Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2025-05-12-SBC-min (draft) Project: Lexington High School Meeting:School Building Committee Meeting No. 29-05/12/2025 Page: 1 O Ilf iii: .iVVI°°ll i 11I11Il E P Project: Lexington High School ,,,, Project No: Subject: School Building Committee Meeting Meeting Date: 05/12/2025 Location: Hybrid(146 Maple Street&Zoom) Time: 12:00 PM Distribution Attendees, Project File Prepared By: J.Greco Present Name Affiliation Present Name Affiliation Kathleen Lenihan* SBC Chair&SC Member ✓ Mike Burton DWMP Michael Cronin* SBC Vice-Chair&LPS Facilities ✓ Christina Dell DWMP Angelo ✓ Julie Hackett* Jacob Greco DWMP Superintendent Steve Bartha* Town Manager Chris Schaffner Green Engineer Joe Pato* Select Board Chair ✓ Lorraine Finnegan SMMA J . Mark Barrett* Public Facilities Manager Rosemary Park SMMA Charles Favazzo PBC Co-Chair ✓ Thomas Faust SMMA Jr.* Jonathan Himmel PBC Chair* it ✓ . Brian Black SMMA Andrew Baker* Lexington High School Principal ✓ Erin Prestileo SMMA Carolyn Kosnoff* Finance Assistant Town Anthony Jimenez SMMA Manager Hsing Min Sha* Community Representative J Martine Dion JSMMA Kseniya Slaysky* Community Representative ✓ Anoush Krafian SMMA Charles Lamb Capital Expenditures ✓ Michael Dowhan SMMA Committee Alan Levine Appropriation Commit tee � Andy Oldeman �SMMA Dan Voss* Sustainable Lexington Rick DeAngelis Recreation Committee Department Maureen Director of Planning and Cindy Arens Recreation Kavanaugh Assessment Department Veirirrrncairnt Ma:assa:aa.ihUsett �rr�rnr.rlr irearudW�rlhliu::tlie .coin Project: Lexington High School Meeting:School Building Committee Meeting No. 29-05/12/2025 Page:2 Claire Sheth Recreation Committee Melissa Battite Recreation Department Item........ No Action Item Re Ball in Court Requested by q 28.7 Review scope&cost implications of moving the SBC SMMA/Turner mechanical room to Wing B 28.4 Research other options of temporary/rentedSMMA field SBC lighting other than diesel and any costs needed for use - Please clickIFi,e,ire'for the presentation o This ill be referenced in the meeting minutes with slide numbers called out to refer to. ® Below is a summation of key points® please view the recording for full transcript. Item No. Descriptio Action n 29.1 Call to Order& Intro:Called to order by Kathleen Lenihan at 12:0 1 pm Record 29.2 Approval of April 14-2025, Meeting Minutes: Record • A motion to approve the April 14, 2025, Meeting Minutes made by J.Hackett and seconded by J.Pato. • Discussion: none Roll Call Vote:A. Baker-Yes, M.Cronin-Yes, C. Favazzo-Absent,J. Hackett-Yes,J. Himmel-Yes, C. Kosnoff-Yes,J. Pato-Yes, K. Slaysky- Yes, H.Sha -Yes, K. Lenihan-Yes, D.Voss-Yes, S.Bartha-Yes, M.Barrett- Absent 10-0-2. 29.3 Public Comment Record Please click here,to view the recording for public comment 29.4 Project Design Update Record - N/A 29.5 Confirm HVAC System Record Page 2 of 8 Project: Lexington High School Meeting:School Building Committee Meeting No. 29-05/12/2025 Page:3 • A.Oldeman from SMMA reviewed the current HVAC options that are being proposed (Slide 7) o Central Ground Source Heat Pump(GSHP) o Central Air Source Heat Pump(ASHP) o Hybrid between GSHP&ASHP o ASHP VRF System • A.Oldeman shared the recommendations from SMMA, Sustainable Lexington,and the Permanent Building Committee(Slide 8) o All of these groups&committees were in favor of the Hybrid Option for the following reasons: • EUI 25 and NZE goal • 30-year positive cash flow • Equipment Low carbon life-cycle(vs.ASHP) • Maintenance • GSHP longer equipment life • Resiliency: GHSP benefit during power outage • GSHP Modular helps reliability • Utility, O&M and peak load cost savings • No refrigerants within the building interior spaces. o L.Finnegan added that the project team along with PBC& SLC have spent considerable amount of time the last month or so working on analyzing the data and making sure the correct option is proposed • A.Oldeman reviewed the pros&cons of the four options(Slide 9) • M.Dion reviewed the carbon usage of the four options(Slide 10) • M.Sandeen reviewed the Life Cycle Cost required by the Lexington Integrated Design Policy and completed by himself(Slides 11 -13) • A.Oldeman reviewed the potential geothermal field locations on the site plan assuming a hybrid system(Slide 14) • A.Levine asked what the reason is that the hybrid option is better when it requires two types of equipment o A.Oldeman noted that it is good to have parity in the overall heating and cooling cycle to prevent temperature drift in the soils, it is also good to provide redundancy in the systems. o L.Finnegan noted that the IRA is also not guaranteed for the geothermal and pointed out how the life cycle costs also favor it as M.Sandeen explained • A.Levine asked if the air source can be used for heating also if the geothermal had any issues o A.Oldeman noted the geothermal is going to do 100°/%of the heating and 50%of the cooling,the air source will handle the rest of the cooling and if an air source heat pump was installed instead of a just a chiller it could also provide heat if needed • A.Baker asked where the manifold room would be located for the geothermal wells and what the warranties are for the air source equipment o A.Oldeman noted that they are still working through the location and plan for the wells and may use smaller more Page 3 of 8 Project: Lexington High School Meeting:School Building Committee Meeting No. 29-05/12/2025 Page:4 dispersed but wither way they will be below grade and not interfere with the site plan. o A.Oldeman also noted that the compressors are normally warrantied for 5 years but the remaining equipment is normally 1 year. ].Hackett noted she is pleased to see all the groups are agreeing on this and asked if Mass Save is a guarantee and how much of the cashflow is guaranteed. o M.Sandeen noted Mass Save is 100°/%and shared that the cash flow has a pretty wide range of outcomes and it does not account for any IRAs that could be in place H.Min Sha noted that they are probably going to recommend an option that is not the cheapest to build but will cost much less overtime and that has to be explained well. Min Sha asked how much more the hybrid costs upfront compared to air source? o M.Sandeen noted it is around $7 million difference C.Kosnoff asked if the 30-year life cycle costs includes the replacement costs for the two systems o A.Oldeman noted yes it accounts for it C.Kosnoff wanted to clarify that the positive cashflow is not above and beyond and a sole net to the town K.Lenihan asked if any SBC members object to the hybrid option being confirmed for the project o There was no objections and the hybrid option is confirmed 29.6 Review Outdoor Classroom, Roof Terrace&Plaza Design Record • M.Dowhan reviewed the currently proposed site design options and raised courtyard options.(This is a very visual section please view slides 16 to 44) • A.Baker shared how exciting it is to see all of this and in future diagrams they would like the LABBB drop off location to relabeled to be inclusive to all special need families • H.Min Sha noted that this type of space is not free but it is important to get value for the money spent and create a space that students and staff can learn and work efficiently. He noted that just building a box does not work and he endorses spaces like this • J.Hackett shared how she loved what she saw in the presentation and noted on the roof terrace design mimics the tri-corn hat of Lexington Public Schools.She also asked how much the outside design concept has to gel with the indoors/courtyard version of the concept? Page 4 of 8 Project: Lexington High School Meeting:School Building Committee Meeting No. 29-05/12/2025 Page: 5 o B.Black added that it is good for them to have an overall theme but it is okay for variation and it would be good to have them "rhyme" instead of just replicate K.Slaysky agrees with H.Min Sha and wanted to add to that by reminding everyone part of the goal of the indoor courtyard was to provide an outdoor space that is awful safe and enclosed from the non-school community.She noted that it is important to understand the potential for distraction from the classrooms that are on the outside of that space. Slaysky asked if the design team can make sure the shortest paths are selected otherwise people will not follow them.She also noted that the shaded north entrance may be valuable on those hot days for programing J.Himmel asked for a sit down with the designers to review the design C.Kosnoff shared concerns about the interior courtyard concept and how it will be a maintenance issue especially during the winter seasons. o L.Finnegan noted that this Schematic Design phase is about getting the concept down and Design Development is for more detailed reviewed 29.7 Confirm Lighted Fields&Field Material Record • M.Dowhan reviewed the currently proposed lighted fields for confirmation along with the proposed field material(Slides 46 to 48) • A.Levine has heard there is temporary lighting brough in for the football field and asked if the design team can swamp C.5&C.6 to move the football field further away from the abutters o M.Dowhan noted that it is a tight squeeze and is not sure they can fit it and moving them would also block the view of the fields for the building and create a barrier o K.Lenihan noted that there is only 4/5 nights a year this would be an issue and that is not worth moving • K.Slaysky noted she is confused because she thought the softball field would be lighted o L.Finnegan noted that this is a new field and the original is still lighted • R.DeAngelis added that this is an opportunity to provide additional lighting and not to light them due to an abutter issue is not correct and is not supported by the Recreation Department • H.Min Sha wanted to point out for the record that what is decided today is based on a lot of input from community members and especially abutters,there is also cost considerations. He also added that having lights does not mean that there will not be rules and limitations in place for the use of them • J.Himmel asked for the idea of some element to tie in the Muzzey St view-line to be included in the plans Page 5 of 8 Project: Lexington High School Meeting:School Building Committee Meeting No. 29-05/12/2025 Page: 6 A.Baker noted that he is somewhat torn on this as it is expensive and once the lights are there it will probably increase from the 4/5 nights a year they are currently used M.Burton noted that it can be included as an alternate in the Schematic Estimate if they want to continue evaluating it K.Slaysky asked for the idea of running conduit to these fields for the town to have the option to install lighting in the future . K.Lenihan asked if there are any objections to confirm no extra lighted fields now and price out the lights and just conduit as alternates? o A.Baker noted the conduit should be included o A.Levine asked if the SBC would have to make a choice on any alternates prior to the debt exclusion • L.Finnegan noted yes o There were no objections and it was confirmed to proceed with no lights but to price alternates for the lights and just conduit K.Lenihan asked if there any objections to proceeding with Sod o There were no objections from the SBC 29.9 Confirm Off-Site Improvements Record • E.Prestileo reviewed the offsite improvements proposed for the project that are currently included(Slide 50) • E.Prestileo also reviewed the offsite improvements proposed for the project that are not currently included (Slide 51) • C.Favazzo would like to see the studies for the new east entrance on and off of Waltham as there is not a lot of room and does not think that it would work without a new lighted intersection • K.Slaysky shared how to her the theme of all these options is pedestrian and school safety and thinks they are important.She thinks the committee should be considering all of them o E.Prestileo noted that the town can consider doing these before the project even starts o L.Finnegan added that these are not supported by the MSBA for funding so it may make sense for the town to do it before • J.Pato noted that at tonight's Select Board meeting they will be addressing some of these options • K.Lenihan asked if there were any objections for the proposed options o There were no objections 29.10 Confirm Exterior Design&Design of Building Entrances ..Record Page 6 of 8 Project: Lexington High School Meeting:School Building Committee Meeting No. 29-05/12/2025 Page:7 B.Black reviewed the design of the building entrance's and exteriors materials(This was a very visual section please view slides 53 to 72) o L.Finnegan added that this is not a final design but just a concept to help get costing,this design can be expanded and tweaked in Design Development K.Lenihan noted the first goal is to choose between red brick or the other lighter color pallet J.Himmel noted they should be choosing a design that the public would like and should represent the towns dedication to education. He also shared some insight from a community member H.Min Sha wants to push back on his pet peeve of red brick and he does not support it K.Slaysky noted she is in favor of lighter colors as they help the massing of the building.She thinks red brick is charming but not on this scale. K.Lenihan noted she is in favor of the red brick • C.Favazzo noted the goal is to get the correct amounts for the SD estimate o L.Finnegan noted they would like more of a detailed selection J.Hackett thinks the committee needs more time and agrees with C.Favazzo J.Pato likes 13 or 23 and prefers stacked windows and no metal panels A.Baker prefers the non-metal panels K.Lenihan asked when the library windows became a square and not long windows o B.Black noted they have not changed really it is just the fourth story was brough back in L.Finnegan noted the colors of the brick do not change the price but the treatments of the end walls do J.Hackett asked why these are the only two options and they cannot have porcelain tile or something else K.Slaysky noted the pattering on the brick can be better C.Kosnoff thinks there could be an option to meet in the middle of these brick/metal treatments H.Min Sha asked if they are locked in on the four story and cannot go back to the 3 story setback o B.Black noted no they can walk back to that previous version o J.Hackett agrees K.Lenihan asked for a roll call on what options they prefer for the end treatment and windows o Metal Rain Screen: o Brick:9 o Stacked Windows: 7 o Shifted Windows: 1 Page 7 of 8 Project: Lexington High School Meeting:School Building Committee Meeting No. 29-05/12/2025 Page:8 K.Lenihan noted there is a general consensus on brick on the end with some addition of metal panel or other rain screens with stacked windows not shifted 29.11 Reflections/Action Items Record A.Levine noted the next community meeting would be a good time for feedback on the exterior design 29.12 Adjourn: Motion to adjourn at 2:28 was made by J.Hackett and seconded by Record J.Pato Roll Call Vote:A. Baker-Yes, M.Cronin-Yes, C. Favazzo-Absent,J. Hackett-Yes,J. Himmel-Yes, C. Kosnoff-Yes,J. Pato-Yes, K. Slaysky- Yes, H.Sha -Yes, K. Lenihan-Yes, D.Voss-Yes, S.Bartha-Yes, M.Barrett- Yes 12-0-0. Sincerely, "DCl11 E:: +-VVI I 1 Ffl11::.::R Jacob Greco Assistant Project Manager Cc:Attendees, File The above is my summation of our meeting. If you have any additions and/or corrections, please contact me for incorporation into these minutes. Page 8 of 8