mayor, did you want me to take the next question or did you have answers for Harrison? >> Yep. I'll have to um rewatch. I I didn't
catch what exactly what the questions were. Uh, Maria Daniels. >> Hi, Maria Daniels, 67 West Street. Can you hear me? >> Yes. >> Great. Thanks. Uh, I want to thank the committee for all your hard work to this point. I also want to thank the mayor
and her team for your hard work, too, and for the data you brought tonight. Um, and I want to make a comment about a false dichconomy that I'm hearing develop here. Um, uh, first of all, you know, my my sons, um, both recently graduated from Medford High School. I
know many current students there now. Um, I know many students who have succeeded through the high school in the VO with the amazing teachers who are there with the amazing educational plan that's been developed and increased and improved over the past few years. Um, I just want to say that for the record.
And um, I I think this hellhole narrative is incorrect. So, the person who spoke up before and said that, you know, she didn't want to send her elementary students there because it it the school is is a hell hole. It's just not not true. Um, there are parts of the
school I would never want to set foot in again because I think they're unsafe. Um, uh, particularly the girls locker room. If anyone wants to go see a really horrible corner of Medford, you can. you can go there. Um, but uh I think you know the other side of the the narrative
that's not correct is the one that says we can't afford a new school. And I just want to compliment and appreciate the mayor's team um for trying to start to raise awareness of um what some of the costs would be. Um, I agree with whoever said before that there needs to be more
education uh in the community and I just uh want to uh to appreciate that transparent sharing of data tonight. Um, I don't think that you were tasked with coming to advocate for children um or advocate for a particular school solution. I think that you were tasked
with telling us what the costs were that are sitting on the city budget and we have a better idea now than we did an hour and a half ago. Um I also um want to just call out and appreciate that you um shared some data especially related
to people in the community who are on fixed incomes. Um they will feel that pain of the tax increases much more than someone like me would. Um, so I appreciate that you raised that and I would really strongly urge the chairwoman in the committee to have uh a
positive constructive attitude towards these numbers and towards um more transparency and more sharing um of the of the details of how the city is going to pay for the school that we can afford. Thank you.
>> Zoe Mutos. Hi, Zoe Mutzos 33 Johnson A. Um, I want to thank the mayor and her team for these these numbers. I am always really I mean it's going to sound strange to say, but pleased to see that we have all these things planned and we are have
plans for upgrading all across the city. Um, at the same time, I know that this high school is going to add to everyone's everyone's taxes in one way or another. Um, and I'm hoping that, you
know, over time perhaps we can normalize sharing this kind of information on the regular, perhaps in a way with more context and then also sharing equally at the same time. when we finally narrow in and we're so close to narrowing in on an
option when that's when we're going to decide to rightsize and choose the corre correct HVAC and begin to sort of put the context of the high school within the context of the city in a way that creates a a a
an easier way in for folks who have kids, folks who don't have kids, folks who are on a fixed income to better understand these numbers because I I don't think I don't think most of us don't want a new high school. And I don't think that folks who really want a
new high school expect a pristine, state-of-the-art, number one high school in the country. But I think we also are hoping that we can do better than, you know, just making sure that, you know, their kids aren't going to school in a hell hole. So, I think that seeing these
numbers on the regular, putting some context around them, and then doing this again when we actually have a plan and a number and we've taken those pieces of of feedback and recommendations from the mayor and from other folks on the committee and there will be other places
where we're going to be right sizing and value engineering. And when we have a real number, start to look at that number in context of what else we have because right now it's kind of hard to make heads or tails of what what are we saying? You know, you're you're saying like this is what the city has has on
our docket and what we're responsible for. At the same time, the mayor and members of her team are part of the school committee or this building committee who approved the ed plan. So, I would assume that that actually is what you want us to work against. So anyway, I'm excited to see these numbers
continue to be placed in front of the public because they are really important, but placed in front of the public in context and with a real number on the high school which we do not have yet. Thank you. >> Thank you, Zoe. Daniel Sherman.
>> Hi all. Thank you so much for this presentation. Really appreciate all the work that went into it. um it's a real window into the work that we need to do to um from my perspective kind of catch up to cities and towns around us who have invested in new high schools and I've just seen the amount of pride that
it's generated um in those cities and towns and um I really I you know have training as an urban planner. I work in community development and I see over and over again cities and towns um make mistakes by not investing in something
that will then generate more investment and more investment and more investment both socially and politically and financially. And I just would really hate for us to miss that opportunity. Um I'm new to this process. We moved to Medford only three years ago. Um, and I
was really excited to come here and hear about plans for this new exciting thing happening in our community amidst all of the hard news these days. Um, and um, I know it is really hard to be in municipal finance right now. Um, but the sense I got from the presentation is
that kind of we're trying to place um, we're trying to fix a long-term municipal finance issue by degrading the investment in a high school. And I don't think that's what you all meant, but that's kind of um the sense I got from the way that the data was presented. So,
um, I would appreciate moving forward a more con comprehensive look at what the positive outlook could be of making this investment and also who it's going to serve and how um, while we also do of course need to consider how we can fix
and um, make easier those who are on fixed incomes or lowincome um, working people. Um, and yeah, just wanted to say I'm a mom of a 5-year-old and a five-month-old, so hardressed to make time for these meetings, but I really prioritize it. I know there are lots of
other families like us who um really are um hoping and and praying, you know, fingers crossed that the city is going to do the right thing. So, just really hoping that we can um try to band together and make something really
exciting happen as a community. Daniel, can you just give us your name and address for the record? >> Yes. Da Sherman, 54 Dover Street. >> Thank you. >> Um Harrison Green, I know we didn't get to answer your question last time. Are
you um wanting to repeat your questions for the mayor? >> Yes, that's correct. If if it's an option. >> Um Yep. Go ahead. >> Okay. um Harrison Green to Ronald Road. Um the my previous comment was and
questions were about the the messaging of the presentation. Um I was hearing that the the view of the mayor and the team was that we don't have the depth capacity to to fulfill the design and requirements as the building committee
is developing. So firstly, uh what is what are the priorities in the the mayor's office that are higher than the requirements that will be cut for the high school project? And then the second comment and question are regarding the last bullet point um that the city is
looking into alternate sources of funding. What sources are those and what is the expectation or hope um in terms of financial outcome? Thank you. Yeah, I just don't understand the first question. The high school is the top
priority for our community, but everything we outlined is also things that we need to do either because we are ordered to do it by the state such as the lead pipe removals or because we have a fire station that is
falling apart just like the police station was 10 years ago. It's a it was stems from the same building and we need to place that somewhere on the on the city debt. Um so it's just a matter of trying to
um move this project forward at a cost and scope that we think the debt exclusion will pass while trying to manage the rest of the city. Perry Babish. >> Hi, I'm Carrie Babish, 25 Hancock
Street. Um, I am like everyone else very appreciative of all the work that everybody has put in tonight. Um, I'm a mom of three, a current high schooler, a
current uh seventh grader, and a rising kindergartener. So, I have uh a lot of stake in all the various uh parts of of this process. Um, I've lived in, you
know, owned my home in Medford for almost 17 years. And this reminds me in many ways of the conversations that we had around um the uh the building of the new library. Um,
you know, a lot of these same kind of financial questions were raised and um where does the money come from? What gets pushed to the back burner? I understand that those are important questions um always. But one of the things that
really came out of those conversations for me was that a lot of the reason that we have so many of our municipal buildings that are in need of of repair
um or rebuilding at this point in time is that perhaps less thought was put into them when they were constructed. um as far as future proofing um and they were not maintained well over the years.
I know maintenance is something that was mentioned earlier. Um so I as a few people have said I I don't want us to underell ourselves now um at the risk of running into similar issues down the
road. Um, so I'm all in favor of being thoughtful in our planning and um our our expenditures. Um, but really not putting ourselves in a situation where we're having this
conversation not too long down the road, uh, I think is also important. >> Thank you. >> Thank you, Perry. Sophie R. Hi, this is Sophie. Um, I guess my my first thought is I remember reading the
report about the state of the high school uh that came out I don't know 3 4 years ago and the quote that has really stuck with me is students describe their flagship school as bleak with a persistent sense of foroding. So I kind
of can't get that out of my head. I have two kids, one at the Matuck, one who will be there next year. Um, and the idea of spending hundreds of millions of dollars for only a code upgrade really feels like the worst possible deal. Um, as I'm listening to this, a lot of
people have said things more eloquently than I can, but like others, it felt really upsetting to not really hear kids mentioned at all as we're talking about this school to focus on every other aspect of the community. Um like other people I really want to hear directly
from the mayor about what are these alternate sets of funding that we that are being mentioned. Um the other thing that was mentioned I would like to hear uh more about is the discussion around the Curtis TUS being rehabbed and for me
that feels confusing. My understanding is that that would be a lot of money similar to doing a code upgrade for the high school. Would we not just be moving hundreds of millions from one project, maybe it would be tens of millions, but from one project to another to hold
those same students? Um, or I have never been inside the Curtis Stuffs. I don't know how much space is there. Is there a lot of other space for administrative offices? Are you imagining moving the MFN there? Like, as you're kind of exploring that now, I guess I would like to have more of a sense of what's even
possible. It just feels like we're kind of shifting things from one bucket to another. Um, so yeah, those are my questions. If the mayor could answer those specifically, I'd really appreciate it. Thank you. And I've emailed you my address for the record. Thank you.
Paul may be able to answer the question on the Curtis toughs a little better than I to rehab the Hegner Center which is in much worse shape is 5 million. So I was really hoping the Curtis Stuffs would be a lot less. We
won't know that. We're just starting to commission an assessment look at I think we're gaining quotes at at this moment and hope to assess over the summer. So depending on um who we hire to assess, we will let them know of the different
options of what could be coming to the Curtis TU so we can get proper quotes. >> Thank you. Sophie, did you have another question? >> Yeah, I guess I was also wondering about the space piece. So, even if it was only
quote unquote only 5 million, like is there additional space in the Curtis Stuffs to actually house other programs like the many other things that we're talking about for the high school or is that literally just kind of saving that one uh program that's currently there?
Um, and I also would like to hear from the mayor too about those alternate sources of funding separately too. >> The Curtis TUS program students are being moved hopefully to the new high school. So be just a building that we
have to decide what could be housed there. >> Thank you, Sophie. Um, I had two questions from the chair. Um the first um the very first slide uh talked about sort of the ranges of what Medford could
expect to see in terms of total cost after MSBA participation and it assumed a 53% rate which is in fact our pres our um reimbursement rate in feasibility. Um, is there an opportunity and is it
likely um and I think this is really a question for the project team um is it is there an opportunity for and is there a likelihood that um Medford's reimbursement rate will go up from 53% in feasibility um when we reach our project funding
agreement. >> I can take that. This Jen Carlson from left field if you if you don't mind. Awesome. Uh so those um that reimbursement rate will likely go up um
based on the incentive points that the project is tracking. Um there are incentive points that um can be added to that base rate um through the MSBA and through this process and through choices that um the city and the SBC make along
the way. So there we are tracking um a number of points uh then and that number would be expected to go up um at the end of uh schematic design. >> Thank you. Um and then my second
question is for our assessor. Um I think that you said and I just wanted to confirm this that the assumptions in um your calculations assume a 2% new growth number. Is that consistent with our growth in past years?
>> So the the two right around the two million is consistent. Last year was higher, but that was a one-off um with a a personal property uh hit. So last year wouldn't be indicative of future years. We used 2 million conservatively and
added 2% a year um as the projections. And so does that include the 350 units at 4000 Mystic Valley Parkway, the 289 units at 970 Felsway, 40 units at Walkling Court, 200 in Medford Square,
and 350 to,40 units in Wellington that we cited during our enrollment study to the MSBA. All of that is factored into the assumptions that you're making about growth going forward or has none of that been contemplated in the plan the
revenue planning? >> It's been contemplated. I mean this that's what's so tough about doing future assumptions in in fis going out to fiscal 30 and 31 32. So all those projects there'll be new growth over multiple years. They take more than 12
months to build. So we'll be capturing some of that this fiscal year, some of that next fiscal year. A lot of those projects are on the income approach, so they have to wait to be stabilized. Um, so long short story on that is there'll be projects that yield growth over
multiple years. They won't be one big hits. So it could be slightly higher than the 2% per year um over the next three or four years, but I would say that's a fair assumption to increase it by 2%. from 26 on
>> it's a fair assumption based on the growth plans for the city or it's just a conservative assumption because we can't predict the growth of these land developments.
I'm just trying to understand it is like th what amounts to like two or three thousand new units coming online what is going to get us to 2% growth or is that over is that 2% not contemplating all of
that over time. >> It's see it's contemplating those projects if that answers your question but it's also contemplating other factors. say uh we have a slowdown in the in the economy and people aren't putting additions on and there's other pullbacks. Those four projects that you
said it aren't going to carry us. So, you know, we look I look at history and what we've had in in Medford for our average new growth over the last five six years. We use that as the modeling and went off that and it's roughly on average about two million over the last
five years outside of last year. So the modeling that you showed us tonight is based on our historical growth, >> correct? Average. >> Um I think it would be helpful in future
presentations to um provide a little bit more information for folks about how those growth numbers are being calculated like what is you know what is the historical and and how are we making adjustments. Um there's a lot of conversation in the community around
resoning um and building and we're talking about transforming Medford Square and I just like I can't wrap my head around how we're going to transform Medford Square and we're not going to see an increase in revenue um
accordingly like are we going to rebuild Medford Square like it is today or are we are we going to transform it in which case I would think we could expect to see um revenue growth. So, it would be helpful for the city team the next time that we revisit all this conversation
because I'm sure we'll do that multiple times um to include um just a more refined set of assumptions around growth for our city um given all of the things that we hear about in the conversation
across our community every single day. Um, I want to thank the mayor's team for presenting this um, initial look at the finances. Like I said, I think we'll be doing many more of these and um, uh, more to come, I'm sure. Just more to
come on cost. So, I'm going to move us on to um, the next item, which I'm going to turn over to the project team to review our PSR cost estimates um, for C2.2A and C3.4A, 4A which we asked for
um in our last meeting. >> Jenny, um before the project team begins, I I wanted to ask for a point of clarification um to Jen uh Carlson with um left field. Um you had asked her
about uh incentive points or or reimbursement rates specifically and um about the likelihood that it would uh increase. Um she said that it would um and that was based on incentive points that the team is currently pursuing. Um
but to be clear uh there are many from the community who are listening at home um dialed into the Zoom who um may not appreciate the distinction between reimbursement rate and net reimbursement.
um reimbursement rate applies uh to eligible costs only. Um so Jen uh can you clarify to us whether um this project uh could uh ever reach the
reimbursement rate as a realized net reimbursement uh without substantial alterations to the current scope. So the >> and Jen just to add on to that the slide that we did move really fast by um
assume takes that assumption in but perhaps you can also describe um how it is factored in because it isn't my understanding was that 53% was not applied to the total cost that it actual some more detailed work was done to arrive at those cost estimates. So
maybe you could tackle both of those at the same time. >> Yes, thank you. Uh so that is correct. The um the base reimbursement rate that applies through feasibility um study and schematic design um is that 53 um%
number that when we move to at the end of schematic design we'll have enough information um to really better understand the um what additional incentive points this project qualifies
for. Um as an example um there are um you get additional additional points for uh the maintenance of the building. You'll get additional points for um for other thing like per if you a portion of
the building is renovated. You'll get additional points for uh through the green schools program. So there's a number of uh these additional incentive points that will be applied um at the at the end of schematic design when the MSBA is deciding what their grant
participation um for the project would be. Um that said uh those that percentage only applies to eligible the MSBA deemed eligible spaces of the building. Um and within all of that
there's also various um various caps on things like site cost and um and various other things back behind their equation. So um this project will uh I can't see this project ever being that you know
53% uh across the total project budget because that's not how the MSBA's um funding um and total project budget is set up. Um but once we um do know more about this project and move this in further um we will be able to have a a
clearer understanding of what that net reimbursement rate looks like across the total project budget. And I would invite any of my left fieldielder team um to add to any of that if there's anything else. Uh do you have a sense based on the PDP
feedback um the uh the quantity um as a fraction of overall project cost um deemed eligible? >> The the based on the PDP comments, they've asked us to go back and clarify some
things and just update um some items they have questions on. So, we don't have a the full picture of what they're deeming eligible versus ineligible until we submit PSR and get feedback um based on uh that submission. So, we'll have a
clearer cost, a clearer understanding um on the other side of PSR when a single preferred option is selected. Um so, right now we don't have the full full picture um until the MSB weighs in again.
>> Okay. Well, uh you clarified it. Uh reimbursement rate is only applicable to eligible costs. Um and uh it's very unlikely that our project under its current scope could ever realize the reimbursement rate as a net reimbursement. Um
>> or any scope >> or sorry >> or any scope. I'm sorry. >> Just uh in it's in under the current scope of the project um was a point you made. I just want to make sure that it's clear that any scope um you know if
you're submitting to MSBA there's caps and there's percentages and um there's the reimbursement rate the base rate that they give you plus the incentive points but it is and and I would ask I think Lynn Stapleton's on the line as well from left field but um you're never
going to get that 53% on the total project budget um MSBA participation based on all of the ineligible spaces in the building um no matter what the scope is and based on um their caps within um various budget line
items. >> Oh, sure. Yeah. No, I that's fully understood. Um but at this time uh uh the team is not prepared to assess um what fraction of the project that was proposed in PDP would be ineligible.
That is a TBD. um down the road we'll find out a PSR uh response. That's how I took it. >> We don't have the full feedback on spaces within the building. Um there are some things that needed to be clarified um with the MSBA.
I >> I do think that the um using the cost estimates that were provided for the PDP um those were run through a calculator of MSBAs and the anticipated share uh of
the city based on all of these caps and um ineligible spaces known to date were I mean the the actual number that was calculated out was provided to the mayor's team So when we post the presentation um
everyone can see the the projected estimated uh real cost to the city of Medford and um you can do the math about the effective rate from there based on the total cost of the project. Thank you
Jen. Um >> will those details be shared with the SBC or are they consider presentation out? Yes. But the specific details of what was eligible and ineligible that was sent to the mayor's team, will that be made
public or at least available to the SBC or is >> the only thing that was sent to the mayor was a slide, >> right? >> Calculate. Okay, >> just as as soon as those things are available, we will happily share them. >> Okay, thank you.
>> Okay, let's move on. It is nine o'clock um and we still have a very big agenda. So um I do want to move us along um because this information is equally important um and timely as we um move towards June 10th and being able to make a decision. So I'm going to turn it over
to the team. >> All right. Thank you. Um so as promised uh since presenting the C22A and C34A options at our last meeting, we have had those options priced. uh and they have
replaced the C22 and C34 options on this chart. Just want to reorient you to what you're seeing here on the left hand column. There are three levels of program that have been priced for each option there. That first row is the high
school only and that represents um just the spaces the high school needs to function as outlined in the ED plan. Um and the next um the next row down is the high school um plus the current existing program uh that that lives in the is
housed by the uh existing building today. Um this row um shows the A, B, and C options include a renovated pool while the D options are broken out into both a pool and no pool. That's that NP um
options. Um that's because I think we've discussed it this group before. Uh the a new a pool a new pool in a new building uh build um is required to be broken out as a separate project moving forward with the MSBA. But we do understand that
the value there is uh value in knowing uh the cost of that piece to help you better compare it against the other options. Uh finally, that bottom line, that bottom row, um is the high school plus all of the programs. Um and this is
includes um everything in the lines above plus um a couple of new programs and spaces that are proposed to be added to the project. So you'll see that those um C22A and C34A columns in the middle um are are added.
So, the C22A costs range from $716 million to $813 million um at the highest point of that range. And the C34A um option ranges from $720 million to
$817 million. Um so that is the update for those two options. um and factored into um that entire uh all of the options, the entire chart with all of the options.
Are there any questions on the updated costs? Um I have a question, but I just can't get my hand up. I'm sorry I zooming. >> Um, sorry. Thank you, Jenny. >> That's okay. >> Um, I I'm pretty sure you'd be clear
about this. I just want to make sure I understand it. So, so D1.1, you're even though it's a separate project, it like the estimated cost of a pool is in that number. So, we understand what it would cost even though we know that would be done
separately. Is that right? >> Yes. Okay. just to make sure it compares um it's a little easier to compare against the other options since they all include a renovated pool. Thank you. >> Other questions from the committee before we move on to the next item?
Zach Chto. Sorry, I just want to clarify. Are you opening to public or just committee right now? >> If you have a question, go ahead. There weren't any hands from the committee. >> Okay. Um, Zach Chart 5 Almond Street. I just want to clarify cuz there was a lot of commentary about the mayor converting
cost range estimates into tax range estimates and a lot of discussion about cost proposals and the fact that while we didn't know what exact numbers were then it seemed a little disingenuous to convert to to you know those range estimates to tax range estimates. If we're working for from proposals right
now, um I would ask the committee to be taking some of these numbers that are being publicly circulated and put them into what it will mean for the public as taxpayers so they'll know how this is adjusting for them as time goes along.
It will really help with transparency for us. Thank you. Seeing no other questions, um the next topic um we had was we wanted to give you a little bit of a preview of the project timeline between um uh our decision and our submission of
PSR and um this time next year which will be here before we know it. So Jen, do you want to um take this part? >> Yes, I do. All right. Um thank you. So, moving on to timeline, you can see here that we have mapped out the next year. Um, as Jenny has mentioned, uh, starting
at the top left, we're showing our upcoming SBC meetings. Uh, first that June 10th meeting where the SBC will be voting on the a single preferred option to move forward. Um, and then that will be followed by uh a meeting on June 18th
for the SBC to vote to submit the uh preferred schematic report, the PSR, to the MSBA. Um and the deadline to submit that PSR to the MSBA um to hold our timeline is June 25th. Um so we plan on
submitting on or before June 25th. Thank you Matt Rice for the circle on that. Um that will uh kick off the MSBA's review of the PSR document and we will be scheduled for uh one of two possible uh
facility assessment subcommittee FAS uh subcommittee meeting um through the MSBA. That's a subcommittee of the MSBA's board of directors um that that previews the project and offers feedback and asks questions at um those meetings.
Uh so we'll be scheduled for one of those two meetings either July 15th or July 29th that is leading up to the board of directors uh vote on August 26th. That will uh the board of
directors would be voting to approve the project to move into schematic design. So you'll see just below that board of directors vote there's a big long blue line and that is um that that shows the
schematic design timeline overall. Um just under that we have um some tentative SPC meetings. Um I think as Jenny mentioned at the beginning of this meeting, we're going to be you know vetting these out. These are tentative for now. Um we're just comparing against
other things um in the uh in the calendar. um as there are many wonderful things going on in Medford at all times. Uh so um just a little clarification on um what is happening over the summer and
what the SBC can um can expect. So the um it we're looking for a July meeting and an August meeting. During those that time frame, the uh the school and the city will be working together um as
we've talked about previously to um to come up with a plan and and really vet those opt those program the program um options that are um are beyond be I'm going to say beyond the high school programming um as you saw in that last
um that last slide um with cost um the programs beyond that many of which exist in the school today. So there needs to be some work done to identify where those programs could go in town in the city. Um and so that work
is going to be done over the summer and the plan is to present all of that information at the September SBC meeting. Right now we're targeting September 21st. Um, and it will be laid out in a uh a clear way for everyone to
understand and consider and ask their questions. Um, in that time frame, we'll also be looking to hold a community forum to get community feedback on all of this work that's happening. And on the meeting um in October, which right
now here is is um flagged for October 14th, that is the meeting that the SBC will be voting to finalize the scope of this project so that that can move forward um and be estimated and be planned um through schematic design. So
I did just want to um highlight that process that's happening over the summer. And then as previously stated, the um the uh SBC will be voting to finalize scope in the October meeting. Um moving from there, you'll see there
are a couple of um there are a couple of November meetings that are that we're looking to hold. There's um two there to to for the um advisory teams to bring feedback um back to the SBC for consideration. Um and then there's one
other um one other highlight towards the end of S uh SD schematic design in February. We're looking to have two meetings um to one uh the first one is to present the estimate information and confirm a total project budget that would need to be submitted to the MSBA
um by February 10th. Um and the second would be to uh approve the full schematic design submission to the MSBA which it the MSBA has not list not listed out there 2027 board dates but it would be the last week of February
either the 24th or the 25th that the SD um report would be due to the MSBA. Um so moving from there um there would be a review period again with the MSBA mostly um working through uh many questions
they have ahead of their um their board meeting their board of directors meeting in April of 2027. From there um we will know if they've approved the project scope and budget. Um and we'll know what they what their
participation in this project will be their total total u maximum grant amount. Um and that is the um that is the number that should be um you know will will be the real number for this project moving forward. Um then um
taking that number after that approval you have 120 days to um to get a city approvals for the project. Um and that includes um a city council approval and a citywide vote. And right now we're targeting that for May of 2027.
Um and once that once that approval is official, we'll be able to move into the the next module which is the detailed design. Are there any questions on this snapshot of a timeline?
>> Um uh Jen, I I had a question about uh the two board of director votes. Mhm. >> Um and uh in the PDP feedback in attachment A, the MSBA notified us, they
have not decided, but um they leave open the possibility of recovering uh funding that they have granted Medford in the past. Um we had a science building that was renovated. we had boilers, some
other projects and um they kind of deferred making that decision until um they have I guess a clear sense of our project. Um would you expect that the first uh MSBA vote in August is the time
to reconcile that question and confirm whether we are at risk of having to pay back some pr-rated amount of prior grants that they have given us or um do you expect that reconciliation to come
in the second BOD vote um in April of I guess 27? Um I'll let Lynn Stapleton weigh in here, but I would I would say the um the second board of directors meeting um as it relates to the um it it will relate
back to their grant amount. Um >> I I will say too, they're probably waiting to see what the timeline of the project is because some of those may um fade out. uh it depends on how many years uh um that any project that they
participated in has been in use and if it's up to I think it's 20 years then they then they drop any um reimbursement back to them. So they may be looking to see um exactly the timeline of how long
it will be in use by the time it's actually demolished um to determine what um will actually be required to be paid back to MSBA. And would that amount whatever it is um
be included in the debt exclusion or uh is is the payback um >> it it gets calculated into the um total project budget at the schematic design uh phase. Uh you if you ever have seen
MSBA's total project budget template form, there's a line item for where they take back any pr-rated amount for um projects that haven't met their time of use um limit.
It so it so at the end of in at the end of schematic design, it'll be factored into the total cost of the whole building. Okay, thank you. >> Are there questions from the committee? >> Any questions from the public?
Okay, let's move on. Um, oh, we have one um question from Daniel Sherman. >> Sorry, that was an error. It's getting late. I understand. Um, okay. Okay. So, we're going to move on
to um a a update on our evaluation criteria matrix and um a corresponding um bit about our life cycle cost analysis which has was promised as part
of this updated evaluation criteria um from when we first looked at the evaluation criteria um back like a hundred years ago when we had 29 options before us. So, um, I will let the project team take it over. >> All right. Thank you, Jenny. Um, I'm
going to start off and then I'm going to hand it over to Martine Dion, our sustainability director, to run through the life cycle cost analysis um, information because she is infinitely more qualified to do so than myself. Um, but what I'm going to update us on is
the evaluation criteria matrix. um that yes, the last time we looked at this, it was a little bit more of a cumbersome document because we had 29 different options that we were studying. And just to refresh the building committee's memory as well as maybe some members of the public that didn't um participate in the process back when we were looking at
this, the evaluation criteria matrix is a rubric. Um it's an evaluation tool um that was really um it's the building committee's tool. Um we did help facilitate the development of this tool um by proposing some topics, but we did
have a dedicated building committee meeting um where the committee ran through every one of the evaluation criteria um and then the um the assigned values um to each one of those criteria um to basically u make sure that it was
resonating um and talking to the goals of Medford High School. Um and so I will run through this. Now, the nice thing that we have only um six columns now as opposed to 29, it's a little bit more manageable. Um we've tried to format it here so that we don't have to jump to
the Excel document and look at it. Um so really what we have is a series of excerpts as we run through um vertically and we'll just call out the different parts and pieces um of the evaluation criteria matrix. Um this will all total up um at the bottom as well once we get
to the last slide. So there is a relative um enumeration of what um the score for each one of the different options is going to be relative to one another and relative to um the evaluation criteria that has been laid out. Um I will say this is the first
time that we're presenting this and so as part of this um presentation and the discussion that follows or thereafter um there's still the ability and we really need the um building committee to weigh in on any um evaluations that they think might want to be adjusted. This is our
first pass um going through it looking at the uh the updated information. So, just to to refresh the columns that are running left to right across the top here. Um, we do have six different columns. Um, and we have a different number of sort of specific options that
we've been looking at. So, I'll just explain them really quickly as we go through. Um, the first one is that code upgrade option. There has been no change there in terms of what that represents initially. It's the fixing of the building. Um, our option B1.2 um is the more substantial renovation
option. There is some amount of addition to that as well. Um but that is as we have known it previously. The C2.2A option is one of the new options that was developed in response to the deed restriction um and avoids a deed restriction to allow a clearer path uh
moving forward in terms of the overall design um and sort of site development as we go forward. Um C2.2A-HS 2A-HS for high school um is a response to the MSBA request in the PDP comments that
they made um for the building committee to review a high school only grades 9 to 12 high school curriculum um building and design option. So that's what's been laid out here in terms of the evaluation criteria that we're going to go through. Um we're putting it up for consideration
um against the the other um options that are there on the table. Um, and we can go down to the bottom. Um, we'll see what the score is there. I will also just preface before we get down to the bottom. Um, that as we have been talking about earlier this evening, um, when we talk about a grades 9 to 12 building,
um, what happens to all those programs that are currently located at the high school is really unknown right now. And that's going to be part of the good work that's done over the course of the summer really to determine what the potentials are and the costs associated with those. So there are some unknowns um as we go s through the analysis of
C2.2AH.h-HS. Um so as as we run through that, we've tried to make our fairest assessment of sort of where those unknowns plug into the overall rating criteria. Uh but we're of course open to um any thoughts from the committee um as to modifications to those uh rankings as we
go. Um C3.4A 4A is another of the C options that was modified um to comply with the deed restriction requirements. Um and then D1.1 is our all new construction option on the southern parking lot as it was um sort of originally envisioned.
Um so those are our columns that we're looking at. The metrics have been updated here. This first um set of criteria really aren't criteria but um rather uh metrics associated with each one of the options so that you can compare um both project cost that runs
along the bottom um project duration for instance the number of modular classroom units that are required um in addition to field inventory and so forth. I'm not going to to run us through every one of these uh line items um at this point um just given the time that we have
available. Um I will point out as we go through though um obviously the the C2.2A high school column is all new in terms of the evaluations that run through there. Um and we did update um the C2.2A and C3.4A 4 A columns um
because those options were the the prior versions um as we were developing this the last set of ratings as we went through. Um those who were part of this process earlier may recall that there were some lines that were left blank before because we didn't have any uh sufficient information um to make sort
of an initial um evaluation but we have done that now. Um and uh for instance in terms of project cost um here we have updated that based on the new costs that have been just received on the PSR options um including the C2.2A-Hs.
Um so again um the other I'll try to just point out the areas where we have had more information now to work with. Um the impact on taxpayer burden is another um item where there have been some revisions in terms of the evaluations going through here. Um and
you might ask yourself well um for C22A the high school only option why is that um why has that been rated as zero just like the ones that are adjacent to it even when the school is smaller? Um it's really because when we think about project costs, um yes, that project cost
would be lower. Um but this is where the unknowns uh from the other programs that are currently at the high school if we're unhousing them. Where do they go? Um there is likely a cost to taxpayers in terms of that relocation. We don't know what it is yet. Um so we're again proposing that it may be a zero. Um and
certainly welcome some additional discussion on that topic if there is some. Um I don't think that there's much here in terms of ED plan and equity that had changed or sustainability. Um again aside from sort of infilling with the
C22A-HS um in many cases it's going to be very similar to the C22A. Um because number of stories the the square footage has been reduced the building footprint has been reduced slightly as well. Um so that has modified some of the evaluation
criteria as we go through this. Um the site has remained fairly similar. Um when we get down to construction impacts and cost um again this is one where you do see that the C22A high school does have a higher score than the
adjacent. Um and that's really just due to the um the building being smaller. So the building construction cost being less and that's proved out through the cost estimates. But the site construction cost would be sort of on a relatively similar u playing field because we still need to develop the site around even a little bit more site
if we have less building footprint. Um and then the operational cost. So these were two uh lines that were all blank previously because we had not had the chance to run through the life cycle cost analysis. Um as Martine jumps into the next section, she'll give you some
more detail here. Um this was my trying to distill um the contents of our presentation into um sort of a very simple rating system. Um so again here after maybe folks listen um to Martin's presentation. U we can certainly revisit that potentially as well um if folks
have questions. Um and then as you go down through the the community um evaluation criteria under 10 um are the ones that had the most variation for for the C22A the high school only option. Um, and that's really due to when uh particular programs that were identified
as a specific evaluation criteria previously are either removed um from the building entirely um or they're potentially moved off site. Um so if it's uh 10.1 for instance that fosters collaboration with community partners because the community partner space
would be removed from the building um that was given a zero. Um for some of the others like uh facilitates the use and community access to the Medford Early Education Program or the MEEP preschool um that was given a two because it it could be uh more accessible to the community wherever it
lands, but we just don't know that yet. Um and so that's the reason why that was ascribed a two versus a five or a zero. Um so that that's the general approach um that we followed through the process. Um you can see where the scores lay out um towards the bottom. Again, no one is
is bound to these scores necessarily. They're relative evaluations to one another uh for the different options. Um and then that note down at the bottom is just reiterating what I mentioned at the beginning um and just just a moment ago that um because those programs that are currently housed at the high school, if
they are relocated as that studied over the course of the summer, um we don't know really what all the impacts are there. So, we're trying to um evaluate and peg um maybe where these might fall in terms of the evaluation criteria.
So, that was my attempt at trying to get this through this relatively quickly. Happy to answer any um questions on this maybe before we roll into the LCCA piece of this. There >> any questions before we do LCCA?
Seeing none, why don't we plow ahead? >> All right, turn it over to Martin here then. >> All right, thank you, Matt. So, this is going to be another set of heavy uh
numbers, heavy set of numbers and criteria. So, um I would appreciate same with the other ones if you could hold your questions until the end. We'll try to pull through um as much as we can in a timely manner. So, um we're going to
go through um the life cycle cost analysis, 50 years life cycle cost analysis, comparing um design options and HVAC options within those design options.
um we have selected the B.2 and the D1.1 options. So we're comparing them and each options were analyzed with both the ground source heat pump system and the air to water heat pump systems.
Um we studied uh we we selected these two options the B1.2 2 and the D1.1 because they represent sort of the two ends of the spectrum of um design option. One being sort of the more heavy
Rena and the other one being the full new construction and so all the other options kind of fall in between those. Um for the HVAC system we selected the ground source heat pump system that was
one of the preferred system that came through all the discussions during um PDP and early PSR. And the second system we're uh analyzing here is air to water heat pump which is a bit better um than
um a typical air source heat pump VRF system. It also allows much less refrigerant if not not at all in the building. Um and it has a a bit better embodied uh not embodied carbon but uh carbon emissions associated with the
refrigerant are not as much heavy um in that option. So with that for for everybody just to refresh everybody's um uh understanding of what a life cycle cost analysis the the LCCA is used um to
assess and compare the associated initial and the operating cost of a of building systems HVAC as well as the um uh the rest of the building system electrical and enclosure over the life
cycle of the building in this case for 50 years. Um this the LCCA includes initial cost, replacement cost, maintenance cost and energy savings that are associated with your you know
monthly and annual utility costs. Um it includes a 3% cost escalation and um there we we'll have a bit of a discussion on the the installation incremental cost and the uh life cycle
cost incremental cost throughout this presentation as well as the ear an early estimate of the incentives. Next. >> And Martine, just to clarify, that 3% cost escalation is per year, right? That's what's assumed. >> Yes. It's per year over 50 years. It's a
it's sort of a net um there's also a net present value that's that's applied to bring back that cost. Um so just to uh just as a reminder again, B1.1 is 640,000 square foot and
D1.1 is 610. they differ a bit and that's all accounted for in the analysis. Um, as we discussed in previous presentations, the predicted energy use intensity which we refer to as EUI is 35
for this project. Now, EUI, the energy use intensity is a metric that we use uh to compare uh facilities one to another uh sort of on the same metric. It's a it's an energy per square
foot metric that includes all the energy used in the building. So it includes the heating, the cooling, the domestic hot water, the lighting, all the plug load, um all combined, all fuel sources combined. In this case, we're looking at
all electric for all. The goal of 35pui is um a goal we've we've discussed and set early in the project. And um if you look at a a typical high school that does not have a CTE program currently in
most projects around the state, they'll target 25 to 30 EUI. for for schools with city program which are a bit more intensive in terms of energy use the 35 EUI is is is probably the optimal goal
to go after and that's why we had set that goal earlier on. Now how do we get there? We get there with using passive strategies. So, the way we're designing the building will optimize, you know,
solar, uh, our vesting, um, uh, daylighting, our vesting. Um, we're going to have a very wellinssulated enclosure. Um, triple glazing, those will contribute to
reduce the load, um, the demand for heating and cooling of the building, uh, compared to your current existing building. Um, and then all electric HVAC, efficient all electric HVAC. I know there's been comments earlier on, uh,
we're looking here at high efficiency heat pumps that are three times more efficient than the 95% boiler that you have now. I believe it's a 95% boiler than the natural gas boiler. So the three times efficiency kind of help
mitigate the higher cost of electricity. And then plug load management all your appliances your your plugged in equipment. Uh we're going to be through the design of this project we're going to be looking at that load and looking
at how to manage it and program it so we can reduce that demand as well. Next. So through our through our analysis um this is uh the preliminary results uh the as you can see here you have the
option B1.2 two that compare the ground source heat pump, the hair to water heat pump. Um those uh EUIs um are a bit higher or around 35, but they're a bit higher than option D1.1,
which are in the lower 30s. Some of this is just through the nature of the the building design. You know, the um the B1.2 to is a bit more as a bit more enclosures, a bit wider, less, you know,
um lower stories, that type of stuff, all of this impacts sort of the results. But when you compare to your existing facility, uh and one thing before I go to the existing, when you compare the ground source seat pump to the airwater
in each of those options, the ground source seat pump is a bit more efficient. uh because inherently that system is a bit more efficient than the air to water heat pump. Then when you compare to your existing family uh family facility, excuse me. Um
the design that we're looking at here uh in terms of overall energy use per square foot is 62 is 62% better than your existing building. So a takeaway from this is that
all options and with uh a high efficient HVAC system heat pump HVAC system whether it's ground source or air to water uh is uh you know makes the 35 UI goal
achievable. We can achieve it with those systems and with those options. Next. So, um, following up from the energy used per square foot, we did, um, a calculation, uh, to give you a bit of a
highlevel preliminary cost per square foot. And then again, compared to your existing uh, building. So the cost per square foot, although you have more square footage, the cost per square foot is lower because we're making the building
highly efficient. In this design, there is no electric boilers. It's all heat pump. Um and it's about 40 to 50% energy cost reduction depending on obviously final design depending on the selection
of the um of the uh uh design option and of the HVAC system. Um, this cost includes a fully airond conditioned school where just keeping in mind that your existing school at $2.79 a square
foot. Uh, and that that cost is based from information we got from the um, uh, energy department. Um, that existing school does not have full air conditioning. So something to keep in mind when
looking at those costs. And then the one other component that we're going to dive in more in schematic design is the solar PV system. The battery storage including such a system in your project is going to allow you to reduce peak load and
demand peak load reduction and demand costs. Those those um calculations were going to fold in through the schematic design life cycle cost analysis. um if you go with a P if you go with a known system, if you go to a PPA,
there's going to be savings, maybe not as much as the the own one, but all of this is going to be um evaluated in in uh in the next phase next. So, there would be further savings on that. >> And I'll just put a quick footnote in for folks for PPA, if you're not
familiar with that term, it's a power purchase agreement. Um it's essentially where the um a third party company would come in and and actually supply the panels um and then Medford would actually be purchasing the electricity back from that company. Um so it there's
a lot more detail to it. I just wanted to explain that acronym. >> Um so this is um sort of a summary of um the net present value fullyear LCCA. Um there's a lot of numbers here. We're not going to go through each of them. Um I'm
going to again this is u PSR assessment at at at high level. And the intent here is to uh bring some takeaways when comparing the design options and the systems within the design option. So the
major takeaway here is um one of the challenges presented by the ground source seat pump the incremental cost. So there's a a 28 million plus incremental cost from between the ground source heat seat pump the air to water
heat pump and that's actually um about the same between the option B1.2 and option D1.1. These costs are based on the PSR uh the um PSR cost estimate. Um
so there's there's a 28 plus million incremental cost. And then if you look at the replacement cost, the maintenance cost, um the replacement cost is slightly lower. It's about $3 million for the
ground source seat pump. Um it it has a bit higher maintenance cost. And then there's energy cost which has about uh it's a about a million to three a million for um savings over 50 years for the energy cost. So when you add those
um replacement cost, maintenance cost, and energy cost saving increase, it's about four million or so. Um, and that $4 million is not really enough to
substantiate that upfront $28 million. Um, on top of that, you have the mass save incentives. The mass save incentives for the ground store seed pump are about $3 million. Uh, they are
capped. Uh, we've already had meetings with um, Mass uh, with Massave. We've started the process. We're going to optimize um the incentives. Um they slightly differ for the air to water heat pump. They're going to be probably at around 2
million 2 million one or 2 million two. Again, fully estimated. Um so the big uh takeaway from this is that uh the challenge is in obviously the incremental cost for the ground source
heat pump. If we go to the next slide, there's a bit of a summary of those incremental cost. Um, so the installation incremental cost with and without mass save and then the 50-year incremental cost, what I was referring
to when you fold in that um $4 million um is is still in the 20 million. Um the annual energy cost savings between the ground source heat pump and the air to
water heat pump uh hovers between 58,000 right now estimated 58,000 and 74,000 they vary between the two design option because of what I explained before they're two different uh building volumes and that slightly impacts but
those are not enough to make up for um the $50 million incremental cost. And then the one other component that we're still um working on evaluating is potential incentives. There's a little
note at the bottom of this slide or I think it's the other slide that we're still um looking into the IRA incentives, right Matt? Um >> yep. Yes. So just folks are aware IRA is the inflation reduction act. Um there
were some of those um program incentives. There are tax credits that are available to municipalities um through sort of a an equation that I don't quite understand, but it is available to public entities as tax credits. Um and while some of the programs under that IRA have sunseted um
under the current administration, there are still um some funds available we believe for ground source heat pumps that are not factored in here just because there's additional validation that we need to do on our end in terms of um what can be counted on um in terms
of those potential incentives. Um but um there is something there that may help um sort of neutralize or equalize the incremental uh cost savings that are illustrated here. >> Right? A lot of it is based on when the the system will be purchased and
installed. Those incentives come through your um through your tax reports. The first year of your tax reports once the school is open. And last year they had a sunset date of 2028 and it looks like that sunset date has moved or has
changed and that's what we're validating. So uh some of the comments I just made in terms of of the takeaways are listed here in this slide. Um you know overcoming the estimated 23 million plus incremental cost between the ground
source heat pump and the airto water heat pump uh is challenging. Um currently the incentives and the savings in replacement cost and energy savings are not enough. Um the initial cost the
initial incremental cost which is about 28 plus million um is also challenging upfront um because of the cap mass save incentive. uh the bore wells the wells of the
geothermal system at this time pending on the well depth um we're still awaiting the geothermal well test that's uh going to happen I think fairly soon uh would require 10 to 15 acres so this
is pretty significant on your side it's about a third of your site as far as I understand it you know usually we do not put wells under building. So, this would have to go across your site. Um,
and then um what I the the um comment I made earlier when comparing B1.2 to D1.1, the same relative cost challenges between the ground source heat pump and the air to water heat pump apply. So um
so in in summary the the design option selection are not highly impacted by the HVAC system selection and the the full HVAC system selection is um planned for
the the schematic design. So you don't have to decide on the HVAC system yet. Um the reason why we provided for this LCCA is is to give you an overview and inform your decision on the design
option. Understanding that the HVAC selection right now is not impacting the design option. The one thing we would like you to start considering um as we are going to have to compare three HVAC
system in the uh schematic design LCCA is a hybrid uh ground source heat pump and hairto- water heat pump hybrid system would reduce the incremental front cost of from the full geothermal.
It would also reduce the requirement for um the bore wells the acreage to about half uh 5 to eight acres from 10 to 15 acres and you know that is again for consideration for discussion um um and
so that's that's our um that's our sort of um conclusion in terms of the LCCA. Uh next so in addition to the LCCA we have done a preliminary side capacity
assessment um in terms of the solar PV both from the roof um and from uh the low angle roof canopy and we looked at um the roof sizes are fairly equivalent
in terms of available roof area between the options. Um there's a range and that's why we have here in the estimated roof area. So we looked at basically the high canopy and the low angle canopy
because the high canopy um optimizes um the solar PV at the roof. Whereas the low angle roof canopy, that's a solar PV that sits on the roof in between all of your HVAC system or at the perimeter of
the HVAC systems. And um in general, there's much less u area and production from a PV system that's a low angle roof system than a high canopy. The high canopy requires obviously a a
structural framework to hold it. Um we have so basically the high canopy would provide close to half of the required energy production from the solar PV to substantiate
uh 50% or half of of the net zero energy. um the low angle only 20%. So what happens with that is the when you between 50% and 20% you have to make do
right on the ground mounted area. So the the high canopy requires less ground mounted uh area which is your parking your outdoor areas and but not your fields. We're we're not going to be able to put canopies over your fields, right?
It's everything but your field on your site. Um so the high canopy roof um you would require about 140,000 to 200,000 square ft. Uh whereas the low angle area goes up to 300,000 square feet. It's
pretty considerable. And so we're going to be looking at your parking the parking alternatives have an impact. So once those are sorted out, we're going to look at that. Your ground areas. And then one other thing that we're going to consider and talk about
is the building integrated uh PV option which is solar panels mounted on facade. They are half the efficiency of roof and ground mounted but we may have to at least discuss and look and and address
those um as part of the solution to make a to make an educated decision. Next. So in terms of how do we get to the net zero energy and for you to understand a bit what that means um we talked about
the energy use per square foot the 35 EUI. Um so we would have to design a system that's this that's produces as much energy as what the school um requires under that 35 UI uh which is um
close to 6.2 megawatt system and that's what we've assessed in the percentage I showed earlier in the square footage. Next. So, what we've been talking about up to date is the operational carbon. The
energy use of your building represents operational carbon and another component of your building are the materials and those are those do hold and represent embodied carbon. Um, what the way we look at this for projects is we look at
it as total carbon. It's important to look at both operational and embodied carbon combined. Um there's a per there's there's a perception or or an understanding that existing buildings have embodied carbon and new buildings
create embodied carbon, right? New embodied carbon. And so we're going to look at this next slide which represents Oh, I'm sorry. Excuse me. The next slide represents the embodied carbon analysis criteria. So
again, we compared option B1.2 and option D1.1 with the understanding that B1.2 is a renovation addition. So it's a full gut renovation. We're not keeping everything in the building, mostly keep retaining
the structure. Um we, you know, by code and for the net zero goal, we're highly insulating the enclosure. there's going to be a new interior and we also included the modular classroom and then at the other end of the
spectrum for the options we have the new construction D1.1 which is 610,000 square ft. Um in this option we've looked at low embodied carbon concrete steel and insulation. Um and then we have an option within this option that
looks at about 10 to 15% mass t a mass timber structure. Next uh so here's the sort of comparison between the existing building and B1.2 and we actually did each option because
we have operational carbon for ground source heat pump and air to water heat pump. Um so we did each for both design option. Um the embodied carbon is measured over 30 years. Um and so your
uh the operational carbon that we look that we talked about the 35 EUI that's multiplied um by 30 years. The carbon emissions equivalent from those are multiplied for 30 years. Um since we have different
square footage areas between the existing the B1.2 and the D1.1 uh we have brought down this total carbon per square foot so that we were measuring sort of apples to apples here.
So the existing building here, so the orange sections is the embodied carbon, the materials um carbon and then the blue sections the operational carbon that represent the energy use. The existing building as you can see has
embodied carbon that's existing. So it's it's it's a negative because it's already there. It's been created 70 50 years ago, 55 years ago. And so it's it's a negative, but then the
building is not that efficient. So when you look at the operational carbon, you know, it it's it outweighs the the design options. The B1.2 2 is uh embodied carbon as you
can see here is slightly if not a bit it's it's a because of the uh classroom because the modular classroom it's slightly higher than D1.1 and where you see the hatched area the
the orange hatched area that shows the impact of that 10 to 15% mass timber. So there's a way to slightly reduce depending on how much mass timber we can um include in the project. There's a way
to reduce embodied carbon in the D1.1 um a little bit more uh not as much applicable to B1.2. Uh and then uh in terms of the B1 the ground source seat pump and the air
source seat pump the ground source seat pump is a bit lower 122 versus 126 and that's because of the efficiency of the ground source seat pump versus the air to water. Same thing with um same thing with D1
1.1. Um and the the hatch blue at the top is just the uh the equivalent of that hatch um orange. Uh that's sort of the total that comes down because the orange would come
down. It's the reduction from the mass timber. So that's it in a nutshell for M total carbon NLCCA. >> Hey Martin, I know that was a lot.
>> It's a lot. It's a lot. >> I think the committee may have questions for you again at the next meeting. So I'll talk to the project team about um whether we need to make some space on that agenda for people to ask questions. I'm not sure how many people we'll have tonight, but they may want to take that
in and we can come back around. Um, I'll take some questions from the committee. Um, Ken Lord, >> yeah, a couple quick questions. Um, the air source and the ground source, are you projecting that these will be um need no boilers and be able to uh
accommodate the temperature ranges we anticipate in this part of the country? >> Yes, that's what we've provided for. This is for the school. >> Yeah, >> that's what we've provided for in uh our other projects. >> Okay, good. >> And that that Ken, that's really
important that this is also achievable because we're doing a highly insulated enclosure in all the measures we're looking to do. Yeah. >> And those replacement costs, you quote, are those over the course of 50 years or a different time frame? They're 50 years
including you know some of the replacements are this is all done through the ashray lifetime you know life cycle so 15 20 years depending on the piece of equipment. >> Okay cool thank you >> and I might just chime in there as well Martine and Ken that like this
information is very much hot off the presses for this presentation this evening. Um we are happy to and will share um this information back with the city's team so that we can get um aligned there in terms of the the costs that are being represented here for annual annual energy consumption as well
as uh maintenance and replacement costs going forward all the different components of the LCCA. >> Absolutely. Thank you Matt for bringing that up because you know we provide this at a high level right at this phase but definitely especially for SD we would we
would really want to meet with you and review um the cost specifically the maintenance costs. >> Thank you. >> There any other questions from the committee? Um, I see one hand from the public, so
we'll go to Zack Chalk. Hi, Zach Cherto. Five Almond Street. First Martine, it's good to be on with a fellow McGiller. I picked that up earlier. Um, >> that's awesome. Um, and just reverting back to the last
question about the cost savings estimates on the energy. We had um Paul and the facility side from the city um operations team earlier tonight. It would be great if you could connect with him to take a look at the cost projections that he looked at for um the facilities and see how these um
alternative energy sources would start to cut down on that for him and see if you can put your heads together to look at what the the offsets would be. Um, first I do applaud the effort on an attention paid to the environmental factors. Um, it's they often do pay for themselves in the long run. But I did want to double back to some of the civil
and geotechnical engineering limitations for a moment because I think I heard you correctly that you said you're still waiting on the geotechnical review. >> Yes. >> Um, so as you're coming back around with the committee, as Jenny noted that they may have more questions for you next week or the next meeting, meaning you'll
be there for the next meeting. Um, do you anticipate being able to have a rust rough estimate percentage-wise, for example, on how the costs of some of those geothermal options might be impacted? So, thinking about what a high, medium, or low K value in the soil and the rock might be mean for at the
site proximity for viable soil away from the building and even how that might run into the deed restriction depending on where the optimal um locations are, knowing that we can't build there, although I don't know if the committee's clarified if we can build under there. Um things like the variable presence of moisture and air pockets in the ground
relative to insulation ratios, advection rates, and even connection points um between the new system and where it would enter the building. Um and proximity that it would need to be located away from things like um you know old uh aggregate concrete that was
used in the existing foundation if it's going to be maintained for the renovation in particular. Um, so I'm not expecting you to have those insights now, but do you think you might be able to have like some rough estimates of what that might look like? Um, yeah, what those those factors might do to the
cost relative to the feasibility in the 50-year payback period um by the time we look at this again. So the we'll take note of all the the sort of the levels you've asked for in terms of
you know uh what's left in aggregate and all that but I will tell you with with either 5 to eight or 10 to 15 acres um these bor wells um and I think at the
next stage we'll show um we'll show a graphic of what that that that means. But um these these this this these acreage of bore wells are probably going to touch upon a variety. You know it's one site but the soil conditions may
vary throughout the area. And um I will tell you that in my opinion from experience on previous projects that it is rare that we find higher efficiency from those tests.
>> So what's in our analysis right now is conservative and it's based on the results of previous projects. Um, so it, you know, it's not rock, right? Or it's not a lot of rock. And so, um, so I
don't, I, in terms of efficiency, I do not think it's going to have a high impact that could make that $23 million shrink. >> Oh, yeah. Now, I'm not anticipating that it's going to take a chunk out of it. I'm just thinking about proximity relative to some of the construction
limitations I see. >> That we've already incurred for the site. So, thinking about location remediation, would it trigger a land swap to be able to accommodate the scale that we would go to? >> Um, you know, relative to where the most favorable site locations are, you know, on the field relative to the what the
geotechnical examination results show. So, starting to think about that and what that would end up doing to the potential site layout both for construction and final structure. So I I can chime in here just for a second, Martin, that um it is something that we are going to be talking through
um with the city's land council um to make sure that we have sort of their read on it because at the end of the day, their read is very critical to this entire process. But um we do have precedent project experience um under article 97 land where we were able to put in the geothermal wells. Um it's not
exactly the same as a deed restricted area, but since it's below the ground, um in this case, um I think >> to begin on a technicality, >> correct? >> Yep. Yep. >> Thank you, Matt. I see we have one more hand.
S Dillard Sunni. >> Hi, Sunni. >> Hi. Thanks, Martine. Um I'm Sunonny Dillard. I live at 39 Charwood. I don't I know it's like 10 PM already. So, I just had a quick question um before I get into the weeds of whether or not this is going to be presented to the MEP
and Sustainability Advisory Group for sort of I guess more nerdy questions later on. >> Yes. >> Okay. Um then it's 10 p.m. I will not ask my question and I'll just wait for that. Thank you guys so much. Looking
forward to learning a lot in that conversation. Okay, I think we have um come to the end of the agenda here and um you know in just a few short hours on June 3rd at 6:30 we will have a community forum um on Wednesday although it feels like it's
right around the corner here. Um, so I do hope people will turn out and join us um, and get to chat and weigh in on what they are thinking about in terms of their preferred option so that we can feed that information to the committee
on June 10th. Um, and then on June 18th um, we will be approving our uh, PSR submission and uh, maybe even having a brief celebration if we can manage a good tight agenda. So, um, all that
being said, I am looking for a motion to adjurnn and thank everyone for joining tonight. Is there a motion to adjurnn? >> So moved. >> I can. Is there a second? >> Second that. >> Ryan, sorry.
>> Okay, >> I will call the role. Jenny Graham, yes. Mayor Lango Kern, >> yes. >> Dr. Beluci, >> yes. Martica Bra, >> yes. >> Joan Bowen, >> yes. >> Ken Lord, >> yes.
>> Libby Brown, >> yes. >> Marissa Desmond is absent. Maria Dorsy, >> yes. >> Ran Hillard, >> yes. >> Emily Lazaro. Paul Malone. Nicole Morell,
>> yes. >> Aaron Lady, >> yes. >> Luke Pryer, >> yes. 12 in the affirmative. Zero in the negative.