Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2023-03-09-SMPAC-min Lexington Public Schools Master Planning Advisory Committee March 9, 2023 from 9:0o a.m. - moo a.m. In-Person&Remote Participation via Zoom Members: Melissa Battite (absent), Sandy Beebee (Liaison), Dave Coelho,Michael Cronin, Rick DeAngelis,Julie Hackett, Maureen Kavanaugh, Kathleen Lenihan,Alan Levine (Liaison),Jess Quattrocchi, Mark Sandeen, Deepika Sawhney, Michael Schanbacher, Daniel Voss Other Staff Present: Avon Lewis, Lexington Education Association President The minutes were taken by Sara Jorge,Administrative Assistant for the Lexington Superintendent. The Committee reviewed the minutes from the February 15, 2023 meeting. Ms. Sawhney made a motion to approve the minutes from the February 15, 2023 Master Planning Advisory Committee Meeting. Mr. Cronin seconded the motion. Dr. Hackett updated the Committee on the March ist Massachusetts School Building Authority (MSBA) Board Meeting vote to invite Lexington Public Schools into the capital pipeline. It means that we can look forward to a significant State investment in this project. If, after the Feasibility Study,the MSBA and Lexington stakeholders determine that a new high school is the way to go, a project of that scope and magnitude would cost at least $400 million and quite likely more. Lexington receives a 32% reimbursement rate,but once allowable costs are factored into the equation, Lexington has an effective reimbursement rate of approximately 25%. In other words, Lexington will be reimbursed a quarter for every dollar spent on a new or renovated high school! Mr. Sandeen: how long is the next phase? Mr. Cronin: We are essentially doing two modules in one—modules 2 and 3. Module 2 starts now and will go into the fall with selecting the Owner's Project Manager and the Designer's Selection Panel.The feasibility study will begin after that, probably in October,which takes about a year. Dr. Kavanaugh began reviewing the Central Office Relocation Recommendation PowerPoint. Ms. Lenihan: If we put the $16 million into the Central Office building,what would the rating be? Mr. Cronin: I would say in the C range. Ms. Lenihan: 16 million does not seem like a lot of money to have a decent building to me.Will there be a meeting space at 173 Bedford Street to hold meetings like the PPC as we do now? Dr. Hackett: There would be a conference space that would serve that purpose. Michael Schanbacher: How did we end up with the 17,284 net square feet instead of the gross 20,000 square feet? Mike Cronin: 17,284 square feet is the bare minimum to operate but we need the 20,000 square feet to function with all meeting spaces that are needed. Dr. Hackett: In order to make any of the plans work,we are going to have to relocate some of our operations into schools or some jobs can be done remotely. The bottom line, it is not ideal, but I don't think it is supposed to be ideal, and we can definitely make it work. Mr. Cronin: My recollection of the story is that in 2007 when the new Harrington was built, it displaced fields that were supposed to be replaced when the old Harrington was knocked down. Is that the correct recollection? Mr. Levine: Those things were discussed but it was not elevated to a plan. There was no broad agreement on what to do. Mr. Cronin: Do we know if the new Harrington building displaced fields making the number of fields less? Mr. Levine: That is probably true. Ms. Lenihan: But did the School Committee at the time ever say yes that is a good idea because if the School Committee did not say yes,this is a good idea then there was not really a viable plan to do it. Mr. Levine: I suspect not but we should check. Mr. Cronin: The School Committee owns and operates the school buildings however they want including Central Office until they vote to give it back to the Town. The Town then makes a decision on what to do with that asset, and they could say we want to knock it down for fields or keep it for swing space or sell it to a developer to build low-income housing on it. Ms. Sawhney: So, it could be that the Recreation could not get this land even if we did give it back to the Town,which I am sure would not happen. Ms. Lenihan: Historically,we have had a lot of different schools that the School Committee has relinquished at this point,we have the current schools, the Laconia property, Central Office, and the little tiny triangle across from LHS and that is it. Once we give up our property,we don't ever get it back under our control. Mr. Sandeen: I do like the idea of Central Office being built into the new high school. Mr. Schanbacher: There is no way to predict 173 Bedford St. as there are so many options on the table. Thinking about the future project that the Town has including Town Offices and that the school, I agree moving Central Office to LHS makes more sense. Ms. Beebee: Is it possible to keep Central Office as a swing space and not put the 16 million into the building and get the systems to an acceptable level? Mr. Cronin: If we are going to maintain occupancy in this building,we will still need to do some work like roof replacement, window replacements, etc.We might need to put window replacements in this building in the next two years. Ms. Beebee: Have we come up with any plan B on the ball fields? I feel like if there was not this rush for recreation,we would not necessarily be thinking about moving Central Office to access the ball fields. Dr. Hackett:Yes,the Recreation needs are driving the discussion for sure.What are the other options if Central Office was not turned into ball fields-what are the other options? Mr. DeAngelis: There are so many logistical problems going out of Town.We tried to do a joint venture with Minuteman but the issue came down to coming to an agreement and we couldn't. They take care of their own needs first as we would too.We have to replace the fields somehow. Mr. Coelho: Without the fields,we would have to reconfigure the entire high school Athletic Program and even middle school which would be a multiyear problem. Mr. DeAngelis: To have to reconfigure and dismantle almost the sports program for some time, when athletics are vital,you may not get it back. Ms. Beebee: I support the importance of the sports programs at LHS as both my kids play little league. If we have a four-year temporary need for ball fields, I don't want to make a permanent decision for Central Office that puts them in a space that does adequately meet its needs or reconfigure the high school project to accommodate Central Office. I really want to understand that there aren't any other options to create fields on Town land even temporarily without demolishing Central Office. I feel reluctant to support moving Central Office to 173 Bedford Street and then the high school without more information. Dr. Hackett: This is one piece of information that we can gather in a more comprehensive way to perhaps answer that question. My understanding is that there are fever options on the table and can't be solved with the use of other facilities but we will get a definite answer prior to the School Committee meeting on March 14th. Ms. Lenihan: My concern is that this is a forever decision for the School Committee,there is no going back. I am also thinking about the issues we will be taking up in Town Meeting with the zoning articles.We don't know what is going to happen in terms of the increased number of people living in Lexington which could increase enrollment in the schools. if we were to give up this property, the only other property we have is Laconia, so I would want to know from the Town side,what if we need more space for a school? Either way,we are spending money on the Central Office no matter what option we choose. Dr. Hackett reviewed the current options on the table: • #1-Nothing and Plan Reveals Itself(no ballfields) • #2 -Stay&Renovate CO (no ballfields) o Keep CO where it is and renovate the existing building. Keep 173 Bedford Street as a swing space or sell 173 Bedford Street for redevelopment. • #3 - Stay, LHS Addition, &Demolish (no ballfields short term) o Keep CO where it is for now, and build a new Central Office into the new high school project. Construct new ball fields at 146 Maple Street. • #4a-Temporary Relocation, Demolish, LHS Addition (new ballfields) o Move Central Office to 173 Bedford Street or lease space temporarily. Construct new ball fields at 146 Maple Street. Build a new Central Office into the new high school project. • #4b -Temporary Relocation, Demolish, Lease (new ballfields) o Move Central Office to 173 Bedford Street temporarily and construct new ball fields at 146 Maple Street. Long-term relocation TBD- explore lease or alternate space. • #5a- Permanent Relocation to 173 Bedford Street(new ballfields) o Move Central Office to 173 Bedford Street permanently and construct new ball fields at 146 Maple Street. Assumes permanent relocation of some CO staff /functions. • #5b- Permanent Relocation&LPS Swingspace (no ballfields) o Move Central Office to a leased commercial space, 173 Bedford Street, or another location. Keep CO as swing space Mr. Levine: I am in favor that your willingness to move out of this building to be demolished for fields. I think the field is the number one question here, and the way I look at it is that it is a quid pro quo for a new high school. If you want a new high school and the process of supplying a new high school causes damage to the Recreation Department for a couple of years,we have to mitigate that, and this is the only meaningful option that can remedy that. I have heard so much about how the high school is already a difficult site and adding additional functions there, I just don't see it. Once the new high school is built and you tear down the old building for fields, I don't think the fields are going to be as spacious as recreation will want them to be. Mr. Cronin: I think with the new layout of the school,we will be able to get 5 fields instead of 4. We are going to lay everything out in such an efficient way than we currently have. Mr. Schanbacher: The designers will be able to solve this problem for a very efficient layout for the new high school and the viable option to move Central Office there as well. Ms. Beebee: I still feel like solving a lack of ball field space for a short period of time shouldn't really change the way we want to think about the high school project and how we want to design the new high school and it should not be the determining factor of where Central Office lives permanently. I would like to see more thought on where these ball fields could go if we decided to pause this decision. I feel unsatisfied with how the process is happening and that is not anyone's fault. This is a really hard question to answer but before we make decisions that are really permanently affecting the way several functions in the Twon are located and how they function,it would be great to know if there is another place to temporarily build ball fields that do not involve making all these different entities in the Town move around. Mr. Sandeen: What is the end state?Not just for Central Office,the high school, or recreation but if we could solve the problem of what the Town looks like in 2030. How many ball fields will we have at the end,where will our high school be, and where will our Central Office be? How many ball fields do we actually need,where does Central Office need to be, and how much space does the high school need? Dr. Hackett reviewed the Administration's recommendation of Option 4a. Temporarily relocate Central Office, demolish the current Central Office building, and add Central Office into the new high school. This option is cost-effective, students win with no interruption in athletics, and good for the entire community with more playing time for Town Recreation programs. There are still some concerns around the temporary use of 173 Bedford Street as this would be the Select Board's decision to allow Central Office to use this space and put other Town projects on the back burner until the new high school is built. The other concerns with moving Central Office to LHS are the space, parking, and traffic which are still open questions. This plan does not solve all the problems,we are still going to need to relocate various offices to keep additional space at a minimum,which is not ideal but it is doable. Ms. Sawhney: If we add loo more people with loo more parking, could we still get those roughly 5 fields at LHS? Mr. Cronin:Yes,we did a brief look at the existing number of parking spaces that are on site now which is roughly 400. If we increased that to 500 spaces with a more efficient layout of the school,we will still get the 5 fields. This is going to be a 4-story building so a smaller footprint than what we currently have. Mr. Schanbacher: I think option 4a is the best option we have. This will allow us to consolidate construction costs and any way we can shave some money off is a win even if it is small. The new high school will be significantly taller and as a result,we get a more efficient layout and a better building. Mr. Sandeen: I agree with Michael and I really like the plan myself,but I cannot speak for the Select Board.What is the process for this going to the Select Board, Dr. Hackett? Dr. Hackett: The next steps would be to bring this presentation to the School Committee at the next meeting on March 14, 2023.We would be taking a recommendation on behalf of the Master Planning Committee to the School Committee by adding to the presentation that you saw today. The School Committee would then take a vote and that vote would be passed along to the Select Board soon after for the Select Board to take a vote as well. Mr.Voss: I think this option makes the most sense to me in terms of efficiencies but I agree with Sandy's concerns as well in regards to overall land use. In terms of all the land that the Town owns,there is currently an analysis going on to look at the developable potential of every parcel under municipal control because we have to hit a net o target by 2050. So when there are parcels that are not treated and are developable then there is going to be a discussion about the use of it. I do think we need to think about the next 40 years and yes,we are making decisions that may affect the Recreation Department for 5 years but we don't want to trade away the flexibility we need for the foreseeable future. I would support the Central Office moving discussion but I would want the discussion of what happens with this property to be a lot broader. Ms. Beebee: I can see the positive benefits, I just don't want to rush this decision because we want ball fields in place prior to the high school project. If we end up getting an influx of population, is there flexibility to extend the building even if we were to have the 5 ball fields and 500 parking spaces, and a Central Office on the site?Are we limiting the site in some way by moving Central Office there? Mr. Cronin: The building will be built for an 85% efficiency of how they schedule the classrooms just to start off with so you already got enough flexibility for a 15% swing in the number of students and the number of classrooms that you have. In addition,what we have done in the last 5 or 6 years is made sure that every single building will have the ability to put an addition on the building at some point in the future if there is a significant need.We will be able to do this while maintaining the existing number of parking spaces and the fields that are projected. Ms. Beebee: I would love to be able to share what we have learned at this meeting with members of the Capital Expenditure Committee tonight and get their feedback prior to making a decision on my end. I do see the benefits of the plan, I am just not l00% sold yet. Ms. Sawhney: Can we just say that we are not voting on a solution and that we are just bringing forward an option to the School Committee? Ms. Lenihan: This decision is ultimately up to the School Committee, not this body. I understand the importance of sports as my child played sports at LHS but this needs to be we are moving Central Office to the high school and not we think we will be.We need to know where Central Office is going and I am not comfortable until we know. Honestly, if we are giving this land back to the Town, I would like to see a swap because again, I am thinking about the MBTA,which by the way I personally support,but we do not know what kind of changes that might have on our enrollment, and we have very limited options in our district as to land that is available. If we were to move forward with moving Central Office to the new high school, I would want a commitment from the Select Board that this would be one vote and not two: new high school and an addition for the Central Office onto the new high school. Mr. DeAngelis: I agree with Alan.You negotiate a reasonable compromise. I am speaking for myself and not my department but my guess is that they would be in favor of option 4 to use Harrington as fields. Ms. Quattraocchi: I am in favor of a new building on the high school and not a renovation. Dr. Hackett asked if anyone is opposed to the administration bringing option 4a to the School Committee. Ms. Quattracchi: I am not opposed to bringing this option to the School Committee. Ms. Beebee: I am not opposed to taking option 4a to the School Committee but I would prefer to build ball fields somewhere else in Town. Ms. Sawhney: I am not opposed as all solutions have positives and negatives. I am not finding anything that is a deal breaker as the Town and the Town residents and citizens have to find a place to teach our kids, it is by law. Mr. Coelho: I am not a fan of temporary relocation,but if it gets us the fields we need,then I would say yes. Mr. Levine: I am not opposed but in the meantime, 2 things could happen, one is the architects could analyze it and it really doesn't work.The second one is if something better just appears we won't need temporary space. Mr. Cronin: For me, option 4a is the best option to fix the issue for students and their playing fields. Ms. Battite does not know if there is another parcel that the Town owns that could be used as ball fields even temporarily. But hearing that, this seems like the most logical spot. Dr. Kavanaugh: I am not opposed for all the points that were just mentioned but additionally, I am very excited about the possibility that if the Central Office is located adjacent to LHS there are quite a number of opportunities for integrating different learning programming internships with different departments at Central Office and we do some of these things already to some extent but the geographics and the logistics do prevent us from doing more of that. Ms. Lenihan: I have no objection to the School Committee discussing this. I would not be comfortable voting on this as a School Committee member until we had a conversation with the Select Board as a joint meeting. Dr. Hackett: We will be bringing this recommendation to the School Committee on March 14, 2023.We will send the Zoom link to the Master Planning Committee in case you want to join this meeting. The meeting adjourned at 11:18 p.m.