Middle School Building Project Questions for Dr.

Zrike from Terry - 4/2/19

Should the Ballot Question Pass!

1. Should the question be put on the ballot, either in a special election or on the
November ballot, and pass, when would the current system of school attendance be altered?
For example, if a ballot question was passed in an August special election, would students
still go to Peck School again in September, and if yes, when would they be leaving Peck
School?

In order to open two schools in Fall 2022 and to avoid additional construction costs (due to the
inflation of materials and labor), June 2019 would be the absolute latest time a special election
could be held.​ (Any election past June 2019 would result in delaying the project completion,
which could result in the schools not being open by Fall 2022.) If a June 2019 special election
resulted in a “yes” vote, then students at the Peck site would be moved to other sites beginning
August 2020. It is our intention to move the Peck students as a school to one site and move the
Veritas Prep Holyoke students to another site.

2. If the question passed in November, what would be the timeline for Peck students to
transfer? Also, when Peck students do go to other schools, what would be the status of the
Veritas program, and if continued, to which school would it be moved?

If a special election was held by June 2019, the Peck and Veritas students would need to be
relocated beginning August 2020 for a two-year period, until the new schools would open in
August 2022. We currently have space available in our other schools for at least Peck or
Veritas; it hasn’t been determined yet which school would move into that space. We continue
to examine space availability both internally and externally.

If a ballot question was passed after June 2019 (such as Fall 2019), then students would likely
need to be relocated out of Peck half-way during SY20-21 for a two-year period, with the
expectation of moving into a new building half-way through SY22-23. A “yes” vote in Fall 2019,
rather than Spring 2019, would likely result in additional escalation costs.

3. Please describe in detail where all of the students currently attending Peck will be
attending school during the transition, as well as the timeline for that transition?

Students at Peck and Veritas would be relocated to a different building beginning Fall 2020 for a
two-year period. We have analyzed various options for moving students into existing spaces.
We certainly have space for at least one school (Peck or Veritas) to move into existing HPS
spaces, yet may need to explore temporary space outside of HPS for the other school. We
would discuss options with the school leaders before making any final decisions. (Note that the
project budget includes $2M to cover potential costs associated with any temporary
relocation.)
4. Whenever the construction of two new schools passed, please in detail describe the impact
on each of the other schools in the system. How would the transfer of Peck students to other
schools impact the educational quality provided to students currently in those other schools?

Our intent is to maintain and strengthen the educational quality for all students during a
transition time. Obviously, if and when we move students from Peck or Veritas into another
building, the space in that building will be more limited. There may not be as much space
available for pull-out services; however, the impact of this should be limited as we continue to
promote inclusion as the strongest educational model for most students. Some specials
teachers may also need to share spaces for their classes.

5. Would there be any movement to try to use two of the current schools as interim middle
school models during the transition? If not, why not, since the current K-8 model is noted as
not providing a best quality education?

We have begun to move towards a middle school model already by: 1) opening Holyoke STEM
Academy (grades 6-8) and Veritas Prep Holyoke (currently grade 5 and adding one grade per
year to grade 8), and 2) piloting and expanding the Summit Learning model at Peck (grades 4-8).
The move towards a middle school model and building two new middle schools is a significant
change for the school community and will require significant educational planning (e.g. hiring a
principal, recruiting and developing a team of teachers, gathering student and family input on
the school structure and environment, etc.). We feel that the new schools will be most
successful if we utilize the next couple of years to analyze the innovations currently occurring at
the middle school level in the district and complete an inclusive process of educational
planning.

6. Assuming that the new schools were scheduled to be opened by fall of 2022, please
describe in detail the school system for that year. Which schools would be closed, which
students would be transferred to other schools, which students would not be impacted?

All schools serving students in grades PreK-8 would be impacted by either closing, changing
grade figurations or welcoming new students to their school. We would work with a firm with
unique expertise to develop a plan to redraw the enrollment zones. The two new middle
school buildings would have separate enrollment zones, with some seats available for students
to select into the school based on their interest. (For example, a student in the dual language
program could remain in the dual language program regardless of where they live in the City.)
The grades 6-8 students at Peck, Veritas Prep Holyoke and Holyoke STEM Academy would move
into one of the two new middle schools, as would middle school students in our other K-8
schools.
Then, the following school buildings: Donahue, Kelly, Morgan, Sullivan, E.N. White, would
become elementary schools again and would welcome students from the schools that could be
closed as a result of the opening of the new schools.

In our ideal scenario, given the increasing demand for early childhood programming
(particularly with full-day and dual language programs), McMahon would be converted to a
pre-K center (similar to what Metcalf used to be for the district). Lawrence, Metcalf and Peck
would be closed. These buildings were chosen to be closed based on a 2017 analysis of the
portfolio (conducted by Education Resource Strategies) and on the condition of the HPS
buildings (completed by STV Incorporated with the MSBA’s participation in 2016).

7. Are there programs that definitely would be expanded, and if so, which ones, how and
where?

Our HPS vision is a “pathway for every student.” We are continuously working to expand and
strengthen the entire educational experience for all students and that includes some signature
programs or pathways. The four pathways or options we currently have at the middle school
level are:

● Dual language
● STEM programming at Holyoke STEM Academy
● Summit Learning at Peck
● Veritas Prep Holyoke’s highly supportive, close-knit environment

Dual language is the longest standing program and continues to show success, so we will
continue to open a grade each year through 8th grade at a minimum.​ As for the other three
newer pathways, we will continue to monitor success and plan to grow the programs that are
working the best. We would have space for all of them and/or will examine best practices that
we could adopt past a single program.

The dual language program will definitely be a program in one of the two new middle schools.
At the elementary level, we will continue to have dual language at E.N. White and may either
move Metcalf’s program into E.N. White or find a second school to host the dual language
program.

8. There has been much discussion of significant savings within the school department budget
should this proposal be approved. Estimates have ranged from $3 million to almost $5
million! Please be specific and list the savings. What plans do you have for the potential
savin​gs?

The District anticipates savings to the District’s Capital Budget as a result of the construction of
proposed construction of two middle schools as follows:
● Operational Savings: $0.6M annually
 ○ This is a conservative estimate based on savings to operate the existing Peck
School over two new smaller schools, as well as closing three school buildings.
This savings is based on a combination of the reduced area of the buildings
and the greater efficiency of new buildings. This savings includes nearly 20
line items, such as electricity, cleaning supplies, extermination, trash removal,
snow removal, natural gas, fire alarm, etc.
● Capital Savings: $0.5M (ONE-TIME)
○ This is based on a reduction in expenditures anticipated on the existing Peck
School, which is in poor condition.
● Staff savings: $2.5M + $0.4M in benefits = $2.9M
○ This anticipated savings is based on more efficiently staffing buildings. This
includes sharing common resources (such as non-teaching personnel like
assistant principals and custodians and EL teachers) across fewer grade spans
and fewer buildings, having more classes at the ideal size (vs. being
under-enrolled), and fewer paraprofessionals serving students with IEPs (due to
SPED teachers being able to service these needs across fewer grade spans).
■ Savings on benefits is conservatively estimated at 15-18%: it may be
higher.
● Transportation Savings: $0.5M
○ Transportation savings are based on the cost what the costs otherwise would
have been by being able to run more efficient routes for special education
bussing. (Please note that transportation costs continue to increase every year
due to inflation.)

The savings stated above which totals $0.5M of one-time savings and $4.0M of recurring
savings would allow for reinvestment in the school system. The Commonwealth currently
carries 87% of the District’s operating budget and the City of Holyoke carries the remaining
13%. Savings in the items noted above, except for transportation, would stay within the District
as required by law and allow for future investments to improve teaching and learning. These
figures have not been adjusted for inflation.

9. Once construction is completed, please describe how students would be selected to attend
each school? How many students will be bussed to their new school as opposed to how
many are bused to their schools now?

We would engage with an engineering firm with expertise in this area to do a comprehensive
re-districting plan, analyzing the current and future population in comparison with our school
footprint, with an eye towards equity. (HPS engaged Tighe & Bond in 2004, which was the last
time the zones were reconfigured.) This process is expected to take a couple months, and we
need it completed by January 2022.

Our preferred plan is to have enrollment zones for elementary and middle school, with some
options seats available for specialty programs like dual language in elementary school, dual
language at one of the middle schools and potentially one or more additional specialty
programs at middle school. (Students who were in a specialty program in elementary school
would be guaranteed a seat in that same program in middle school.) We believe this is the best
of both worlds. Having enrollment zones mean that we can have neighborhood schools, which
also minimizes transportation costs. Having some options seats gives families choice on where
they send their child(ren) to school. At this point, we do not know precisely how the number of
students bussed would change, since it depends on the new enrollment zones.

10. Also, please describe the educational advantages each student would get at the new
schools that they cannot get in our present school environment? How many students would
be expected in each class and how many different classes do you expect to have?

We want a system where every student has the opportunity to attend a high-quality school.
These two middle school buildings would be state-of-the-art buildings that offer:
● Personalized pathways to career or college readiness, that includes exposure to multiple
pathways which lead to more defined pathways at the high school level
● A school design with programs tailored to the developmental ages of students in grades
6-8, including spaces for collaboration and enrichment
● An ideal number of students (around 550 students), which allows for enough resources
to provide a robust middle school experience (e.g. variety in special offerings,
content-based teacher collaboration, etc.), without compromising personalization,
strong relationships and student safety
● A school with varied room sizes in proximity to the classroom to provide higher quality
special education and intervention support close to the student’s primary classroom
● A school that is designed to welcome and support families
● A school with public spaces and building systems (including air conditioning) that can
support teaching in all seasons, a broader range of evening and community uses and
non-traditional pathways

Some of the specific spaces that help us meet those objectives, while also being green-friendly
and inclusion-oriented, and are particularly exciting are:
● STEM (Design) lab
● Dedicated Art room with kiln
● Exercise/dance studio
● Cafeteria/Stage
● Media/Instructional Technology Center
● Music classroom
● Learning commons (flexible presentation space)
● Teacher collaboration spaces
● Protected outdoor teaching spaces

Each school would have 6-8 classes per grade, for a total of 18-24 homerooms per school, with
22-28 students per class. (This class size range is on par with current ranges.)
11. How many K-5 students will move to a different school than they would attend under the
current system?

Approximately 30% (700 out of 2,400 students). We are assuming that K-5 students from
closed schools would be transferred to the revised elementary school buildings (Donahue, Kelly,
Morgan, Sullivan, E.N. White).

12. What academic programs would be offered in the new schools that are not offered
currently? What programs would be offered at both schools, and would any programs be
concentrated at only one campus school? Will there be academies, and if so, what kind and
where? Will part of either school be set up to allow Veritas Prep to continue to provide
instruction in Holyoke? If so, which and for how many students?

It has always been a goal of the educational plan for the new middle schools to provide the
same resources and opportunities at each school in order to achieve equity within the District
at these grade levels. Even if the STEM program, bi-lingual program, Summit program or
Veritas program are directed to a specific school, each school will still provide similar spaces
and age appropriate instruction in art, music, STEM, etc. For more details, see the Preferred
Schematic Report Educational Plan, starting on page 12 of the following:
https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1enA6-xchbvYT8guD__hAwcSkGtxj7R8m

We have not decided which specific programs would be offered at each school, although we
have made a firm commitment to dual language. In regards to the newer middle school
offerings (STEM, Summit Learning and Veritas), we will continue to monitor and expect to see
progress and results. Based on results, one or more of the models (STEM, Summit Learning and
Veritas) can be adopted as a pathway in one or more of the new middle schools. Additionally,
we may look to adopt best practices from these models across many pathways - for example,
Summit Learning’s use of a technology-based platform or STEM’s infusion of STEM-based
learning across all content areas could be incorporated into more than one pathway. Please
note that Veritas is currently in the first year of a three year performance-based contract
(which extends through June 2021). If Veritas is providing a high quality education for our
students and we see positive academic results and social emotional supports, it is our intent for
Veritas to continue educating our students.

It is also our intent to equitably distribute the special education programs equally across the
two schools. The overall numbers of students with IEPs (individual education plans) will be
balanced between the two schools.

13. If over the next three years, Holyoke STEM Academy produces significant positive student
results, why would we want to move them to a new campus school?

The community demand for distinct elementary and middle schools has been significant, and
we did not want to wait until new school buildings were built in order to offer more options to
our students and families. Placing the STEM program at the Dean Campus in spaces designed
for high school students and high school science curricula was designed to be a temporary
solution. Accordingly, when we opened Holyoke STEM Academy, we anticipated that HSA
would likely move it to a new building when these building projects completed. The new
buildings will provide educationally appropriate team teaching spaces for middle school and
equipped with state-of-the-art, middle school appropriate science labs. Additionally,
enrollment at Holyoke High School - Dean Campus continues to grow, and the District will likely
need the additional high school space by Fall 2022. This year, we had a waiting list of freshman
students wanting to attend Dean Campus and demand is projected to be even higher next
school year.

14. If the rationale is to transfer STEM students to one of the new schools, would these
students transfer to one of the new buildings, or would they be split up into two STEM
Academy sectors?

We anticipate moving the STEM students enrolled at Dean to the same school in order to
continue the best elements of the Holyoke STEM Academy in one of the new schools. As noted
above, successful development of the curriculum may be adopted at the second middle school
as well.

15. What do you expect to do with current school buildings which will no longer be offering
educational facilities, and when would you expect that to happen?

We would like to transition McMahon to a pre-K center, similar to how Metcalf used to run.
Ideally, we would receive more funding to operate pre-K programs so that we could have a
full-day pre-K program for all 4-year-olds in Holyoke, with additional programming available for
some 3-year-olds. The City would be responsible for determining what to do with the
discontinued buildings of Metcalf and Lawrence.

Should the Ballot Question Fail to Pass!

16. Should the question fail to pass or not be put on the ballot, what would the plans for the
school department be?

A failure to pass or put the vote on the ballot would be a devastating loss for our students and
community. ​We would continue to move forward with a distinct elementary and middle school
model​; however, our students would miss out on the opportunity to have new, engaging
learning spaces to enhance their experience, and we would continue to maintain three aging
buildings (Lawrence, Peck and Metcalf).

The City has 120 days until October 26th​ ​ to accept the MSBA’s offer to share the cost of this
project. If the voters reject the proposal to build two new middle schools, Holyoke will forgo
access to the $76M offered to the project by the MSBA as part of the approval process recently
completed.​ To achieve a different solution, the City would have to either fund the alternative
renovation/construction project outside of the MSBA process or submit a request to the MSBA
to start the process over again. A second MSBA process would involve re-doing the feasibility
study and would take approximately 1.5 years. The cost of the new feasibility study would
reduce the reimbursable funds available for the project by the value of the duplication.
Escalation would also increase during this time at approximately 3% per year.

The total cost of the recent Feasibility study was $1.19M with 80% reimbursed by the MSBA;
the cost to the City of Holyoke was $238,000.

17. Would any schools be closing or would all stay as part of the educational system? If some
would be closing, please indicate the factors that would lead to that decision?

We have not analyzed this, as our first choice is to open to new middle school buildings. We
would need to analyze this, as we are operating inefficiently under the current system and our
older buildings are expensive to maintain.

18. Would the STEM Academy continue to function on the Dean campus? If not, why not?

It depends on the amount of space that HHS-Dean Campus requires, given that enrollment
continues to grow at that campus. This year, we had a waiting list of freshman students
wanting to attend Dean Campus and demand is projected to be even higher next school year.

19. Is it possible that we could create middle school environments at some of the current
schools operating as K-8, and make other schools only K-5 or lower? If not, why not? What
would be needed in order to do that?

Given the community’s desire for distinct elementary and middle schools, we would continue
down that path, but would have to make very difficult and expensive choices.

If the vote fails it would not be possible to divide the middle school population equally into any
two existing schools in the District, which is the basis of the proposed education and
consolidation plan. One option would be to divide the 1100 students into two different sized
groups going to Lawrence (43,000gsf) and Peck (170,000gsf). These are the only schools in the
District that were originally built for middle school aged children’s bodies, although its
important to note that Lawrence currently serves grades K-3 and the Peck building services
grades 4-8. Accordingly, the buildings would need to be outfitted and adapted to serve as true
middle schools. Adapting and outfitting either school to meet the District’s program goals
would be an expensive effort for which the funding is not currently available in the District’s
operating budget.
Lawrence (built in 1930) is a well-built but very old masonry bearing structure with undersized
classrooms, inadequate piping, inadequate electrical and data infrastructure and inadequately
sized large spaces (gym, science and arts spaces). Peck (built in 1973) is a younger building that
is poorly organized in an octagonal plan with finishes that cannot be disturbed without
incurring hazmat remediation expenses and structural limitations that may incur seismic
strengthening requirements. (Costly issues to address.) Additionally, Lawrence’s scale of
classrooms (less than 800sf) could require smaller class sizes and more staff to operate. Peck,
which is made up of larger classrooms and oddly shaped spaces, does not offer the kind of
small spaces needed to provide intervention services or meet the sub-separate special
education needs of this District. It also doesn’t provide collaborations or enrichment spaces in
line with the educational program which has been proposed. Previous efforts to create new
spaces at Peck (for smaller special education classes, for example) have typically involved
adding gyp walls between the masonry bearing walls to subdivide larger rooms into small ones.
This has resulted in spaces that receive inadequate heating, cooling, daylighting and ventilation.
We view it as a liability risk to the District to continue to place students with special education
needs in substandard learning environments of this type. Also, as has been noted by teachers
and administrators, Peck’s corridor design has poor site lines that have consistently resulted in
management and security challenges.

The third school that is on deck for decommissioning is Metcalf. While a good building in its
day, it is the smallest of the three buildings slated for decommissioning. Next school year, it
will hold 1 PK class and 2 classes each of grades K-5, which is extremely tight. A building of only
2 classes per grade can be more expensive to run staffing-wise and can limit opportunities for
collaboration and enrichment.

20. Could we make structural changes at Peck which would make it a better facility for middle
school learning?

The building assessment conducted to date indicate that this will be difficult and expensive.
(Please refer to question 19 as well.) Following is an excerpt from the existing condition
assessment completed during the Feasibility Study phase of the project by Simpson, Gumpertz
and Hager Structural Engineering:

Based on our cursory site inspection and review of the original construction drawings,
renovating the octagonal North and South buildings will be challenging. The structural framing
system is specifically tailored to the octagonal plan. As such, any interruption or openings made
in the floors or walls will interrupt the framing and likely require strengthening and upgrading of
the affected structural systems.

In addition to the geometric inconvenience posed by the octagonal architectural concept, the
unreinforced masonry walls also present challenges. As these walls likely do not have the
required in-plane or out-of-plane lateral load carrying capacity to meet even reduced seismic or
wind load requirements of the current existing building code, they are a poor fit for adaptive
reuse. Any large scale (more than 30% area) related to updating the utilities or energy
considerations for interior space will likely trigger strengthening requirements for the existing
masonry walls adding significant construction cost.

Options for building one school!

21. Is it possible to construct only one larger middle school at the Peck site? What would the
cost for doing that be as opposed to building two separate smaller schools? If building one
large school was approved, how much would that cost at Peck and how much would that cost
at Chestnut St?
The Building Committee examined the single school option. The two distinct middle school
buildings were chosen over a single building for the following reasons:
● A mid-sized middle school (500-600 students) is a sweet spot that allows for enough
resources to provide a robust middle school experience (e.g. variety in special offerings,
content-based teacher collaboration, etc.), without compromising personalization,
strong relationships and student safety.​ The design proposed allows for two grade level
teams at each school of 90 students each that provides our students with a tight-knit
community within which they are known and recognized.
● Many families and staff have commented on the challenging student environment at
Peck when there used to be almost 1,000 students. The community and Building
Committee were clear that for Holyoke this would not be a sound educational decision.
● Even if the City were willing to compromise on the quality or form of the building, a
school for 1,100 students at either site would have to accommodate 300 vehicles per
City zoning regulations. While a variance is possible, a minimum of 200 spaces would
still be needed, as well as space to accommodate around 12 school bus loads at morning
drop-off and afternoon pick-up. The space for that large a parking area is not available
at either the Peck or Chestnut/Lawrence sites.
● If a site other than Peck was chosen, Peck would remain as a vacant building that is the
City’s sole responsibility. In the proposed two-school scenario, the MSBA is reimbursing
for the cost of the abatement and demolition. (The only alternative site that was
discussed as a realistic possibility was Crosier Field. Crosier Field is restricted by Article
97 statute, which would require an act of the state legislature to re-permit.)
● Finally, it is important to understand that we are far along in a design and planning
process with has carefully followed the strict guidelines of the MSBA and has cost more
than $1M to complete. ​ If the City chooses to vote down the current proposal and wants
to explore a single school option, the terms of the MSBA Core Building Program would
require that Holyoke forgo access to the $76 million offered to the project by the MSBA
and re-apply for consideration for a new school​. (Thus, It is not an option to place a
single school proposal on this ballot question.) ​Such a proposal would push the project
back by 2 years at a minimum​ and would require re-doing the entire feasibility and
schematic design process that has been completed over the last year. The City would
have to convene a new Advisory Building Committee, draft a new education plan, and
pay for services related to conducting new consultant studies (traffic, geotech, etc.),
project management, and architectural and engineering design. The MSBA will include
the second round of cost for Feasibility, reducing the reimbursable funds available for
 the remainder of the project. By that point in time, construction costs will have
increased at an inflationary rate of 3% per year - eliminating any savings achieved by
consolidating to a single project.

22. Is it possible to have one building but two middle schools function separately on the same
campus? If not, why not?
In addition to the reasons stated above for two schools, having one building with two distinct
middle schools also increases operational challenges, including: potential increased
transportation costs due to likely having fewer students who walk due to distance, logistical
challenges with co-sharing spaces, and the need for each school to establish a strong identity
and culture.

23. What would it cost to build one new middle school with a potential enrollment of 750-800
students? Which location would work best? If it was the Chestnut Street lot, would this
create a smoother transition for the three years prior to completion?
Based on the cost of the proposed Chestnut Street School, we estimate that a comparable
project cost for a 750-800 student school on the Chestnut Street site would cost between
$75-80M. This cost includes an additional two years of escalation because the Feasibility Study
process would need to start over from the beginning and would take approximately two years
to reach the same point for local approval.
The premise of two new middle school buildings for ~1,100 middle school students was to
provide every middle school student access to an equivalent state-of-the-art learning facility;
this is an important piece of equity. The estimate above does not include the cost of any
improvements at other schools, including furniture and technology costs, and serves only 75%
of the students.
Please note that adding another 200 to 250 students would also increase the building square
footage by 45,000 sf (from 105,000 to 150,000 sf). Since we would be unable to add a 5th floor
and 15 feet of building height, we would have to eliminate more of the green space and
recreational area in the proposed site plan. It would also increase the parking requirement for
the project by 80-100 parking spaces and would increase the parent drop-off and bus drop-off
design loads.
Also, as noted above, such a proposal would require re-doing the feasibility and schematic
design process to arrive at an accurate cost estimate.
Additional Information Requests!
24. Can you provide a summary of the academic test scores for each of the K-8 schools for
sixth through eighth grade students over the past three years? Please also provide test
scores for the same grades for students in schools without a full K-8 environment?
With a change in the state assessment system, the past two years of MCAS provide the most
relevant data, which can be viewed on the DESE website:
http://profiles.doe.mass.edu/general/general.aspx?topNavID=1&leftNavId=100&orgcode=0137
0000&orgtypecode=5​. (Click on assessment and accountability. You can drill down by school.)

25. Have we conducted a full survey of parents about their wishes regarding this issue. What
percentage of parents would prefer to keep their children in the same K-8 school prior to high
school if available?
We engaged in an extensive analysis and community outreach process, with the support of
Education Resource Strategies (ERS), in late 2016 and the first part of 2017. We conducted a
stakeholder (families, teachers, community) survey and held community outreach meetings to
solicit input. Across all stakeholder groups, a clear majority supported distinct elementary and
middle schools, rather than K-8 schools. This data collection informed the principles behind the
design (see below) and school portfolio configurations. The collective decision was that distinct
elementary and middle schools would allow us to best fulfill the outlined principles.

We want a system where every student has the opportunity to attend a high-quality school.
Specifically, in the future HPS:

1.S​ tudents will be able to follow p

​ ersonalized pathways ​to career or college readiness
2.S​ chools will be ​anchored in their neighborhoods, w
​ hile the portfolio includes a subset of s​ trongly
differentiated programs t​ hat attract students across neighborhood lines
3.S​ chools are organized into a ​limited number of grade configurations ​that enable rich student learning
experiences at all levels, including middle grades, and minimize unnecessary student transitions
4.T​ he system supports v​ isibility for families ​on the programmatic choices that exist and how students
are assigned to schools
5.T​ he system is designed for ​equity ​in distribution of need, access to quality programs and distribution of
resources provide a foundation for portfolio development
6.T​ he portfolio will be ​structurally and financially sustainable ​in the near- and long-term