We want to go ahead and get started. >> Um, is the microphone on? >> Okay, you all can hear me on Zoom. Not sure they can hear us on Zoom. Just >> should be able to do it on >> Yes, we can hear you. Okay, got a thumbs up.
Um, welcome everyone. Uh, please be advised that there'll be a full committee meeting of the Medford Comprehensive High School Building Committee in person at Medford High School's library at 489 Lift Street via remote presentation. The media can be viewed live on Medford Public Schools
YouTube channel through Medford Community Media, which is your local cable channel, Comcast 9,8 or 22 and or uh Verizon channel 4345 or 47. The meeting will be recorded. Um
participants can log in by using the following information. The Zoom meeting ID is 964-52752614. Um, I am going to call the roles so we can go ahead and get started. Um, Jenny Graham here, Mayor Londo Kern present, Dr.
>> here, >> here. >> Joan Bowen here. And Lord >> here, >> Libby Brown here. Marissa Desmond. Maria Dorsy here. Brian Hillard, Emily Laro, Paul Malone,
Nicole Morell, Aaron here, Nick Fryner, >> Bob Dickinson, here. >> Maxwell >> here. >> Chad Bon. >> Dr. Ken Tal here.
>> Cory Boxton here. John Nlofflin is absent. Paul Rouso present. Bill Santos here. Hi Phil and Lisa. >> So we have 11 present,
no 10 present, five absent. Um the meeting is called to order. The first item on the agenda is approval of our minutes from the April 27th uh building committee meeting. Is there a motion to approve? >> So move.
>> By Maria. Is there a second? Second >> by Aaron. Any questions before we call the role? >> Um, so I was going to object in the current form because the agenda for that committee had flipped pages and these
minutes are much shorter. Can we amend the minutes to include the full agenda? >> We don't normally do that. >> Well, um, I think this is meant to go to the MSBA uh, and uh, they want to know what our
minutes were. We had many um space reductions proposed and so our agenda from that night was uh well over 50 pages. If we send minutes that are seven pages long, it kind of indicates that there was a a meeting that didn't
include 50 pages of proposals. >> Well, the agenda is publicly posted. So, it is not changing. So, what is your request? My request is to amend the minutes to include um the entirety of at
least the content of the agenda which at least fit the pages. >> I'll second that to show that those items are tabled. >> Okay. Before we need it, we have a motion on the floor. Are the people who made the motion Maria and Aaron will
like to accept that amendment? >> I'm I don't understand. Are you asking you want to put the the pages worth also in the original agenda? >> No, it's in the original agenda >> and you want to take it out. >> Correct. Okay. >> I want to add it to the minutes. >> Okay. And why? So then because it's
being sent to MCA, you'd want that to be the official >> it's record. >> Okay. But if if it's already public though, so why would we if it's already public? Then why does it I'm just trying to understand like the reasoning behind adding to the minutes if it's already available. >> I mean we don't send them agendas. those in the minutes. Is that a good idea?
>> Uh the idea is the minutes reflect the content of the special agenda. >> Yeah. >> Mainly space proposal reduction >> and if we delete them >> then that's almost like deleting them
from the form and record meeting for record agenda. There's a preview of what the discussion should entail. the minutes come afterwards and they kind of record what was discussed and we changed uh many of those reductions or
proposals. Um but they were deleting or linked. >> This is just in the interest of trans interest of transparency. That's it. >> Everything is available online. Look kind of splitting hairs here. So you all have a choice. You can either accept a
friendly amendment or not. That's up to you. And if you don't then this motion has a second and it can go forward independently. you motion very >> I did I I I'm not sure that I read any of the agenda. Okay. So then we will
take the role of the approval of the agenda meeting minutes and then we will handle the second motion that's on the floor. Jenny Graham. Yes. Mayor Londo Kern. >> Yes. >> Dr. Guzy. >> Yes. Marta Cabra. Yes. Don Bowen. Yes. Ken Lord. Yes.
>> Libby Brown. Yes. Marissa Desmond, Maria Dorothy. Yes. Brian Hillard, Emily Lazara, Paul Malone, Nicole Morell, Marilyn, >> yes tric, >> nine in the affirmative, one in the
negative, five absent. The meeting minutes are approved. There's a second motion on the floor to add to the meeting minutes the contents of the agenda raised by Loop, seconded by Mayor Londern. I'm going to call the role.
Jenny Graham, yes. Mayor Le Mayor Lund, yes. Dr. Guzi, yes. Marta Cabra, >> yes. >> Joan Bowen, yes. And Lord, >> yes. >> Libby Brown, yes. Or Desmond.
Maria Dorsy, yes. Brian Hillard, Emily Lazaro, Paul Morel, Nicole Morell, Aaron. >> Yes. >> Yes. >> 10 in the affirmative. Zero in the
negative. Four absent. Five absent. Sorry. Uh motion passes. Um item number three on our agenda is to
talk a bit about the deed restriction that um was uh sent to us by DCR um and the impacts of that be restriction. So, I'm going to turn it over to the project
team so that they can provide um an update on what the discovery was, what it means for the project, what the options are, and then um there is a motion on the agenda that we may choose to take up. I felt like it's important
to write it out so the community could understand what's happening. Um and we may or may not choose to do that once we have heard from the project team. So, I'm going to let um Matt take it away. We'll let Helen take you back. >> Um, good evening. Uh, let's talk about
your site. Uh, so little history. Back in 1967 to allow for the building of this high school, uh, there was a land swap done between the Metropolitan District Commission that is now known as DCR, Department of Conservation
Resources, and the city. So in that deal there were swapping of various parcels which you'll see in the next slide. Um and along with those parcels that were conveyed by say now DCR there were some restrictions on use what could be done
on those pieces of land specifically no buildings. They were meant to be held for athletics and recreation which is mission. um that restriction does um have a 999year
term to it and if you can do the math in your head added to 1967 and so we've got some challenges with the site as we now know here the next so the green highlighted areas are the
parcels that were conveyed by DCR to the city um parcel that the city gave to DCR is not really highlighted but it is uh to the northeast. Um and again those are areas that are restricted from building in buildings in
into that. As part of the feasibility study the team uh did uh bring on a land survey team and many of talked about the survey uh quite a bit with this group. Uh it was a tremendous undertaking more than
four months of work that included both research uh ton of field work and then a lot of confirming work. And what happens in the early part um when they started onto the project back in November, they
pulled all of the information and they started with the plans. The plans helped them map out a a way to uh approach the fieldwork which again took months of time. Those plans helped them to locate
monumentation and do all of the drone work, the field work, etc. Uh a draft survey was provided to us in February. Uh and once that work was done, they turned back to the written deeds. Um and
that is where that uh language around the restriction sits. So the survey team was not aware of it themselves until end of February, early March is best we can uh ascertain from talking to Brennan.
Uh however, in the meantime, we did learn from DCR. We've been having good communication coordination with DCR the past two months. DCR uh was the entity that brought this to the project team's attention on April 25th. And of course,
you're all well acquainted with the process of uh winnowing down the 29 um ADP options to six in March. You saw some development of those six options at the meeting on April 27th. Um but of
course now that affects those options that you last saw in April. So the three options that are not affected by the restriction are A1 the uh code upgrade essentially the bounds of the existing building B1.2
and D1.1 which builds on the southern portion of the site park next. And then the three that do impinge on restricted areas are C2.2, C3.4 for and D2.1 which is you know
predominantly on so what the team has done since and also informed by what we heard the community meeting last Monday a strong preference for the sea options which allow um allow
you to keep your gym and pool and renovate them um we've gone back to the drawing board literally and um worked with those 2C options to um uh modify them to work within within the bounds,
I'll call it. Um, and we'd like to show those to you this evening. >> Before we move on, does anyone on the committee have any questions about the deed restriction before we look at these alternatives that they would like the project team to answer?
Paul, thank you. >> Um, I just want to the language and maybe that's just airing on the side of caution is that the the yellow shaded areas are what is currently understood to be Could you explain why there's like hedging language there and not like this is what it is?
>> Um, as in no buildings can be sorry just like currently understood language I'm asking about like this is the area it's not the area. >> Oh, it is. >> Okay. I said that was just like section the words. Sorry. >> Yeah. Yeah. No, it's what it says on the slide.
>> Oh, okay. Okay. >> Yeah. >> Um already >> Oh. Um existing. >> No, >> nothing was up on I believe of any sort.
>> There are structures on it. >> Okay. >> There's a shed as well that's out in the back corner across which is on the strip. So there are some potential areas that need to get addressed. >> Next up was parking allowed on the um
areas publicity. Uh my understanding is no buildings. Uh they there isn't there is language about the access allowing access road and actually it's a good question about parking and that should be clarified.
That's a land use trend that we thought brought into the picture and we can better understand the intent here. >> I ask about the status >> I need you all to like wait to be recognized because there's a lot of
people here and I want to make sure that everybody is getting we are getting to all the people with all the questions. So Luke has the floor. Um so uh can I ask about the status of an onboarding lands? >> Uh the project team has developed a
scope um and our understanding is the city may have at their disposal of any would be right for this work. Um but we don't yet have that person on board. I don't believe >> yeah we we have reached out to her. she
has all the documentation um for the the deed restriction. Uh we did also reach out to three other independent land use attorneys just to bring them into the loop on what was going on. Um but we feel it's best to go through the city's
land use attorney just, you know, they know the area better. They, you know, understand the community. So that's the path that we're moving forward right now and they do have that information. So uh hopefully, you know, we'll follow up. um shortly and and start to understand what
you know potential paths forward there are for the actual restricted land. >> Mr. Mayor, >> thank you. >> Thank you. Um Sharon is from Portage and again she does have all the information
as of this week um and confirm that she has the time to help us with this. I just want to point out to this committee that we have funding obviously in our fiscal year 26 budget but last night there was talks of cutting the legal budget for the city of Medford um for
fiscal year 27 by the city council. So I just want to point that out in hopes that that does not happen as we really want to continue to develop the square work on this project and many many other things. So can I ask a point of clarification? Would the charges from
Calman and Page um be absorbed by the city or would those be um uh transferred to the school building project? >> I've decided yet. I think we have an emergency kind of situation where we need need a land use attorney. So that hasn't been uh discussed but um one way
or another. was pointing out if it if it was being asked for the city to help out in any way that we are our leads are being discussed to be eliminated for fiscal year 27 and any expenditure by this committee would come to this committee for approval before our expenditure
Luke >> um I know this topic was received a lot of discussion from the public and public sphere um will have an opportunity to speak on this topic uh we will happily hear from the public
but I I wanted to pause to give the committee a chance to ask questions before we continue but when they are done with their presentation yes will have >> Maria this is something I'm not familiar with
is there um have you seen land restrictions like this overturned Are we going down a road that's hasn't been blocked out before? >> Uh it's fairly common actually at least on on school projects. Um of course
knowing sooner would have been much preferred. Um and actually I'm going to turn to Erin to talk about the process. She's very familiar with the article 97 process to >> Yes. So, so uh open space is protected
in the Commonwealth and it requires legislative action to to remove it because you have to swap land um in in other places in the mun um there's risk associated with that. There's time and there's there's fees associated with that too. uh but
landwalk is also a trigger to uh comply with the state regulations for uh the meter regulations and so there's additional soft cost associated with completing the landfill. Um I think the question that our team has is what has
happened since this this deed uh restriction in 1967. Um so there's some research that needs to be completed by by the attorney. um that's going to be a critical step in understanding what the options are going forward. Um
but that is a question you have as well. >> So the other um salient points are that the mayor, the superintendent and I spoke with the state delegation, all four of them um dropped basically everything to come chat with us last
week. they made um some immediate outreach to DCR to understand um from DCR like what and to just be able to confirm like what a path forward might look like so that we could assess that impact and bring that to all of you. Um DCR was like very helpful and
forthcoming. They spoke with all of their um their legal folks and like the review agreement is that an article 97 process would have to be done. the le the our delegation is very confident that if a article 97
process has to happen and legislative action is required that they could get it done. They believe they could even get it done by the end of session in July. Um however, I don't think the rest of the process could um happen nearly that quickly and the sequence of events
is something that I've asked them for clarification on. they've been wonderfully cooperative um and supportive as has DCR. Um so there are potentially forward there but we don't know that for sure one way or the other
at this point. Um that would um and in the legislature it requires a voice vote of twothirds of the legislature. Any other questions? It's a roll call vote. Yeah. Thank you. So understanding where we are and what
has happened these the path forward includes um using only the design that we narrow down to the new iterations that are going to be shown to us. There's no option and not saying I want this but just trying to understand what the process is. There's no option for going back to that 29 and figuring out
ones that have a different overlay on the land that we may have ruled out and how we would have been back for obvious reasons. I think that's up to the committee. Um I think we may want to look at these options before we sort of
reopen the can of worms. What would be impacted is our timeline because the estimating has already been completed and includes these like alternate designs like if we went back to something that we had previously discarded. There would be some like catch up work that would have to be done
on that option. um and it could impact potentially our timeline, our decision-making timeline. So, we have to sort of keep that in mind. It is absolutely an option that this committee could um choose to vote on. Um you all received from me maybe an hour or so ago
a letter from SMMA CEO with a pretty detailed rundown from her perspective of what has happened that has led to this point. Um I received that from prior this afternoon and have shared it with you all. So, um, if there are questions
about that, um, I would I'm going to point you to Helen and Matt, um, and you can feel free to reach out to them via email, uh, to to get any questions answered. It is a needy document. It is a needy timeline, but it does sort of
lay out the timeline and sequence of events um, as she knows it. Why don't we um take a look at the options that you all have created um since this news is was discovered.
>> All right, I'll take it away. So, we're going to look at alternatives for C2.2 and C3.4, the two on the left. And the first one we'll introduce is C2A.
And here you can see on the the large image kind of in the center left that was the original uh C2.2 and just a reminder of some of the the aspects of of these that maybe differentiated it from some of the
other options were renovating the gym, renovating the pool, making use of those assets. I was also looking for space on the site that could accommodate a large phase one of the project and the goal
with a large phase one was to essentially minimize or eliminate modular classrooms which we heard loud and clear. So the goal was always to find open space on the site uh to make to make that happen. So that's why we
were looking at Peter Field and looking at the that hillside on the western part of the gymnasium and trying to avoid much of the existing school as we can't put could on you know the first two phases so the school could remain in
operation while construction activity takes place kind of in the behind the school and on site school. So you can see on the image on the right um we've started to take all the things that we really liked about about the scheme all
the adjacencies that we learned about in the previous study all the need for access for some of the CTE spaces that need ground floor yards and things like that and started to manipulate it to be within the deep
construction. So that's why you see this pretty hard edge on the western and northern side of the site. That's the building starting to pull away from Edgerly Field, pull away from that hillside and start to kind of reorient itself still around the gymnasium. And I
think one thing to point out this is that the educational vision is really still intact, which is the most important thing. And you'll see I think a lot of the differences actually happen with some of the site components. You'll notice u the original you know there
there was room for a track football field and front yard but as the building gets pushed around that becomes a lot more challenging spatially was the that wing moves toward the east. Um there there's possibility of perhaps on Edgly
Field now with this this few option to locate a football field for shot. It's pretty still pretty tight up there. We'll have to uh really work to make that happen but uh at this level it looks like it could work. Okay, ask a question before we move on
from this one. Um so earlier I think in the fall um there was a aerial survey we marked borders but I I recall there was also like some kind
of remote sensing to characterize the composition of of the ground. Um I know this new footprint um occupies actually parking lot and maybe some courtyard. I wanted to ask if the soils there were
were characterized and already deemed um suitable for any foundations and digging that would have to occur finding the rock. What were you finding in these new areas? >> I think I think generally
the soil is as suitable as the other soils on both of these building um building areas. Once we have a preferred alternative, we head into schematic design, we may supplement this geotechnical explorations with additional uh borings or what have you based on where the actual building is
going to go to form our assumptions. But but I'd say for all intents and purposes, soil conditions are are about the same in both both of these. I think what we found right is that like generally across the site about four to six feet down you hit rock almost everywhere aside from that area that's
under the B-wing towards the front that used to be a quarry and sort of a trash dump historically. Um and so that's where it goes deeper. Um I think one of the nice things about this option and the C3 point option as we move away from that deed restricted area we actually move away from the hillside and the
rocks. So there should be less uh cost and less effort associated as we pull away from say the football practice field and we're building up from the lower portion of Brown as opposed to digging itself into the hood. >> Aaron >> um I have a quick question. It was
something that another member mentioned earlier about parking and just like access roads. Are access roads separated from parking when it comes just like is that is that Yeah, it's the first question. Yeah, I mean the parking is not specifically addressed in the deeper section. Access roads are. So we know
that access roads are okay. I think it's a fair question to ask about the parking and I think we would look at that with land council um just to understand and probably discussion with DCR as well. >> Thank you very much. >> So following on that is there a do not extend width on access roads so that you
could potentially incorporate a parking >> with the access road. There's no width indicated for the access roads on the deeper picture. >> All right, let's move. Let's keep moving on this. And again, zero modular
crossroads, but that's important. Note parking, although you don't see parking on on this diagram. Those fields all have either uh the option to be surface lots or to be a parking deck with a field on top.
they'll be the same for for both speeds. Again, this is a renovation of these. She also mentioned that, you know, though we're kind of manipulating the footprint of the building, we're not increasing the height, this is still a five five brother building.
And we'll just quickly walk walk through the plans. Um that first floor is early childhood education. Those are very similar to what we saw last time and that occupies kind of the lowest level.
Anything in that hatch area that's just indicates that that's below grade under the ground. So it's kind of digging into the hill as you elevate up to the second floor which is still there'll be a driveway that gets us up there. So you're able to walk in. So it's a walk
that's the main entry school. the left again you'll have a little bit of early childhood education on second floor central office and then you'll have a lot of your public facing CTE there in the pink on the right side of the entry
courtyard that's things like the cafe cosmetology I think television and film um you'll access kind of a grant stair that will take you up to the third
level. And there you'll enter this uh dining common space which is indicated in yellow. To the left will be the auditorium. Then beyond that the arts wing and then the gymnasium and fitness and
health education kind of indicated in orange. And as we keep elevating up through the building terms of the more more academics mixed in with a few more sub spaces again as we're going up the hill toward the back of automotive and
other CTE spaces that will have access off the back and the upper floor. We have a mixture of CTE spaces that don't need ground floor access and we're not >> Paul.
>> Well, it says six floor. It really only five. >> Yeah, we were kind of in that little push st with this new design and frankly the old one. Well, one was amazing. Um,
not having the ability. Do you think during construction restrictions are the restrictions? So, you can't probably use the fields for construction equipment and all that stuff. Um, we also determined the
parking. So, if we have so much existing parking now, um, are we going to have to be nice shutter buses? There doesn't look like a lot of room for existing high schools to be in there to build a new one to have 425 parking lots. Yeah. So,
>> yeah, I I can offer that we have seen in terms of temporary utilization of site, even deep restricted sites, um, that is something that typically we're allowed to do. There may have to be an approval process with it, but it should be a short approval process and that it's just something that is common. um when these types of scenarios arise. Um in
terms of the overall site logistics, managing construction layout area, parking um parking for the workers that are coming, fields as well, trying to manage all that. We're not quite there yet in terms of understanding all those moving parts and pieces. It'll help when we have a construction manager on board
with the team um to make all of those decisions a little bit more valid in terms of moving forward, but it's certainly going to be a challenge and some of those things that you mentioned could be on the table as part of the the solution. Just don't know the full answer yet. >> Thank you. Can I have one more question? So
the field in the back whatever it becomes feel unsaid whatever it becomes will those be part of this project? I mean they're they're existing fields. They're nothing to do with building high school. They're literally on limits, but we don't want them the way they are.
You want to spend a fortune on them for whatever it costs. So how does that qualify being part of this project? >> You know, the restriction language is quite limited. It says athletics and recreation. So those things qualify,
>> right? But I just thought like why would the MSBA count that change? it it is part of the project. The city owns that property. It does have a deed restriction on it, but it is part of our overall property area for the project. So, it would be no different than any
other school project that has a property line around it and everything within the property line is part of the project moving forward. Um, there's certainly site caps on reimbursement and things that we'll get to because we have a large site, but there's nothing unique about sort of the feed restriction from
an NSBA funding or participation perspective. It just seems odd to me that would be like here's a field you have you want to have essentially the same feel when you're done why would they participate in that reimbursement involved and maybe we
don't know yet maybe they will say you can do all this but I don't know but it's just a concern I know um so one more question about wow restrictions So we are considering
um geothermal um you know energy solutions are those uh down on 13 increase. So I would say that we need some input from land council there as well but we do have precedent projects where we are putting
geothermal wells below article 97 land and that has been deemed to be acceptable. I think we have to run out that scenario here. Confirm that as well, but I think there's there's a good likelihood of that being complete viable. >> And is it clear from or um the history
that those parcels were in fact needed to the city for the purpose of uh athletic groups? Is that from the language that >> it's just that restriction that Yeah. fields and
are allowed to be there. It's a very um >> it's pretty tur >> yeah recreation athletic purposes. >> Cool. I have a question about So this is on and the next one keep the current gym. Um what about space underneath the gym?
Like I know that currently there are some renovations being done for the plumbing program. Um what's what's happening with space time gym? I it may have been there and I just missed it as it went by. But but it's a large space. >> I think the current plans have it slated
some for storage, some potentially for mechanical room um within the building. The existing mechanical room is the piece that sticks out to the north of the pool and makes that turn around the northeast corner of the building. So perilous as it goes. So, all of our plans aside from the A option are
looking at taking that down to improve that traffic circulation around the corner and we're going to need a new mechanical room in the building. There's not a lot of great things that you can end up putting below the gymnasium or like natural light, right? So, mechanical room is a good one. Storage is a good one. We'll look and find where
there's other things to go down there as we move forward in the process, but it is certainly a subset of programs that want to do down that space and it is large. >> Thank you, Brian. Just one question. I notic like on the original smooth you guys had you guys
weren't shy on the side field about having sort of access because I think you're kind of cutting into the contours and you've got it also sort of field for the top. But in particular this one looks like you shy away from having keep it up on top points but you don't have
it on this one. Is that just because of the really falling off or is that a different state? I think what's actually going to happen so the I know that when the earth is showing sort of going up to the building it sort of seems like we're still into the hillside. What we'll probably want
to end up doing is filling in land there so that we can have that access to the side along the football field that's there. There's also the potential option here which was really more challenging in the previous version of C22A and uh C34A
um which is that 360 um road for uh first responders as well as service going around the building here because we have that sort of long length we can actually come down along the building. So I think what we're going to be trying to manage is having that road dropping while also trying to maintain as much access high as possible into that such a
slur >> pushes. Yeah. Yeah. So, so I presume the program sort of follows it. If you read access, the program follows the side, right? >> Right. I think so robotics is one of the potential um good fits up there because
they don't necessarily need outdoor access to be able to get vehicles in and out, but they don't necessarily have like an outdoor yard space that they're building in on top of the deeper section. So, I think we'll be looking for programs that are like that and that have the desirable adjacencies um that
maybe are in that particular area. Yes. You want to hold on? So, just a couple aerial views of those plants. Should look a little bit familiar from what we saw last last time to show these
and then we can just touch on touch on the basing really quickly. All these have a have a phasing story. So, like I said earlier, phase one, you know, attempts to build as much as we can on the side in the back and renovating their gymnasium pool at all
at the same time. Then portions of the existing school get it demolished and they come in and build essentially the rest of the west new school come back in demolish the
remainder of the building and do all the site work that's there. So it's like a three-phase three-phase process for the month. Okay, let's visit C34A
again on the left side. That was the original proposal. Uh it kind of had these wings that flowed around the gymnasium. Again, we like this one because it it a lot of the same things that we liked about the previous one, building on the
side of the hill and then treating the additions around the gym in a a slightly different way and this one was a little bit even more of a a compact school as it was focused in a lot of the building around the gym. So, what what we've done with those um curved wings is just
gently bend them back um to avoid that that be restriction and shorten the length of the on the north and move around square footage a little bit. So, that that's the biggest change um with this one. So, it's an evolution of the
plan on the left. Again, you can see the front yard of the site just like the last one gets a lot more compressed than it than it previously does. And then more of that, you know, more of a field is is
utilized for perhaps track football field up there. lower two fields or so again zero zero modular classrooms with this option parking essentially the front of the
building either below those fields or surface parking in place of those fields renovating to the pool and we'll walk up uh the first floor here
again with early childhood on the left, a public facing CTE spaces on the right. Walking into the dining or commons area, the dining auditorium will also be right off of this main entry. That's that
purple volume on the left and few other support spaces. As we move up the larger stair, the second floor has the gymnasium, media center, and more the
physical education spaces in orange out back with more of those CT spaces that will be any public access um site. Those that are on the west side.
Then we go up to the third and fourth floor here. These are mostly academic environments are really a full loop. There's no no dead ends in the scheme. They all kind of wrap around that gymnasium. There's a couple
opportunities for light courts or light wells between the gymnasium and building the fifth floor. to be able to see that aerial view, but does a nice job of
being the probably even a little bit more compact of a school than than the previous which I think is a which is a benefit for think about that three minute travel
times for for our students. questions about this revision. Oh. >> Um, >> so looking at the program and focusing on geometry, the access roads, what we
see here, is that fixed and new or would there be possibility of creating a loop around the athletic fields in front of the property so that someone could either ton entering um take a I'll say
left shortest distance of field drop off and then wrap around um and exit by going around the field is I feel like that kind of geometry from a traffic flow perspective is helpful it creates a buffer that's kind of like catch basin
for for the flow you know uh is that a possibility or are we looking at something that's kind of nutable because of regulation I don't anything's immutable at this point in time. Um, but I'll let Erin chime in just we had this same conversation a little bit earlier today.
>> Yeah, I I think I think there's work to be done on the circulation. I think the goal when we design circulation is for flexibility. Uh, we like to prioritize those students riding buses and give them closest access to building entrance. Uh, but we also need to keep in mind the volume of single passenger
vehicles that come to the site two times a day every day. Um, so, so I, yeah, I I hope we can continue to work and refine this and yes, there's there's still there'll be changes to accommodate things like better. Yeah.
>> Other questions from the committee before we leave? Okay. >> And phasing is essentially the same strategy as the previous work. Build as much as we can on day one. Renovate pool
and then start pulling down strategically portions of existing school building the rest phase two. project third phase. >> Okay. Um any questions before we uh or
comments before we talk about uh paths forward or questions about path forward? Are we replacing three options with the two? >> So the motion that's on the agenda, let me let me just read it so that everyone
um can hear it. Um I know it's hard to see. Um what I after talking to the team about what these options were, um I put this together so that we could all like anchor to something. Um if we want to call this, we can. We don't have to. Um
but I thought it was important to put it on the agenda so that the public had some awareness that we might be making some changes. So whereas the project team recently learned about a deed restriction that limits the ability to build on parts of edge field and the football practice field, lifting the restriction
um would require an article 97 process. And whereas article 97 process would not be completed prior to the scheduled selection of a single preferred option on June 10th, 2026. Be it resolved that the comprehensive high school building committee will formally eliminate C2.2, C3.4 or and
D2.1 from further consideration. Be it further resolved that the Medford Comprehensive High School Building Committee will formally adopt the modifications represented in C2.2A, C3.4A for consideration. Be it also resolved
that the project team will align cost estimates to these newly adopted modifications 2.2A and 3.4A by the 527 meeting without incremental method. So to answer your question, yes, what this motion says is we are eliminating D1,
sorry, D2.1 and we are replacing C2.2 and C3.4 with these revised options. Um, and that would we would still have our code upgrade, we would still have our B option. Um, and we would still have one
D new build option, which is what the MSBA requires us to send. That is what the motion says. Questions? >> So, we're still going I want to Are we still going to go ahead and look into article 97 options? So, say we proceed,
we pick one of the C options go forward. We can still find out if there's a little relator in case we need it or say we don't bother time. >> Um, no. I mean we have to we still have to pursue some of that some portions of that for a variety of reasons um not
just about this but also there's like ongoing conversation about the secondary egress to the site and that is not anything that has to be decided before we pick a single option but it would absolutely require article 97. So, in my mind, what I want us to do is like have
a a bigger picture of what requires article 97 so that we're not sort of stopping and starting multiple times to sort of get where we need to go. So yes, we can certainly make these choices and if we get we have a path forward that
allows us to sort of shift that deed restriction or lift it in in exchange for something all of those things can happen as the project goes through schematic design um up until a certain point where the building has to actually
be locked into place. Um but I think we're talking about that as October. So um there is still some time to to vet and to pursue that um if we want to >> I don't want to agree on the agenda. Um
so I would suggest um delaying any vote on this until after we discuss TDP feedback. Um, I did read the partial set of event that
was shared. Um, I got through the whole thing. There's only one section that's underlined and it has to be a very an option. Um, I imagine to talk about it when you get to that part of the agenda. Um, I think that should what that says
should be part of the consideration what we carry forward. I think if we voted on this now in the absence of that. >> Are you making a motion to take the agenda out of >> No, >> I think
Yeah. Uh what does that mean exactly? >> It it means we're going to suspend the rules. Like people when we post an agenda, people expect that we're going to move in that order. And so when you move out of order like the committee has to vote that we're like fine with that
change of the order of the in sequence of the agenda. >> U so just to point clarification I guess process don't understand. Um so by recommending that we defer this until
later um suspending the agenda. you're you're sus you're suspending the roles to take an item on the agenda out of order and that that matters to the public who may be listening or may be planning to tune in. So >> yeah, I don't want to do that. >> Yeah, it would just be a motion to table
this. >> It's totally fine if that's what you want to do. It really is. >> I don't think it's necessary personally, but it's totally fine, too. >> I mean, I don't fully Okay. >> Procedural. >> Yeah, it it's just Robert's one of order. It's procedural. >> All right. I guess I I am making that
wrong. >> Okay. anything. As you can see, I'm nervous because I don't fully understand all this. >> Yeah, it's Robert's. It's Roberts from the border. And I know that's like sort of another thing to like learn as you're part of these public bodies. So, I totally get it. Not a problem. We can we
but we have to like take a vote and follow the rules so that when somebody comes, you know, behind us in six months and says, I wanted to be able to provide comment about that thing we were going to vote on and you took the agenda out of order and I didn't get to that. there's record that we're like knowingly
and consciously making that decision. >> Can we ask if anyone's here to make comment on this? >> We we can so we can take comment and then you can make a motion. But it sounded like you wanted to sort of switch gears right now. >> We no I'm unsure and now that I'm
learning about the consequences of what I said. Um I do want to give people to shout out pretty good turnout. Um, if anyone's here to talk about this specific item, um, I want them to have that opportunity. >> So, okay. I am not going to make a
motion. >> Okay. >> Perfect. Just hold that motion if you change your mind in the future. Um, was there somebody else that had a question? >> Well, no, I'd like a little Sorry. >> Yeah, go ahead, Brian. a little clarification because I sort of feel like maybe it'll layer onto what was
saying that if we are considering the the sea options may depending on how the article may breathe back into those spaces if the land swap works or things like that that to me that's a little different than keeping each
because it's kind of the same thing is that we're we're getting into those spaces if we literally say you have this feeling this I I think the difference in in as I crafted this is that there is no D2.1
path forward as an alternative. So we we would be knowingly adopting an item that absolutely positively requires article 97 versus adopting a revised version of something that could
like maybe like revert back to that like original like symmetry, right? But if it can, we still have we still have an option. The problem with D2.1 is it is entirely unveil. There is nowhere to put
it that it could exist if we had to like really live within the bounds of the deep restriction. >> And I guess my only thought is if the article 97 says in a hurry that yes, we can we can get there. We can do this.
Then I I would just be a little remiss if we didn't have an option that took full advantage of that. >> I never hear people talk about art article 97 in a hurry. Um I'm not attorney but as soon as you say that I
know it's a struggle I know it's a strong >> and they sort of ws right but certainly um any if there would if there had to be legislative action like the goal would be by end of July it would not be an advance um and so again we could do that but it
would have timing impacts for the project that uh we'd have to talk about. So I guess the the question is is there a way to move forward with it on the table and if if it's a time of impact just the reason why they >> we could choose not to eliminate it
tonight but I I also like in all the feedback of all the options. There's not a lot of popularity of that option either for me. And so as I've listened to everybody and I've seen how people like sort of react and refer to these things like for me anyway like there's
like nothing worth keeping there. Um but that's just my opinion and I'm one person on this committee so you certainly could do that too. That is absolutely an option. >> Like I'm just sort of looking for feedback. Nobody cares. I don't want to
>> Yeah. Sure. Nicole, did you >> Yeah, I was just gonna say I do wonder if that like and I totally hear what you're saying. I just wonder if that would just for people who are not as dialed in to be seeing something that may very well not be an option for
>> Are there any members of the public here in person or online that would like to speak? If you're um online, please use the raised hand feature and we will get to you. you're here in person, there is a public comment chair and we do need you to sit in it so that the people
online can hear you. Um folks are um asked to give their name and address for the record and comments are limited to three minutes. Is there anyone who would like? >> Nick, your name and address for the record, please. >> Sure. >> Good evening everyone. My name is Nick J. I live at 40 Rockville Road. So, I'm
very deeply disappointed with the restrictions that we missed. This is a really serious state and I think it's important that in moving forward, you know, obviously we want to kind of keep things going, but we also want to recognize World War II and sure going forward something like just doesn't
happen. Um, the reason I think this is a serious error is because this totally violates MSBA rules. I'll quote for you advisory under 45. At the preliminary design program phase, all site needs should be presented with potential
development restrictions identified. The MSBA requires a summary of the process under identify all potential issues and steps that are be taken to resolve them. So obviously we didn't comply with that and it's a problem because the MSBA regulations say that we don't comply
with it. the enabling statute regulation as well as the advisor's guidelines pose risk of losing support the project. So it's really important that we recognize this limitations moving forward in terms of moving forward though. Um honestly I
think this isn't really a legal decision. I think it's more political decision. You know what do we do here article 97 or um try to modify the lines. I I I think the motion actually is pretty simple. So I'm kind of leaning towards that but I honestly don't know. Um, I think this committee should spend
quite a deal of time deliberating over how do we move forward from here. I'd like to see accountability though for this mistake. I want to see full transparency and error. I'd like to know precisely when we restrictions. I heard in April they referenced earlier which is helpful, but I'd ultimately like some
sort of report from this committee discussing what went wrong here and proposing steps to make sure mistakes don't happen in the future. Um and also just some transparency on the costs of rectifying those mistakes. So for example, two designs proposed here that
are new to alterations. How much time and money was spent making those alterations? I think the public preserves their transparency and I think we also need to try to restore trust trust in this committee due to this terrible mistake. And I really hope
everybody just acknowledges it, moves forward and tries to do something reasonable to keep this going. work the ultimate here which is get students of our city learning facility. Thank you. >> Not seeing any hands online. There
anybody else who'd like to speak? >> Hi there. Hello directly 31 headway. Um, I basically just have a comment that with everything that's been going on and people are talking about
project deadlines, mistakes have been made. And my concern is we're rushing too quickly without really looking at everything. It seems like even people on the committee have questions but along the public who don't even know what to
ask. I think the dates that are here should be moved as we look at more information. Thank you. Thank you. >> For the record, >> Andrew Benson, deliver these things lane
in me. Um, couple questions for the architects. Um, the modular, right? Modulars, uh, they're about a thousand square foot, give or take, for modular classroom. >> A modular classroom. Yeah.
>> Probably closer to 700 to 800 somewhere in that range. They can be of any size, but they're limited by the trailer weight. >> Right. Right. Like a trailer 24 by 36, it's about 900 square foot, maybe 960. Let's call it a thousand just for ease
of moving around. Uh 52 of these modulars, right? Uh in option A, where would those modulars go? So there was we go way back. We literally looked at a couple different locations on the site where
you could just physically place them before you get to any of the considerations of where would you want to place them. Um, so there's a limited number of areas and I think we were looking exclusively at a two-story modular situation because of all the various competing site interests on a very tight site. The fact that we still
have to educate students here while construction is ongoing. So that drove us I'd say the most viable site um again ignoring all other considerations is on the parking lot to the south um because it's the closest run for utilities coming into the site. It's the easiest
um for um access around and not disrupting. does take away the most viable parking area on the overall site. So, um it has a downside to it. There's there are some other options as well, but um it's it's not completely blue sky in terms of where we can position it.
And now, um well, so that that option works with the needed at the moment, right? the sorry the >> well so I'm picking up on another uh school committee member talked about can we actually you know use um the
protective space as lay down space so unlikely but the modulars because they're going to be around for a while they can't in you know in the earlier schemes uh they'd have to they'd have to comply
with that feed restriction >> yeah I think we need land council to weigh in there. I mean, they are temporary buildings by nature. They're not something permanent that's getting there. We haven't gone through that exact um situation in our experience, but I could see it actually going one or
two ways um pretty easily in terms of how the discussion played up because they are temporary as opposed to permanent structures. >> And uh so let's go with the idea that they're on the parking lot to the south there. Um,
have you all thought about uh, you know, building a a structure like a steel structure and then putting the modulars on top so that you preserve the parking and then you put the modulars on top of a steel structure.
>> So you would park underneath the modulars. >> So no change the parking lot. You would put some columns up, throw some beans around, pour some concrete, put the modulars two stories. >> Yeah. on top of this, you know, uh, deck, let's say.
>> So, we haven't considered that approach in particular. I think there would be a there's a a cost sort of price point to jump up there. You just have more stairs and elevators and that type of thing. It's not impossible. Um, certainly, but we haven't necessarily considered that particular scenario,
>> right? And your head up. I'm sorry. >> Bummer. I was just getting to some good stuff. Well, because I'll have later. Can I come back later tonight? How often can I come? >> Please feel free to email your questions. They're good ones and we're happy to answer them. >> Yeah.
>> Um, please feel free to email your questions, but we people are allowed to speak one time on each topic. So, >> Got it. Okay, cool. >> So, the last thing I just want to say like I think that the option A and B are still probably the most sustainable from
a embodied carbon standpoint. and that would be the greenest option. So, if we're concerned at all about being green in our progressive city, those are the options we should be really. Thank you.
>> Um Zoe Musos online. She stick her hand down. >> Are you guys waiting? >> Sorry. >> Please. >> Can you hear me? >> We can. >> Okay.
>> Zoe Moses 33 Johnson A. Apologies for my bad connection. I think my kid is like streaming something enormous right now. Anyway, uh I just I I have two questions, but first I wanted to um thank the the full
team here for like quickly um like creating a ver like alt versions of C2 or whichever ones they are and C3, 4A, whatever the alt versions that we saw because I think that was really I
thought we were going to be down to looking at just three options and we actually still have five um that are very doable and you know some of them to me look really amazing. So I appreciate the quick work. I know that you are all under a lot of pressure and this is a
very tense situation and I am looking forward to hearing you know how we got here and making sure that we we move forward and and nothing like this happens again. So anyway, thank you for that. I wanted to um follow up on a question I think Paul had brought up um
and then ask another one. One is just when when you do the bigger presentation next week with the the money the money the presentation um if if it is appropriate for that meeting or at a meeting soon after. Could we get a little understanding of what the parking situation might look
like during the build? As I've said before, my kid's not going to have the benefit of this amazing building, but he's going to be going to school there. We're going to be going to sports events there and orchestra events there and just events there in general. So, we'd like to get I think the community might
like to hear kind of what the world will be like while we're building the building and then also sort of understanding what is going to happen to the playing fields that are there now while the new building is being built. So, will they be playing more at Hormemell?
Will they be playing at Playstead? Like what what might that look like? just kind of a fuller picture of the life of those groups of students who are going to be learning and playing and the community during the during the build. Thank you.
>> Um so I'm going to let the project team feel most of your question, but um yes, I agree that there is a need for that kind of conversation about life and construction in general. I don't think it will happen in June because we're
still talking about many options. So there would be like many lives to talk about. But as soon as there is a single option, I think that becomes like much easier to plan for and manage and we can definitely dedicate a meeting to that. So I'll let Matt um jump in as well.
>> Yeah. And I'll just say, Zoe, that it's completely understandable that everyone wants to know that information as soon as possible. Um and it's just that we are a little bit early in terms of being able to provide good credible information that will help people understand how the site is going to operate. All the things that you
described though are potentials that are on the table in terms of um field activities happening elsewhere in the city. We have started those conversations um with the athletic director um and the district offices as well to try to figure out what opportunities are there. Um but until we
know specifically what option we're looking at and then um sort of how the phasing is going to play out, it's difficult to provide those concrete answers. We will get them out to everybody just as soon as we possibly can because we understand the importance of that for everybody's daily lives, especially um those that are sort of
intersecting with the school here on a regular basis. >> Thank you, Matt. See other questions from people on the line. Is there anyone else who would like to speak? Please come on up.
>> Let's see. >> I better watch my name and address the record, please. Sharon Diaso. I live on Mass Avenue circuit road. Good evening, everyone. Um, I'm sorry I was a little late. Um I was waiting for a high school student
ching my mom and he had a baseball game. So that but um I've been gone tomorrow. Um I'm just asking for anyone who will be gone and I'm the neighbor's messenger today. No new
um could I ask anyone who's on the board or is it a commission? Could you just raise your hand so I could just know who where the deciding board is? Are you asking who the voting members are? Who? Yeah. who is um you know who's instructing all of the ideas etc.
>> these are the voting members the project team >> okay >> is being paid by the city of Medford okay to to lead the project build the idea the options etc. Okay, the other questions were um how many I noticed that one or two people raised their hand before they were architects and uh
question was addressed from architect um how many architects are there um on the vote just one voting or they're the most design some of us on the committee we're not doing this okay so how many on the committee then who will be voting um
actually were involved with raising school built schools two architects. >> Okay. And um engineers >> is an engineer. >> Okay. >> All of the information about the team's
credentials are is on our website if you want the answer. So also one of the questions was um well actually one of my first questions and my neighbors also was um u about eight or 10 years ago Winchester was involved in a similar situation because um they actually were
getting different than they thought and of course Winchester sort of meaning you know lovely and more calling up town their um their residents were very concerned about their their children. What happened was and I know this is
back they opened belts so they were within a building um that was found and some of that space wasn't used and they had an extra building on the side that was about a half the size of this structure that was empty. So um I think
it very proven that everybody knows too we're the best the best site to look to follow up with you know the results of all of these meetings in the square footage that we really think you might need to think out because I have a friend also whose sister teaches in
another nearby school and um they're saying their enormments are all predictably down for the next five to six years. So our question is how soon is this expected to begin if one of these auctions does pass? And in the
meantime, we understand the electrical um updates really really need to be done. And of course any place you go to work on public especially teaching the first question they ask you what is the most imminent thing in your classroom is the safety of your student. Get about your lesson plans to safety. So, we're
wondering how bad the electrical is and will that be addressed before any meaningful construction goes on after Mr. Attorney Gulio's uh presentation we made tonight. I'm just wondering because that might be an
interfering factor. >> Um, okay. Let let me see if I can try to answer some of your questions. The there's a part of the Metro Public Schools website is dedicated to this project. So to answer your question about where to go for updates that is
the place that is the source of information that is coming from the project team that is vetted and credible. So, if you have questions, that's a good place to look. On that site, there is um a detailed enrollment study that was performed by the MSBA to make sure that we in fact don't
overbill. And ultimately we reached an agreement with them about the size of this student population that essentially looks at our target student population and makes a modest increase which was
backed by the data around um real estate pattern and birth rates and all of those good things here. So, it was a a a an independent vetted study done by the MSVA that we had to supply information to, but that is all on our project
website. Um, and you can look there for any of that information. Um, in terms of the electrical question, I I think we probably might have to get back to you on that one because I'm not sure I understand the question and we can talk about that later. Um, but if the
question is, is the building safe for students right now? The answer is yes. we we do what we need to do to keep this building moving forward. And frankly, that's getting harder and harder every single day. So, um something does have
to change in this building in order for us to be able to um continue to provide u a suitable environment for kids. >> Thank you. So, in other words, it could be that the electrical if needed could be pursued before any reconstruction is
started. In other words, to build to build it up to code, I mean would be >> well a code upgrade of this building is what option A is and that cost that will process over $500 million. Say code upgrade is not a simple endeavor. Um but it is an option this committee is able
to consider. Yes. >> Okay. >> Great. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Thanks. Um, and then I the other question um that you had actually um fed off of a a question from the resident um who spoke first and um we have received
a detailed timeline from SMA. They have been hired by the city of Medford. They've provided a detailed timeline of what happened. Um and we will h I'll happily post that on the site tomorrow. It was received this afternoon like at 4:30. Um, and you all can read that and
digest that how you consume that how you'd like. Um, and we are in conversation, the mayor, the superintendent and I along with the project team to make sure that there is accountability for this mistake. It was a mistake. Um, it was a mistake that we
will hold people accountable for and those things um, often are quite complicated and take time. But we we agree that there was a huge mistake made here 100%. and figuring out how do we move forward with a timeline that serves the kids and this project while pursuing
accountability is what we're trying to do. >> Thank you. Welcome. >> There anybody else who would like to weigh in? Okay, seeing none, seeing none on Zoom. Um,
Luke, would you like to move forward before we talk about how to address this? Would you like to talk about the PDP comments? You like to take that out of the order so that we can back to this discussion? >> Yes. >> Okay. So, a motion to suspend the role
and take agenda item four out of order by Luke. Is there a second? >> I'll second. >> Seconded by Dr. I'll call the role. >> Jenny Grant, yes. Mayor Lo, >> yes. >> Dr. Yes. >> Mart. Yes. Bowen.
>> Yes. >> Pen. >> Yes. >> Libby Brown. Yes. >> Marissa Desmond. Maria Dorsy. Yes. Brian Hinger. >> Yes. >> Emily Lazaro. Paul Malone. >> Yes. >> Aron, >> yes. >> Luke Pry,
>> yes. >> 12 in the affirmative. >> You're on the negative, three absent. The uh rules are suspended to take item number four out of order. Um so the next
topic is the MSBA's PDP comments. Um and the team's response to those comments. So I will turn over to the team. So I will take this one. Um I just want to make sure everyone's aware. So the PDP um comments that we get from the
MSBA is a regular part of their process that we go through. They will provide comments on every single submission that we give to them throughout the course of the project. Um so this is just the first iteration of this activity for this project as we've gone through. Um,
we did get the comments from the MSBA on five, so on. So, May 5th, um, which I think was two Tuesdays before. Um, and we're given 10, uh, business days to respond. So, a total of two weeks. And, um, we did respond yesterday to sort of stay within that time frame of what they
were looking for. When the MSBA provides those comments to us, they group their comments into two different documents, attachment A and attachment B. Um, attachment A is sort of like the catchall um for all the majority of their comments and they're looking at
everything there um from um budget topics um to finding where they are schedule comments um coordination between the ED plan and the space
summary um as well as um any items um or statements that u we need to be including within the PSR submission. and they ask for a lot of acknowledgements um of their rules and regulations and that's all part of attachment A. Attachment B um is specifically comments
on the space summary and that's interesting and important because what they do there is they start to give the district an idea of what spaces may be reimburseable um and may not be reimburseable. So when we start talking about um the city of Medford's reimbursement percentage um overall and
what that dollar value is, it's the first insight that we get into MSBA's um thinking on those particular topics. What they give us at this first stage is not final by any means. And it's really an initial um sense of what might be there from a reimburseable standpoint
and there will be additional feedback and conversations that we have at the subsequent PSR submission and then going all the way forward to schematic design which is when all those things are locked in. That's the general breakdown between attachment A and B. Um
just a note that um the educational plan um is going to be modified in some cases by the responses um that were provided um as part of the PDP comments and this process that we went through. We don't provide the updated educational plan until we submit the PSR. Um and at that
point it's a very prescriptive approach. They want a redmarked version so they can see the changes that are there but they also want a final finished version that does not show any changes. So that will be sort of the formal ed plan moving forward in the process. Um and then one comment that the MSB also made
and I'm not sure if this is what Luke was alluding to earlier was that they requested a school only cost option be provided. Um and so that's really what they're what they're asking for is something that just represents the grades 9 to 12 um school related programs. Um so not say the district
offices um or other programs that are here and not necessarily the preschool program as well. beep that would be brought here um um from outside the actual building. So that particular request um is not something that was challenging for us to
respond to in terms of creating um we actually have to provide them a specific submittal on that. Um I think by the end of this week or Monday of next week which is Memorial Day. So we're just going to get it to them by the end of this week. Uh but it's essentially taking all those program alternates that we already had included in the PDP cost
estimate and that we repeated in the PSR cost of estimate. We just pulled those out and then that is the option that the MSBA is looking for. Um so that that level of transparency and information that they just want to make sure is clear for everybody in the community. Um was really already cooked into how we
were estimating things. Um, and so we're just pulling it out at their request so it can be viewed a little bit more easily. And then attachment B, um, again is the comments on the space summary. Um, they did, um, ask us in some cases to shift, um, spaces around between the different
space categories, which is generally just a sign that they're looking to have something designated as reimburseable space versus non-reimburseable space. That's really the intent behind these shifts that we're um, asked to be doing. Um and then the space summary, we did um
include an updated version as part of the responses. Really the the only changes in the version that we provided as part of the comment response were the updates that were made at the April 27th school building and committee meeting. The last time this group got together to reduce some spaces out just to provide
that update to the MSBA. Um and then we will submit the space summary again with the PSR report. um that will actually include all the revisions made um that were in the comment responses. If they ask us to do something, we will do it. We'll make those changes in the space summary. We give it back to them. Um and
then just a word about the process in terms of these comments. Um it's not a lot of time to actually um orchestrate the responses to um I don't know how many pages we had um in terms of comments before they were added in. Maybe 26 different pages. >> A lot. the the size and the quantity of
the comments is really commensurate with the size and the complexity of the project and this is a large complex project. So it wasn't we were we're not under the impression that we would just be getting like five pages of comments back for this. Um so that is sort of typical for our experience working through these. Um really the comments
that were dealing with the educational plan um were answered by the district um we were working Dr. Talba and Dr. Lucy and their entire teams in terms of pulling in other um involved parties if it's a director um or some other sort of curriculum question. We actually went to
the content expert on that particular topic. Um but those responses were written by the district. Um there were some that were more um related to sort of the mechanics and the logistics of the submission. Um and so Leftfield and SMA teamed up um to provide those responses. there was a collective
response and review process um from all three groups um as we went through it. So I just wanted to reinforce that it's a collaborative effort. It is not an SMMA just writing out all the answers and sending it off to the MSBA. It's something that was um really a a collaborative spirit just as the educational plan was um as we were
putting it together and just as the rest of the the documentation being put together was collaborative. Um and yes, it did go back uh yesterday. So that's that's really the overall summary. Um I know that the the comments themselves the responses were distributed out to
the building committee so that you can see all the individual comments um that were um submitted and the responses to the >> there any questions? >> Uh so I want to commend the team on a thorough job. Um there was a lot to get
through and I cheated through this u um so but I did want to make a kind of a statement and this is more philosophical like 30,000 foot um we're in a three-way constraint problem um
one is the MSPA that you want scope discipline and it's obviously partial feedback um shared yesterday. More on that later. Another constraint are I'll say community advocates who want expansive city functions.
Um and then the third constraint u which will emerge uh is taxpayer affordability and we'll hear more about it next week and quantities data that relevant to that state. Um and uh you'll learn
whether they support the full vision uh of I'll say the student um the current EDP response package shows the district is trying to hold these three equities together simultaneously. So uh whether or not remain sustainable uh is probably
the defining question of summer and fall. Um, as an SBC, I think we're approaching a critical moment where we'll need to determine whether this project evolves into a more conventional fundable high school project with strong MSBA support and participation or a
larger civic campus concept that uh may incur historically high local uh responsibility. Um the majority of this SBC has not seen approval to feedback from the NSBA and I asked that we all seen them. Um we've
seen uh detachment A and B and from what I can tell there's at least a cover letter as well. Um cited yeah it's cited attachment and there may be other things. I'm just
asking that that we see it. Um and I hope we get it soon. Um, if it's a public document, it may be subject to a record request. So, there is some >> stop you right there. Is there a reason why that wasn't provided?
>> I I I'll go back and take a look at the document, but I thought I had sent everything out in one concise file, but I'll double check the file and make sure, but >> Okay. >> Okay. Yeah, there's no reason it's not being withheld. >> Okay. I I've only seen the um the red
line in line responded uh attachment A and B. Um so so last week uh through um the the weekly we learned SBA wants us to completely at least uh control focused
concept that stage caught my eye. Um the SBA's been looking at uh PDP material from us since late February. There've been iterations and after all that back and forth they're still telling us to listen something that something is at
least not 9 to 12 focused high school conson they uh went to I'll say you know uh bureaucratically the extreme length of underlining it it's the only passage that's underlined in both pages
um that gets my attention um so you know uh let's kind of give serious um scrutiny and do a good job there. Um and consider including that as part of our options since message at
least from MSBA seems well. Um I think time is on our side. Uh and I'll say I've done a lot of research. Um I bore my own opinions from that research and perhaps others would draw different
but um I believe the MSBA values community readiness over landscape records. Um and they will give us the time to get things right. Um and for next week um I know Mayor Lur will have
a death capacity uh presentation for us. Um I I I do ask that listen for that. We we wait for it. In fact, we got to wait a week, but we need to hear it before we make any big
decisions uh regarding concepts and sizes and things like that. Um I think that uh we look for voters and I think the MSBA will have patience with us. um as uh we allow the natural um evolution
of the projects to take place and it takes you know I'll say different time scales within communities um I believe that um probably should um so that's all I want to say I would like to see the full feedback um I do appreciate the
work that was done I thought it was very good um and that's all I have a question >> respond to the I guess I would caution against reading too much into the request for seeing the high school only
option. We have been seeing that on recent larger high school projects. So don't feel as if Medford is being singled out. Um and I I guess I want to commend the committee for structuring the cost information in such a way as
that you have actually been looking at those numbers in that way already. So just to say you're not being as Medford are not being singled out that request. >> Okay. Thank you.
>> Any other question um saying does the MSBA care if we have all the like the administrative weighing or early childhood if that's outside of the
scope of their work I'm assuming that we're saying if we include it Medford is going to pay for it. Yeah. So they don't care if it's there, right? >> Yeah. When we spoke with the MSBA and about this comment specifically, they said, "You gave us all those options and
they they're all the same, you know, essentially from a space standpoint." So they said, "We want to see, you know, an option that uh eliminates those community aspects and what you know, a caden or uh 9 to 12 uh high school would
look like." So they and we asked we asked that question, you know, uh about the community spaces and and yeah, they they said they won't tell us what we can and can't build. They just want to be um they just want to make sure that we have
looked at uh you know several different options and in this case. And does that mean that we have to have like one of these options like of our five or six an option that's signed out that doesn't have those faces? Is that what they're saying? >> Yes.
>> Okay. >> Dr. And do they want to know from the city, the district, this committee, what happens to those community facing organizations if they're not included in that plan?
or do they not care where those things would go? >> I think that's more what Medford cares about than the MSBA. It's certainly like they're aware of that reality, but I think what they want is that the community understands if if programs that are here are being unhoused in some
way, where are they going? Right? I think that's the big question that needs to be answered in that scenario um outside of the context of where it is. And I would say that um in our conversations about some of these things um
in order to have a good conversation about unhousing things that belong that reside here right now a there has to be a place for them to go and b there has to be an assessment of what that space is its availability and its need rights and its costs. And so for example, like
there's lots of energy around everybody having an idea about what happens to ferts when the fertest program comes up here. In order for us to responsibly like take something off the table because we're going to put it first toughs, we need to know what it would
cost to do that which would include a separate project outside of the funding of this project and it would require remediation of that building to fit its next purpose. Right. So there are high schoolers in that building right now. So I' I've seen the community talk about
wanting to put the ECC there. It's first of all not big enough from a uh square footage perspective. And second of all um in addition to ADA requirements and uh you know space classroom spaces like there's a number of other considerations
in making a building small enough for kids this big right to inhabit such a building. So, for for us to think about as community, if we're going to unhouse something, we have to have a place to put them. Um, if we're going to unhouse the kids corner, if we're going to
unhouse the welcome center, if we're going to unhouse central office, like there has to be an alternative. And what I would like to see this committee do is acknowledge that we shouldn't be making decisions about removing things from this project and so we know where it can go and that that would be a more cost
effective option for the city than to just sort of like test some things out to feel good right now because it's not going to feel good to have to to to have to pay more to do something later. So, what I understand is that we have time
to make all of those decisions with real data um as we look into the summer and into the fall. And we have time until October to make those decisions. So, I I would like to see us use that time to have those conversations and make those
decisions based on data rather than um sort of reading into something that the MSBA is saying and interpreting it in a way like it is it's more common than it's ever been for them to be asking for a 9 to 12 only schools so that it is
there is a clear cost comparison in the project that people can can understand and latch on to. So, I don't think any of those things have to happen before we make a decision on a single preferred option. And I think all of those things get easier when we have a single
preferred option. So, we don't have to do anything on any particular timeline. But every day that we wait is another day that the roof on the pool is held on by straps. Every single day that we wait is another day where the cost escalates.
And I do think this committee needs to figure out how to hold like all of these complexities and not let perfect be the enemy of the good. We can make a decision about a single option in my opinion on June 10th as we decide as we have previously outlined and we can
still continue to make decisions into October and as we have said all along we will not know the cost of this project. So anyone who tells you they know what the cost of the project is they are making assumptions. We will not know the final cost of this project until the
construction manager comes on board, schematic design is complete and that is February of next year on on schedule. So, I I think we have time to do everything that the community answer all these questions about how much things will cost and could something go to
Curtis Stuffs or is there some other space that nobody knows about in the community that could house some piece of this and that would meet the needs of those of the programs. Like, we have time to do all of those things. um we
don't have to do any of those things between now and June. Um we have a choice to make a single preferred design decision by June which is our previous exceeding timeline. So that's those are
the options before us. We can figure all that out after June. Um I'm curious though because some of the studies I assume anything was looking at what staffs like that's all out of scope of that design. So we s have to do with a side parallel study, right?
>> Yep. >> I wonder if we have the idea and the work on such a project would also be outside of right the cost of this project, right? Exactly. Seems like the most critical piece of anyone really needs right now is like again their
preliminary cost but the cost difference. It just sounds like we already have that, you know. Yeah, it would look smaller on the site, but that's that's what the difference is. It's just what what's the cost difference, right? So, >> we already have that. Yes, we do. Share.
>> Yes, we have we have the cost differences which we've been pretty transparent about what each um option costs out at. And then today we did get I think it was sent to to the committee but late in the day we did get um cost estimates on what would be
covered by the MSBA on in each option. Um each of the three options for each option we have and what the city would have to provide through through exclusion or or otherwise. So we are we have rough we have estimates although I
agree it's not we're not going to get a final number until we uh do the months worth of work. So we are talking about a timeline for residents especially since the financial presentation will be next week with lack of debt capacity and you
know impacts to taxpayers. Um, we will then have a ton of work to do over the summer and the those space potential space reductions and all the motions I think are going to happen after Labor Day through October. So, I I understand that. Um, but it makes me feel better that we are going to do a financial
presentation next week. So, that this committee and the public knows everything that's on the table and then we also have a timeline on the hard work that has to be done. John, just a a question. When we're talking about the 9 through12 option, is
the Curtis stuff Curtis tough still included in that 95 option? Okay. Yes. Thank you. Um, we are back to uh whether we want to uh
take a vote on this motion to formally adopt the alternatives that we saw tonight. Um, so if there is a motion, I'm happy to motion one more. Um, sorry, just on
this. I I I have a feeling this will potentially be approved and I just want to state that it is all happening very quickly in last minute and I know that the public may have additional questions on the alternates as well as this committee. So that I just want to make
sure that our our team is ready, willing, and able to answer questions over email and at future meetings. I know it's a lot to digest in a very short amount of time. Um, and so I just want to make sure that the public and this committee has time to ask questions at future meetings and behind the scenes
on um, these alternate modifications. >> We have an upcoming community forum in about a and a two week maybe two weeks from today. >> Thank you. Make that motion to read. Yeah. M to adopt the proposed resolution. Motion to adopt a proposed
resolution by Nicole. Is there a second? By Libby. Questions about the motion. >> Will there need to be another motion to accept to have a design that's just 912?
>> That's already been handled like the project team has the costs and can prevent that. So, is it one of those? >> It should be like seeing a plan that's a smaller building, right? that I think that's what we're saying. >> Correct. The costs are available now and
we'll get into that in our next agenda item. >> Does has the MSBA asked for a visual of set option >> as part of the PSR submission? Yes. And we have started on that for what they want as a response to their comments. Um they'll be accepting the dollar value
update. um as well as just a written description of what it would be something that would be at the level of the PDP submission is what they're looking for initially. >> Okay. >> A question of the 912 request. Um have they
specified that it be a an entirely new build uh or a rental ad? Have does the team um selected one of those concept? It has to be one or the other, right? Uh so so no they did they were not
specific. I think they specifically wrote it that like it could be any of them is how they actually termed it something along those lines. Um not to be quoted per but that the intent was that the design team in the district can sort of select that from just because it can really be applied to any of them.
It's not like option specific. we chose to look at D1.1 because it's not a deed restricted option and so it has that benefit to it and it's just it's the simplest thing to sort of conceive of in terms of how it doesn't like impact the existing construction. Um but again we
can take those programs out of any one of the options from a um an estimating standpoint pretty easily um especially with the cost estimating analysis document that allows you to sort of toggle in between different options. >> Yeah. And you'll see in in the cost
update tonight how we have it broken out moving forward. Um that will show a clear kind of 9 to2 school what the existing programs in the school are uh you know what's here today and
then you know all the other alternates that are being proposed to bring here. So that we'll have like and you'll see in just a second. Um just so that's very clear everybody understands what a 9 to12 school would cost, what a 9 to2 with the programs in the building today
would cost and then what the what a building with all the desired programs would be and then that way we can have all that information readily available for everyone. So as a point of clarification, we're hearing is uh there needs to be at
least one uh the project team uh you know in the interest of time and please looked at 311 um as a starting point but I didn't hear anything that excluded the possibility also a 912 rental ad. Um there's
benefits there. gentleman talked about a body carbon. I think it makes sense to preserve some spaces. I have affinity for solids are hard to replace spaces. Um and so in the future we could talk I
want to confirm that we can talk about a 91 reno ad um concept and at some point I would expect that uh a new build and a rental ad would have identifier
um whether some numeric or just want to confirm that those expectations are are reasonable and uh heavy Yeah. And I I think um the the way I see this playing out is the costs exist for
that labor to exist on any of the existing options. So the way the cost spreadsheet is built, if you wanted to take any of our options and say what would it look like if it was just 9 to2, you can do that right now. So that that
exists. If we're saying that we want a different set of visuals than D, like we can do that before the the before the PSR submission, but we also can pick an option and still keep talking about that
as a choice as we talk about that kind of space reduction, all the programming, all of that is going to continue to be talked about. So, let's say we pick one of the C options that we talked that we just adopted. We could go into July and into August and be like, you know what,
we have another great home for the MFN and everyone loves it and it's not going to cost us more money as a community and so we're happy with that so we're going to take that out. And then we could say and we're happy with you know a location for something else and you know why don't we just forget about all the other
programs that are here and just do an we can do all of those things with a single option. So right now there's costs across all of the options, but we always have that choice until October to take whichever option we choose and continue to modify it up to and including getting
to just a 90 school. >> Okay. Yeah. And it on the spreadsheet that's all. >> Yeah. >> All right. Uh and uh just another clarification. If this motion were approved in its current form, we would
have a 111 We would have C22A with C34A and then this TB or a D11 that reflects a 912 >> in the original D1. >> Well, A is just
>> and the original and you have B >> and B >> and B. So a total of six. >> Okay. So if this motion passes, we have a total of six >> from that. Okay. Thank you. Any other questions?
>> I mean really you have five options and then you have a 9 to 12 only version of four of them. So you have nine options. >> It wasn't that wasn't apparent to me earlier. >> Yeah. So you Yeah, we would have nine options. Okay. Um at that point
>> if you're considering those nines as well as discrete options I I see like in my mind I just see them as choices that we can make across five options for actually but because you can't do that for break but
forward break. Yeah. Any other questions before call the roll? Okay. Denny Graham. Yes. Mayor Londo Karm. Yes. Dr. Guzy. Yes. Pardon? Yes. Phil Bowen, yes. Pen Lord, >> yes. >> Libby Brown, >> yes.
>> Desmond. Maria Dorsy, >> yes. >> Brian Hillard, >> yes. >> Emily Lazaro. >> Paul Malone, >> yes. >> Paul Morell, >> yes. >> Aaron, >> yes. >> Luke Fryner, >> yes. >> 13 affirmatives, they're on the
negative, >> two absent. Um, the motion is approved. Um, okay. Next item on our agenda is the PSR cost estimate. So try back over to team up. Just moving up.
>> All right. Um so just to kind of recap, these are the six options uh that we provided uh to the cost estimators for the preferred schematic report estimate. Uh you will
notice that these are the C2.2 and C3.4 options, not the A that were were just adopted. >> Uh we do not have cost for those options yet. However, they are very similar. They're exactly the same square footage.
There's not major changes in, you know, the constructibility of the shift. So we feel pretty confident that the the numbers that you'll see for those C options will be very similar for these adjustments. We actually feel that because we're bringing the building further uh south from from the from
Edgely Field, there's less sight work uh and less rock removal. Uh so we are asking the estimators to take a look and see how that um could potentially adjust uh the cost of these revised options. uh but we think it would be um in a
positive direction in terms of reducing cost. So uh we will you know make sure we have all that information. We should have it uh before the meeting next week. Um but I just wanted to kind of point that out as we look through these. Um
so going to the next slide. Uh I'll just do a quick explanation of this uh so everybody kind of understands how it works. Um the options are across the top and then down the side are kind of those different scenarios that I was just
explaining. So that top uh row is uh for the high school only. Uh just like a nomenclature thing. Uh TPC is total project cost. Um so these are all total project cost. This is um you know the the value of the project that would have
to be passed at a debt exclusion. Uh so uh sorry, not as a debt exclusion on the warrant. Uh and then we'll be we'll be factoring what the actual debt exclusion will be as we move forward. Um the
second row is the total co total project cost of the high school plus the current programs that exist in the high school today. This scenario also assumes a renovation of the pool and the gym uh in the A, B,
and C options uh and assumes a new pool uh in the in the D options. The next line is uh everything in the in the row above just uh all of the programs that uh were being proposed in
the SOI uh and through the the PDP phase. Uh the only difference here will be the C option. Uh I'm sorry. Um sorry um um
I need to double check the D 2.1 uh with the no pool. Um the uh and then the very last row is uh what the total total project cost would be with all programs and in pool uh in
the uh in the D options. Um for simplicity and looking at these uh as it compared to PDP uh that second row is is
uh I'm sorry that third row is what we were basing the the PDP estimates off of. Um which was all of the programs uh a renovation of the pool. Um I'm sorry. It should be a pool uh or the
D option. Um so we went back and tried to compare how that um looked versus the uh versus the PDP cost. Um so you'll you'll see the comparisons here and I'll highlight you know some of
the real big obvious uh changes. uh in the 811 option uh we had initially uh during PDP been around a $436 million project that has increased uh to a $528 million project. That is largely due to
uh an addition of a radon system for the foundation. We had not included anything in PDP but felt it was important to include something. We're not 100% sure if it will be required. Um but we we wanted to keep it uh in the cost for now
and if we feel we can take it out later on we can do so. Uh but that was a big part of the change in the A11 option. Uh B21 didn't see a ton of changes overall. um we're right around the same uh
overall total project cost um with a slight increase um in 12 million. Uh I think a lot of the the B21 um is just the again the complexity and the phasing that comes along with with an
addition renovation. This does include the modulars because we cannot uh renovate the building without um displacing students. So this is the only option that is currently assuming modulars aside from the A11 option.
Uh C2.2 uh previously was around 825 million that has come down to 796. Uh this is largely due to some of those space reductions um that we saw over the
uh SBC meeting on April 27th. Um we uh like I said we did uh remove the modular uh classrooms from this option. Um when we looked at whether modulars could potentially uh you know save money
by reducing the length of the project it actually uh does not. So we actually feel that the no modulars versus modulars um is not a cost saver. So proceeding without modulars um is the better route um even from a cost
standpoint. So that was positive to see the C3.4 4 option um also stayed right around the same uh increase slightly from 803 to 8:14. Uh this is largely due to uh the durations.
It is a longer project than C2.2. Uh so you have a bit of increased uh time uh as well as all of the general conditions and requirements that that come with uh constructing uh the actual project.
The biggest changes from uh cost reduction uh we did see in the D11 and D21 options. D11 uh was originally up around 864 uh and has come down to 766.
Um uh this is a this is a more clear kind of representation of the space reduction. Uh being able to construct this building um in more of its entirety on the lower
part of the pro uh of the site. Um didn't see as incre as much increase in phasing. Um so the um it's why some of the D options or why the two D options are seeing a larger increase in new construction
simpler from a construction standpoint. Uh and and and so the space reductions that we saw previously um are are more obvious in in the new build options. Uh and then D2.1 uh we were up around 830
and it came down to 78 uh 783 um and similar to to D11. Um you know this was the simplest construction project but given the vote we had held tonight it's it's no longer being considered.
So, um I will also note that the PDP costs at the top are slightly different than what uh had been shown on like at all of our community forums and all of the events that we are going to. That is
because during the PDP phase we were carrying different parking options and in some of the options we pulled out those parking options and just did uh uh great parking to match what we priced
in the base bid for PSR. Uh so that's why those numbers are slightly lower than what um has been shown uh over the last few months or so. And that was just so that we could do this comparison and and kind of see where we uh where we are
at compared to we where we were in PDP using the same size uh building in the same scope. So uh it's usually a question that we get is how does this compare to the last phase. So um that's why we pulled this together and why some of those PDP numbers are slightly
different than than what you uh have been seeing out on the public. Um, so we talked about earlier about MSBA being like agnostic if we have those programs and they're not going to reimburse for the building. Would those have to be pulled out for a separate
debt exclusion like the pool or those can be included in the >> Yeah, that's specific to the pool as far as like and and a new specifically. It does not need to be a separate debt exclusion in the ad. So the floor is just like existence.
>> Yes. >> Other questions. Okay. Uh that is the end of our agenda. Is there a motion to adjurnn? So >> mayor seconded by Nicole call the roll.
Jenny Graham. Yes. Mayor Log. Yes. Dr. >> Yes. >> Yes. >> Yes. Lord. >> Yes. >> Libby Brown. >> Yes. Dorsy. >> Yes. Brianard. >> Yes. >> Emily Lazaro. >> Paul Malone. >> Yes. >> Morell.
>> Yes. >> Yes. >> Fner. >> Yes. 13 in the affirmative, zero on the negative, and two absent. The meeting is adjourned.