Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2024-09-16 SB-min SELECT BOARD MEETING September 16, 2024 A meeting of the Lexington Select Board was called to order at 6:30p.m. on Monday, September 16, 2024, via a hybrid meeting platform. Mr. Lucente, Chair; Mr. Pato, Ms. Barry, Ms. Hai, and Mr. Sandeen, were present, as well as Mr. Malloy, Town Manager; Ms. Axtell, Deputy Town Manager; and Ms. Katzenback, Executive Clerk. EXECUTIVE SESSION 1. Exemption 2: To Conduct Strategy Session for Contract Negotiations with Nonunion Personnel - Town Manager VOTE: Upon motion duly made and by roll call, the Select Board voted 5-0 to enter into Executive Session at 6:33pm. Under Exemption 2 –to conduct strategy session for contract negotiations with Nonunion Personnel -Town Manager. Further, it was declared that an open meeting may have a detrimental effect on the negotiating position of the Town. Board returned to open session at 7:19pm ITEMS FOR INDIVIDUAL CONSIDERATION 1. Update on Lexington High School Project Mr. Pato explained that this is an update discussion on the School Building Committee (SBC) review of the Lexington High School Project. November 12 is still the target for selecting a preferred design that would move forward to the PSR phase of the Mass School Building Authorities Program. The SBC has determined that it wants to stay with the heights that have been proposed, four stories for the new construction options and a combination of two or four stories for the addition/renovation options. There was also consensus regarding one of the three options that was adjusted and allows for preservation of the baseball field, softball field, and the rectangular field that joins them. There was consensus that this was the preferred field option. The SBC has requested that the Select Board consider implementing permit parking on a portion of Worthen Road as part of the plan for the High School project. Three of the massing concepts are placed on the general footprint of the existing buildings (phased in-place development) and the available parking areas fall about 30 spaces below the expected need. Providing these spaces on the site would require the addition of structured parking (at about $20M) or reduction of available field space. Satisfying the need with dedicated parking areas on Worthen Road would avoid these penalties. Current planning by the SBC is proceeding assuming that the additional parking will be provided off-site rather than within the project scope. Mr. Lucente explained that some of his concern regarding parking on Worthen Road is that parking is a premium everywhere. There have been discussions regarding replacing parking on Worthen Road with a bike lane. The High School project should consider as much parking on site as possible. Mr. Pato noted that the parking target includes zero parking spots for students on site. There is a desire to encourage no use of automobiles for students. Ms. Barry asked who the permit parking is proposed for. Mr. Pato stated that this is to meet the 500-spot target for staff, administration, and visitors. Ms. Hai stated that she is not opposed to using Worthen Road for parking, as it is already being used at this time for parking, however, she would like some clarification on the parking numbers. Michael Dowhan, Senior Landscape Architect with SMMA, stated the 495 number includes all parking for faculty and staff, anticipating an increase in both. It also includes 60 spaces for the central office. It includes all facilities, parking for loading areas, and parking for the LABB program. This number was arrived at by holding the student parking to zero. A 450 number was originally used to equal the quantity of existing parking on the site. In response to a question from Mr. Lucente, it was noted that a $20M parking garage would garner approximately 400 spaces. Mr. Sandeen stated that the $20M seems to encourage activity that is opposite of what the Board values, which is reducing vehicle miles traveled in Lexington. This funding could instead be used to consider ways to have fewer parking spots and reduce the need for single use vehicle trips to school. In response to a question from Mr. Lucente, Mr. Dowhan stated that the plan is for enough bicycle parking for 5% of the student and faculty population. This leads to approximately 120-125 long term bike parking spaces that would likely be canopied. Mr. Pato stated that there will be a hybrid community forum on September 18 – LHS Building Project Community Meeting Wednesday at Battin Hall and Zoom. This session is primarily intended to discuss cost estimates and the comparison of costs to recent school projects. These estimates are still preliminary and largely representative of gross square feet needed rather than detailed designs and draw on the per square foot costs in school construction over the past years escalated by existing and anticipated inflation. Given the technical nature of these cost estimates, there will be a brief presentation at the beginning and most of the issues will be handled by professional staff. DOCUMENTS: SBC Critical Decision Timeline 2. Board Discussion: Projects related to Lexington High School Building Project  Field House  Swimming Pool th Mr. Lucente explained that this is a follow up discussion to the August 15Summit on the question of whether a field house and/or indoor pool should be included in the design considerations of the School Building Committee. Mr. Pato explained that the SBC received a report from the Athletics Department regarding the use of the existing field house which indicated that they would like to make sure that at least a renovation occurred to preserve the capacity for the programs that are currently in place. The field house is in use from approximately 6AM-10/11PM each day. A renovation element is not being carried in the current cost estimates. A renovation, or ad renovation, is allowed under the MSBA project, but the MSBA will not contribute any funds toward it. Mr. Sandeen stated that he believes any decision on a swimming pool needs to consider the expected total operating costs and how much staff it will take to manage the facility. He is not currently sure that a pool belongs at the same location as the Lexington High School. There may be better suited locations in Town. Ms. Barry stated that she would like to understand where the pool is proposed to fall within the framework of the Town and how this will be communicated to the community. Ms. Hai stated that she is intrigued by the possibility of a pool for the community but does not believe that it needs to be part of the high school project, but should be considered as any other community capital project. Mr. Lucente agreed with the previous Board comments regarding the pool. Mr. Pato stated that he does not believe the Board can make a decision about how the Town would pursue a community pool that would service swim teams and like, but he does believe the Board can determine that there is not enough real estate in the project plans to set aside a footprint for a pool. Dr. Hackett, Superintendent, stated that the School Department is not advocating for or recommending a pool at this time, but is recommending at least a renovation of the field house. The Board discussed the field house options. Mr. Pato stated that he believes the best value for the Town is to carry a renovation of the field house as part of the base project. In parallel, the Town should begin pursuing a capital plan activity to decide whether or not a larger, completely new building is what the community values and prioritizes. Should Town Meeting pass such a project, there should be a debt exclusion taken for it that is independent of the debt exclusion for the MSBA project. Ms. Hai stated that she would like to hear more about the risks of doing the two projects in parallel. Mr. Pato explained that the Town-wide decision, both at Town Meeting and then a subsequent debt exclusion vote, would occur at the point of schematic designs. Ms. Barry stated that she is in favor of renovating the existing field house. Mr. Lucente asked about the School Department’s feelings on the field house. Dr. Hackett explained that there are currently three new options: small, medium, and large. There is also one ad/reno option and one renovated option, for a total of five options. The School Department has recommended that at least the renovated option be the one that moves forward. The 34,400 s.f. renovated option would be what is needed, minimally. A new build has been contemplated by the School Department and others, and there are concerns about the risk associated if it is not included with the base project. Mr. Lucente stated that everyone seems aligned in believing that the field house has to stay as part of the project. He stated that he believes there needs to be additional capacity, and the community may be underserved by completing a renovation only. Dr. Hackett noted that the existing facility is equally used by the School Department, the Recreation Department, and others in the community. Ms. Barry stated that she is in favor of renovating. In terms of small, medium, or large, there needs to be a community conversation, but there also needs to be a financial discussion. Mr. Lucente asked for public comment at this time. Dawn McKenna, 9 Hancock Street, expressed concern with the estimate numbers that the Board is working off of, as they have been based off the base project of the high school. Outfitting a field house is nowhere near as expensive as outfitting a high school. It will be important for the Coordinator of Physical Education & Wellness, and the Athletics Coordinator, be at the meeting on Thursday to answer questions. There are many reasons why a new field house is needed at the right size. The field house has been part of the high school since the 1960s. It was voted both by Town Meeting and a Town-wide referendum, and today it continues as an integral part of the campus. There should be further discussion regarding the field house not jumping the capital line. Nora Finch, 73 Webb Street, stated that the cost estimates for the different field house options have been based on the same price per square foot as the main high school building, but the field house does not have science labs, cafeterias, elevators, technology, etc. She hopes that updated pricing information will lead to a more appropriate price per square foot for the type of facility being discussed and that this will enable a better comparison of the renovation options. She asked that the different sized (small, medium, and large) be used to consider different capabilities of the space. Olga Guttag, 273 Emerson Road, expressed concern about the unpredictability of future enrollment due to the new rezoning of Town. If the housing proposals materialize, the Town might see 500,000 extra students. Thus, it is unclear what size will be needed until three to four years from now. She asked if the Board would ask the SBC to design a proposal which would require two successive debt exclusions, with the first one being much smaller than the current design requires. This would allow the middle-class residents to remain living in Lexington longer and not be taxed out of Town. Bob Pressman, 22 Locust Avenue, stated that no public-school system in the State of Massachusetts has a track with a 200 meter straight away. He asked that the Board read through the costs of the other field house iterations identified multiple times at the high school meetings as the best in the State. Kseniya Slavsky, 14 Rindge Avenue and member of the SBC, asked if any specific action needs to be taken in order to add the further exploration of the design of a field house to a scope of work for the design team. She stated that she does not believe it is currently part of the scope, other than reserving space on the site so that the main school project does not build in such a way that prohibits addition of a field house. She asked if the field house will require additional geothermal wells or other items if it is going to follow the Town's policy on net zero buildings, sustainable construction, etc. Dawn McKenna stated that creative thinking is a win-win situation for the school and community. The 72,000 s.f. building in the PSR being preserved leaves all options remaining open during schematics and cost estimates can be appropriately challenged. The architects will receive the message to continue to explore creative solutions and allow the Town to make an informed vote over the next year to approve a smaller or larger new facility. Mr. Lucente summarized a consensus on the Board to not continue forward with a pool option. There was also consensus on the Board regarding, at a minimum, a renovation of the field house. There were mixed feelings further than the base renovation. There may need further community outreach on this item, though there is a short timeline for this. Mike Burton, OPM, agreed that the dollar per square foot project cost for a field house would be less than the rest of the school. This has been considered in the calculations. DOCUMENTS: Presentation(from8/15Summit), Level Principal Debt Analysis, Level Payment Debt Analysis 3. Update on Affordable Housing Trust Request for Proposal (RFP) Review Process  Parcel 68-44 Located on Lowell Street th Elaine Tung, Affordable Housing Trust, explained that the Town issued an RFP on June 27. On July rdnd 23, there was a site walk and pre-bid conference. Proposals were due on August 22, and seven proposals were received. A proposal review working group formed by Town staff met four times and narrowed the seven proposals down to four. The four affordable housing developers were interviewed earlier today. Due diligence will include site visits to the various developers’ projects, reference checks, and financial capacity checks. The proposal working review group will meet this week to formalize a recommendation to the Affordable Housing Trust. A recommendation will then be put in the Board’s packet by October 2, 2024 for a discussion on October 7, 2024. The Board discussed potentially hearing more in-depth evaluations and presentations from the developers. DOCUMENTS: RFP Timeline 4. Appoint Interim Town Manager Mr. Lucente explained that, in accordance with the Selectmen-Town Manager Act of 1968, the Board is to appoint an acting Town Manager, when there is a vacancy of the Town Manager. With the upcoming retirement of Jim Malloy, the Board will appoint an interim Town Manager to be effective October 1, 2024, to continue until the start date of a new Town Manager, but not to be later than May 31, 2025. Town Counsel has reviewed the contract, as included in the Board’s packet. The Board thanked Mr. Malloy for all of his work and effort over the years. VOTE: Upon a motion duly made and seconded, the Select Board voted by roll call 5-0 to appoint Kelly Axtell as Interim Town Manager effective October 1, 2024, until a Town Manager is appointed by the Select Board, or May 31, 2025, whichever is sooner. DOCUMENTS: Interim Town Manager Contract K Axtell ADJOURN VOTE: Upon a motion duly made and seconded, the Select Board voted by roll call 5-0 to adjourn at 9:11pm. A true record; Attest: Kristan Patenaude Recording Secretary