2023-11-16-PBC-min - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

Update on Lexington High School Project Mike Burton provided an update on the Lexington High School Project. He presented the feasibility and schematic timeline. The project was currently in feasibility. It was anticipated to submit the preliminary design program to the MSBA in May 2024. It was anticipated to submit the PSR to the MSBA in December 2024, followed by the development of the schematic design (SD). The SD will be submitted to the MSBA in September 2025, followed by the town meeting in November 2025. Several community meetings were coming up, the second of which would be occurring in November 2023. It was noted that the April 2024 community meeting would be shifted to May 2024. The community engagement involved student involvement as well. Lorraine Finnegan presented the SMMA work plan. She reported that the feasibility study was made up of two components, including the preliminary design program and the preferred schematic report. The PDP phase was where the community discussed goals of the project. Rosemary Park discussed stakeholder engagement. The goal was to gather input, have discussions around relevant topics, and then the groups can make recommendations to the school building committee. The focus groups themselves do not approve anything but recommend solutions. There were four proposed groups of meetings,1each - Visioning meetings including educational planning and equity; 3 each - Focus Groups sustainability/MEP; site, safety, and security; and exterior and interior design. The goal was to ensure the right stakeholders were in the right groups. The schedule for the visioning and focus groups was presented and discussed. The meetings will continue in the PSR phase and schematic design. It was hoped to achieve a kickoff meeting on December 11th to bring together all groups to discuss the overall goals. Once the dates of the workgroup meetings are solidified, they will be added to the schedule. The timeline will be made available to everyone. At the end of April, alternative options will be given to a cost estimator. It was asked how many SMMA individuals were aware of the details of the integrated design and construction policy, as well as Attachment B, and how many people on the team would be working through that. Everyone needs to be included and on notice regarding the project. It was stated that the information was included in the RFP, and there were multiple components included in the design. There will be multiple members of the SMMA team at the focus group meetings to ensure integration of these issues into the discussions. It was asked what the focus group “site, safety, and security” referred to. It was discussed that the site component involved the site design as well as the approach of the site for safety and if there was the right type of access for emergency services. The design of the site has an impact on safety and security, and combining them as a group has led to a better site design plan. It was discussed that sustainability occurs in every group. The sustainability/MEP group focuses more on the systems. It was stated that while the groups appear independent, there will be a lot of overlap between them; students and educators will be a consistent presence. It was discussed that as the sessions are scheduled, it would be helpful to have the ability for PBC and Sustainable Lexington to both be able to attend. It was suggested to add the Green Engineer in sooner in the process. SMMA cautioned that it may be too early for the Green Engineer to join now, but it could be considered for them to join directly for the town. It was stated that it was important for the food service areas also to be considered. It was asked what the green charette was. It was stated that under the visioning workshops, the green charette would pull together all of the topics that had been discussed and the sustainability goals. It would be a larger discussion along with breakout groups to focus on particular topics. It was stated that it was a global discussion and would be opened up to members of the community. One of the overarching goals of the policy was to move to an integrated process. There were concerns raised about the independent groups and that the groups would not be united. Mark Sandeen expressed a wish for cross pollination, so that the town could unite around the design. It was stated that people had to be filtered into groups to get the work done, but that they were not competing interests. It was asked who was completing the cost- benefit analysis, and it was reported that it was SMMA. Jon Himmel noted it would be important to bring in the value engineering group (Arcadis) early on, before it’s too late to use their information. It was commented that the high school land ownership with Recreation was very intertwined, and it was suggested to include the Lexington Recreation group in the Site, Safety and Security Group, at least. Jon Himmel stressed that PBC involvement needs to be ‘across the board’..