Doherty Memorial building committee: vote (?) on preferred option

Tonight the Doherty building committee is supposed to vote on a preferred option. Some of the language being used to describe the meeting is making some of us wonder if that is what is going to happen. 
In any case...posting as we go once it starts. The presentation is not online as yet, but it will be here.
I'd say this is a bit more of a mixed crowd...not only or even mostly current Doherty parents or even near-future Doherty parents. Let's say it is still not representatives of the demographics of either Doherty or the city of Worcester, however. 

DPW Commissioner Moosey "will make a vote tonight, but it's really just a summary of needs of the school" not what the building will look like or anything like that
To architect: presentation, then building committee can ask questions, then the public can ask question, then the vote
"since May we have had over five public meetings" (over five?)
"we have a collective objective: to find the best solution for Doherty...that we can, within the parameters that we have"
"Doherty Memorial High School is iconic; we all know that"
"so proud to be a part of the team that is analyzing the options for this project"
MSBA: have to authorize three option: code upgrade; addition/renovation/new build
Recommendation will be that we keep all of the sites on the table through the preferred solution phase
aka: they are not going to decide anything at all tonight, unless the building committee rejects the recommendation of the architects 
Spanish translation was just offered, but from the back; now they're listing languages
Next phase will be the preferred solutions report; looking in much greater detail; vote by the end of the year for single choice to be developed further until next summer; then is developed to vote on funding
expect to have construction begin late 2021/early 2022; occupation fall 2024 with site work to follow
"under half the size of what is necessary for the programs envisioned for the new programs" (due to additional Ch.74 programs)
very limited space for special education
preliminary design program document; 70-75% is program (they just held up a big binder, which is the document the building committee received, which I do not believe is available to anyone else at this point)
on to another: site program
"worked very diligently with" athletic program
would like to have a football field, a track, baseball/softball "and other amenities"
looking to raise parking to 400 spots
"none of the sites being considered are ideal"
"boiled down to about half a dozen sites"; short listed three sites being considered
"building has very good bones, it's a well built building, it's been very well kept up"
one option that must be considered is rehabbing the building
either this or renovation and addition would require modular classrooms
"sports programs will not fit on this site or the other sites we're looking at"
new building on site: build next to current space OR to find swing space for kids
"city has advised that there is no swing space in the city"
I find this entirely unbelievable
"very urban type of design to fit on this or any of the other two sites"
would then put the field on top of a parking garage
Foley Stadium site: 14 acres, field was put in around 1920; brook was put in a culvert; stadium built on piles in the 1960's
adjacent to Beaver Brook park (which is under state constitutional protection)
"nice flat site" but fill is questionable, and stadium would have to come out of use
site would probably only fit one field and it's a bit shy on parking
Chandler Magnet site: 22 acres
bounded by residential areas on all three sides
was built in 1950's with recent upgrades including boiler and windows
building would have to be demolished
"would look to find alternative locations for the programs"
oh this is new
woodland that goes up the field would have to be cut (if put on current owned site)
"don't find this as a preferable solution"
so instead: triangle of land would broaden site out; "compact four story building" away from back
"buffer easements"
Chandler Magnet and Doherty site are both glacial till
traffic at both sites is an issue and will be in the study
"all of that will end up being mitigatable"
yeah, no it won't
comparison grading, none of which received a perfect score (which would be a 180)
Note that the scoring did not consider impacts on non-Doherty students
round of applause as it is announced that going forward with Chandler Mag as is will not go forward; site WITH ADDITION of WSU land will, however
"none of these rise to the top absolutely in terms of costs and locations"
thus options going forward:

• Doherty brought up to code
• addition and renovation
• rebuild on site
• Chandler Magnet with additional land
• Foley Stadium also (possibly) with additional land

Councilor Matt Wally (D5): what level of information will we get between now and December?

A: 'great baseline information' will look at deed information, site and soil information

"looking forward to studying them more deeply"

Q: more financial information?

A: yes, for each of these options

School Committee member Jack Foley: would like more information from school department on athletics if Foley; where do students from Chandler Mag come from and do we have the space for them there?

A: excellent point, part of what research would be

Brendan Melican: cost estimators for Foley were less, but matrix gives different impression

"this ranking appears to have come through before the cost estimator"

A: yes, this is correct

Melican: "it was only a million dollars or so...but"

to a round of applause

Councilor Moe Bergman: clarification of what goes forward?

A: three options relative to Doherty itself are required

Q: if Chandler Mag we don't own the land, I'm a little uncomfortable with that going forward

to another round of applause

Q: the feasibility study appeared to be online Friday and Saturday but then disappeared

A: trying to figure out what happened

entire PDP will be uploaded to project site "once we have it together"

Q: would like athletic director to weigh in

A: he has, but having the usage of the site would be useful

Q: if there are environmental issues, can we have that going forward?

A: no cause for alarm; buildings of this vintage do generally have some materials "now considered hazardous" and that would be dealt with

Q: what if the students remain on site and someone got hurt?
probably the same as Nelson Place and South and North?
A: South is being built 35 feet from existing building
"feel that we can make this work; we have significant experience with this"
Rick Miller, Friends of Newton Hill: will it include survey lines?
A: yes, that is what we are working on
Q: residential impacts?
A: all have residential neighborhoods nearby
"a little bit further down the line on how we control construction traffic...how we control the on site circulation, too"
Councilor Wally: how often will the building committee be meeting?
A: still discussing in detail how that will work
sense is will need next few months to do work; "looking at November meeting in order to do so"
which would imply that aren't planning updates, per se

Now opening Q to public
parent of Chandler Magnet: traffic already an issue there
seven acre lot for sale, plus Chandler and May Street site
A: understand traffic issues for Chandler Mag area
have looked at other available vacant lots; "none of them really turned out to be big enough"
purchases for athletics "separate from project"

Parent of Doherty student: went to visioning meetings
were never given numbers of how much bigger size of building
"with all of the feasibility...there's a kind of wish list...I never imagined that everything would be put into the school"
current building clearly too small, but this new building "it seems huge"
A: 1670 student coming; 250 more than attending South High
special ed particularly insufficient
"third major thing" is Ch.74 programs being expanded and added to
which is where this question comes in...
"part of the strategic plan of the Worcester Public Schools moving forward"
not exactly
single person applauds to otherwise silence
Q: Chandler Magnet program cannot be replicated elsewhere: "we demand that those children be treated well and be treated equitably"
would be $800K to buy entire property of WSU president (that isn't the proposal, BTW)
where are you going to get 300 extra students for that school?

Brendan Melican: that's the second reference to enrollment projects; suggestions that this be made public
"those numbers aren't crap"
A: the 1670 nubmer we have "was carefully analyzed by MSBA"

Chandler Magnet parent: provide some details around programs being continued
A: we cannot; "that is something that the Worcester Public Schools are working on"
plan to keep them intact but elsewhere

Doherty alum: where are we going to put 1500 kids from Doherty?
he pushes for a commitment from the School Committee
A: that's the plan that's being presented
Mayor promises that he'll not vote for this site if the kids have to move

Tom Murray, has two students here
lists hometowns of those on the building committee (because they're city employees)
"would this be acceptable in some of those towns"
"I think these are the benchmark for what we should be looking at here"
"campus schools"
would ask "not to look at things in a silo"
"ignores that Foley sits across from a 19 acre park that is largely unutilized"
I think this would be disputed by many

parent of children in the Chandler Magnet dual language program
to applause
A: "have been so impressed with the special programs in the Worcester Public Schools...I don't know about the dual language programming, but I'm not surprised"

parent of two kids at Chandler Magnet
we just got our first testimony in Spanish
one of the most diverse staff; only Latina principal in the city
would disrupt not only program, but also second language acquisition of students in the program
"with nearly half of WPS students coming from [multilingual] community, we should be investing in it, not taking it away"
it's over half; it's 59%
community must be considered, "not just discarded"
"build the building of course, but we want to see Chandler Magnet either somewhere else, or leave the building as is"

parent in Doherty quadrant: a word about space
advocacy for active transportation
"find it disturbing...the amount of space dedicated to parking"
"We are a city school"
"make it a more multi-modal city"
"does not fit" and does not fit where we hope the city is going to be

"please with all of the sites, please take time and attention to consider the impacts on neighborhoods"

is this a final vote tonight? no, this is moving several forward

parent of two current parents
"these kids need those" parking lots
"they have to travel because there's no bus transportation"
the advocacy would then say that we need transportation, then
still going to be nomads, "no sense of community"

parent asks Mayor to commit to keeping Chandler Magnet together
Petty: "if those students, teachers, parents don't get the same or equal value, I will not vote for the school"

Worcester State didn't know about this; now own the Temple
going to make a major decision about what they're going to do on that spot
"are they going to renovate, expand, tear it down" and build again
"we'd barely survive one construction over there"
"just imagine if that ever happened, two major construction sites like this"

David Coyne: very concerned that a process that has gone on for months, will have impacts for years
people on this committee "should have to make an unbreakable decision" before the municipal election

Michael Lyons: I think his argument is that if Chandler Magnet moved it would make the school possibly eligible for community block grants

parent: one student here, had one student choice out to West Boylston
"are we in a use it or lose it timeframe?
we are and moreover, we've already spent quite a bit of time on this already
"if you have to make that tough decision, make that tough decision"

Doherty alum: wants those who come into city as college students stay here
argues that it's on the National Historic register
recovered from a ruptured disc by playing disk golf
"great to have A students" up at Tech but "consider expanding Voke"
I just had a flashback to the fight over Green Hill Park and Worcester Tech
"and maybe make the" admission requirements less strigent
"Back Bay is built on water" so it could be built on Foley's water
A: when Doherty's deed was set, it is no longer part of the park
and the park is on the National Register, but Doherty is not

Q; asks for timeline and wants to know if they'll know before the vote in December
A: the plan will be developed in the preferred solution development

final comment: I am a Latina, here for the Latinx community, "estamos aquí; we are here and we are here to stay. We need to be considered"

building committee now voting and we can't hear them at all
vote passes unanimously by roll call
Meeting adjourned