HomeMy WebLinkAbout2024-08-29-AC-min 8/29/2024 AC Minutes
1
Minutes
Town of Lexington Appropriation Committee (AC)
August 29, 2024
Place and Time: Remote participation via a Zoom teleconferencing session that was open to the
public; 7:30 p.m.–9:30 p.m.
Members Present: Glenn Parker, Chair; Sanjay Padaki, Vice-Chair; Alan Levine, Secretary; Anil
Ahuja; John Bartenstein; Eric Michelson; Sean Osborne; Vinita Verma; Carolyn Kosnoff, Assistant
Town Manager, Finance (non-voting, ex officio)
Members Absent: Lily Yan
Other Attendees: Melissa Battite, Town Recreation Director; Charles Lamb, Capital Expenditures
Committee (CEC); David Kanter, CEC; Lisah Rhodes, CEC; Kathleen Lenihan, School Committee
(SC) and School Building Committee (SBC); Deepika Sawhney, SC; Peter Kelley; Olga Guttag;
Sarela Bliman-Cohen; “M Marso”; Denis Kefallinos; “OK”
At 7:35 p.m. Mr. Parker called the meeting to order and took attendance by roll call.
All votes recorded below were conducted by roll call.
Announcements and Liaison Reports
Ms. Kosnoff reported that yesterday the Select Board interviewed three candidates for the position
of Lexington Town Manager, and that Board is expected to meet next Wednesday, September 4, to
deliberate on the candidates and make a final selection.
Mr. Parker asked the Committee to nominate and confirm officers for the Committee (Chair, Vice
Chair, Secretary) for the current fiscal year. All officers currently serving were renominated with no
objections. No other members asked to be considered. The nominations consisted of Mr. Parker for
Chair, Mr. Padaki for Vice Chair, and Mr. Levine for Secretary. This slate was passed by a vote of
8-0.
Discussion of the Lexington High School (LHS) project
• Field house and pool proposals
Mr. Parker asked members to present their questions and perspective on the project, beginning with
the issues of whether to renovate or expand the existing field house, and whether to add a new en-
closed pool building (natatorium).
Mr. Ahuja stated that he did not see the need for a swimming pool but was willing to consider op-
tions for the field house. He wondered why the field house was not included in the original budget.
Ms. Kosnoff replied that all the schematic designs include an 18,000 square foot gymnasium in-
tended to completely satisfy the physical education requirements in the education program. A field
house would still be necessary for many existing after-school sports programs, but is not, strictly
speaking, part of the educational program and, therefore, is excluded from the MSBA design pro-
cess. Mr. Parker noted that the MSBA policy does allow renovations to an existing field house to be
incorporated into the overall funding request, but the Town must supply the necessary funds with no
additional support from the MSBA.
8/29/2024 AC Minutes
2
Mr. Michelson stated that his primary concerns are related to the siting of the school buildings, but
he agreed with Mr. Ahuja’s perspectives regarding the field house and pool.
Ms. Verma asked the committee to consider whether a larger field house would enable the high
school to hold its graduation ceremonies on site, thus saving the cost of renting the Tsongas Center
in Lowell, MA each year. Mr. Parker responded that he believed eliminating the cost of the Tsongas
Center would not, on its own, justify the higher debt service on an enlarged field house.
Mr. Bartenstein noted that the Town already discussed adding a pool when it lost access to the pool
facilities at Minuteman Regional High School several years ago. He was surprised at the small size
of the new pool concept shown by the architects, and he felt that if the Town was going to invest in
such a facility it should be big enough to service the Town’s needs, not just the swim program at the
high school. He asked if there was any advantage to building a new pool now, and if there would
still be space later if a pool was not included in the current project.
Mr. Parker responded that he understood that blasting would be required to build in the area next to
the current high school for a pool and/or expanded field house. It would not be advisable to blast in
that area after the main school project has been completed, so building a pool now would avoid that.
Mr. Bartenstein asked what kind of direction the architects had received regarding the pool. Mr.
Levine responded that the architects were given no direct guidance from the School Building Com-
mittee, but they had heard the desire for a pool during public feedback sessions, so they provided a
design that could support the school’s swim program. Mr. Bartenstein concluded that it would be
risky to include a pool in a second referendum question, but that he hoped the Town would eventu-
ally create an indoor pool facility that could serve the needs of the entire Town.
Mr. Parker commented that while the discussion had focused on the construction cost, it was just as
important to consider the ongoing operational costs of a pool. Mr. Bartenstein asserted that those
costs could be covered in large part through user fees for the pool, and he questioned whether a field
house could generate a comparable level of user fees.
Mr. Levine stated that he would not include either the field house or the pool in the current project,
and that these projects needed to be worked into the Town’s five-year capital plan instead. He noted
that the existing field house would require significant new investment to maintain its current opera-
tions, and this cost might approach $30 million. Mr. Levine suggested it might be necessary to hold
a second referendum just for a new field house and let the Town’s voters decide the issue.
Ms. Kosnoff stated that Mike Cronin was developing a rough estimate of the minimal cost to keep
the current field house operational during and after a renovation or replacement of the high school.
Mr. Levine responded that if that budget was highly constrained, it might avoid triggering require-
ments to bring the entire building up to current building code, but otherwise the cost could approach
the estimated cost to renovate the current facility.
Mr. Padaki asked how the proposed 18,000 square foot gym compared to the current gym in the
high school. The current gym is around 10,000 to 12,000 square feet. He agreed with Mr. Levine’s
suggestion to hold a second referendum for the field house, especially because it would avoid inflat-
ing the cost of the high school appropriation with the additional expense of the field house.
Ms. Lenihan reminded the Committee that the new gymnasium would not replace the field house
for track and field, which is one of the few “no cut” sports at the high school.
Mr. Osborne stated that he was not in favor of a new pool. He would like more detailed financial
models for the field house options.
8/29/2024 AC Minutes
3
Mr. Parker stated that during the most recent CEC meeting, which had included many stakeholders
from the Town, he had seen no support for a new pool. He also understood that the Town needs a
high school with a field house, but he was very concerned by the prospect of having two referen-
dum questions on the same ballot. One alternative would be to first deal with just the high school,
then come back in a few years for a new field house, which would be more in keeping with how the
Town likes to manage capital projects.
• Construction site options
Mr. Michelson expressed concern that the rough cost projections for the five schematic designs,
based on dollars-per-square-foot calculations, do not take into consideration the inherent difficulties
of the locations. In particular, building on the athletic fields could require significant additional en-
gineering to create a stable foundation in an area that is, geologically speaking, a peat bog. In the
1950s, the current high school was sited to avoid that area, and that suggests the area remains un-
suitable. In addition, re-siting the high school would shift the impact of nighttime field illumination
from one neighborhood to another, which could be a source of friction.
Mr. Levine responded that he understood the architects did consider geological conditions when de-
veloping the cost estimates. However, he felt that the cost estimates were all very rough, and the ar-
chitects may not have captured additional costs arising from the in-place construction alternatives.
Mr. Levine stated that if the cost of building in-place was roughly comparable to the cost of build-
ing on the athletic fields, he would prefer the former. More detailed cost estimates will only be
available on October 14 (per Ms. Lenihan) which is after the next planned financial summit where
this Committee’s recommendations will be presented. Mr. Levine expressed frustration that the
SBC’s decision-making schedule that is centered on avoiding further cost escalations from delays
will not give this Committee or other stakeholders sufficient time to consider and make recommen-
dations on the preferred project concept.
Mr. Osborne agreed that a lack of detailed geotechnical analysis creates a plausible risk of cost
overruns during construction.
There was some discussion on whether the MSBA could support some portion of the field house, or
if the cost of an 18,000 square foot gymnasium could be traded for field house funding, but neither
of those appears to be an option.
Mr. Levine stated that he believes there is some value to keeping athletic fields in a contiguous ar-
rangement, and that re-siting the high school on some of the athletic fields would disrupt the current
arrangement. While this is a point in favor of building on-site, he did not think it was necessarily an
overriding factor.
Mr. Michelson reiterated concerns about the speed of the decision-making process.
Mr. Padaki asked how the Town would satisfy the demand for playing fields if many of them are
offline during construction, particularly if a building is placed on current playing fields. Ms. Kos-
noff replied that Town and School Department staff are considering the possibilities of leasing
space in other locations and the implications of using fields in other locations such as busing to and
from those locations. Ms. Lenihan noted that there will be disruptions to playing fields regardless of
which plan is chosen, and the SBC is working to minimize those disruptions as much as possible.
Ms. Battite commented that managing the temporary loss of fields was a complicated problem, and
that it would be impossible to accommodate certain sports for some periods during construction.
That would necessitate renting space in another city or town, which could be very expensive.
8/29/2024 AC Minutes
4
Mr. Kelley was recognized by Mr. Parker. Mr. Kelley began by noting that he chaired the Perma-
nent Building Committee during the unsuccessful 1997 high school project referendum, as well as
the successful 1998 referendum.
In Mr. Kelley’s opinion, the current playing fields cannot be replaced if a new school is sited on
them due to the resulting loss of connectivity. He also questions whether the plan would satisfy the
requirements for obtaining a waiver under Article 97. The requirements for such a waiver include
the provision of equivalent or better facilities, and the lack of any reasonable alternative to perma-
nently taking the land. Mr. Kelley asserted that neither requirement would be met in this case.
Mr. Kelley suggested that a construction plan could be devised that would better limit disruption to
the high school, and he hoped for a dialog with SMMA to consider his proposal.
Mr. Kelley concluded that the risk and uncertainty he perceives mean that the SBC should not com-
mit to making a final choice in November.
• Recommendations
Mr. Parker asked if there was any consensus on recommendations the Committee could offer to the
SBC. Mr. Padaki stated that most members support some kind of update for the field house, but
none support the new pool (as proposed). Mr. Bartenstein added that if space could be set aside for
a larger community-oriented pool project in the future, he would appreciate that.
Mr. Levine commented that the architects have found that finding buildable space for the high
school proper and associated parking as well as a large field house and a pool will be very challeng-
ing. Ms. Kosnoff confirmed that it will be difficult to find space for all of these facilities.
Mr. Parker summarized the Committee’s position as favorable towards a field house renovation, but
unfavorable towards a new pool. The Committee has no clear consensus on the choice of site or de-
sign concept for the high school construction. Several on the Committee are concerned about the
speed of decision-making in light of the lack of detailed financial modeling.
Mr. Bartenstein asked for a summary of the CEC’s recommendations. Mr. Parker noted that the
CEC has not published its recommendations yet, and Mr. Lamb declined to comment. Mr. Parker
summarized a discussion at the recent CEC meeting about “wants versus needs”. The CEC felt that
continuing to support existing services, such as the track and field program at the field house, would
qualify as “needs”, while adding new services, such as a pool would qualify as “wants”.
Mr. Levine conjectured that if the Town could spend a minimal amount to keep the current field
house operational for another five to ten years, which at a minimum would mean reconfiguring the
HVAC, then it would be reasonable to delay further work on the field house for the duration. Mr.
Padaki added that it would be good to preserve a site for a larger field house in order to allow such a
project to be done later.
Ms. Lenihan stated that School Superintendent Dr. Hackett had drafted a document estimating that
such a project would cost $15 million, which would include a new roof, minimal insulation, and
HVAC changes. This estimate does not include replacement of the basketball court and track, which
will be required at some point.
Mr. Parker reviewed the upcoming meeting schedule for the Committee. Ms. Kosnoff stated that the
upcoming FY2026 budget summits would each incorporate some time to discuss the high school
project.
8/29/2024 AC Minutes
5
Minutes of Prior Meetings
Minutes from the Committee meeting on August 8 were approved by a vote of 8-0.
Adjourn
The meeting was adjourned at 9:12 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Glenn P. Parker
Approved: October 10, 2024
Exhibits
● Agenda, posted by Mr. Parker