The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2024-10-30-SBC-min (Communications Working Group) Ip Iii°` MEETING NOTES Meeting Date: October 30, 2024 Project Name: Lexington High School Project Number: Click or tap here to enter text. Subject: LHS Communications Working Group Meeting Attendees: Christina Dell Angelo DWMP - Project Manager (CA) Mike Burton (MB) DWMP- Partner Jacob Greco (JG) DWMP -Assistant Project Manager Lorainne Finnegan (LF) SMMA - Principal in Charge Anoush Krafian (AK) SMMA - Assistant Project Manager Mark Barrett (M1132) LHS- Public Facilities Project Manager Mike Cronin (MC) SBC Vice Chair & LPS Facility Director Jo )�. e Pato P Select Board Julie Hackett (JH) :Superintendent 1 Jon Himmel UH2) PBC Chair Kathleen Lenihan (KL) SBC Chair Kseniya Slaysky (KS) � SBC Community Representative Hsing Min Sha (HMS) SBC Community Representative • Jonas Miller (JM) Communications Director Item Action Item Requested by Ball in Court No. 1Ceiri noirnt Ia:aw.;Sa:aa.ifna sett° �rr�rnr.d¢aire ��c aFnrlhliu::u::ii „r�rerrn ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ .............. ........ Agenda Item Description 1. Introduction: Refer to attendees list. 2. 10/30 Public Forum - The team discussed updates to the school's website, focusing on the 'Learn More' page and the inclusion of parent square text, text alerts through code red, and agenda notices. They also discussed the addition of Lexi media videos to the website, with the team agreeing to review them before the next meeting. The team also discussed the presentation for the upcoming community meeting, with M.Burton sharing the slides and C.Dell Angelo agreeing to speak to certain slides. The team also discussed the need to update the website to reflect the two preferred options for the school's design, with a significant duration difference. The team agreed to make this change and to extend the time at the bottom of the slide to reflect the new date. - In the meeting, M.Burton outlined the plan for the presentation, which included a brief description of the two remaining options and graphic material to help us understand the scale and mass of the building. L.Finnegan was to speak about these two options. There was a discussion about the inclusion of visual aids, with some members suggesting they should be included for transparency, while others felt they might be confusing for the general public. The team agreed to keep the visual aids as backup and to focus on the two preferred options. The presentation also included a criteria matrix to help explain why they were down to these two options. K.Lenihan expressed her concerns about the clarity of the presentation for the general public but agreed to proceed with the plan. - In the meeting, K.Lenihan and M.Burton discussed the duration and content of a presentation for a forum. They Page 2 of 5 agreed on a 30-minute presentation, with K.Lenihan's portion expected to be around 3 minutes. They also considered the order of the presentation, with M.Burton suggesting that K.Lemhan explain the 'why' before delving into lifecycle cost analysis. M.Cronin emphasized the need for a concise explanation of two HVAC delivery systems, while B.Black suggested that L.Finnegan should present the topic. J.Pato raised a concern about field reconstruction costs, but M.Cronin clarified that these costs would be zero if they didn't opt for ground source heat pumps. K.Slaysky reminded the team to represent both options still on the table. - The team discussed the progress of their project, with a focus on the upcoming vote to narrow down options. They also discussed the need for a cost estimate for the renovation of the baseball field, with A.Krafian agreeing to ask the cost estimators for this information. The team also discussed the timeline for decision-making, with K.Slaysky suggesting a reminder about the town vote and the exclusion vote. M.Burton mentioned that he would incorporate this information into his presentation. The team agreed to leave the presentation open for feedback until November 10th, with the aim of finalizing it by November 12th. - C.Dell Angelo emphasized the importance of understanding the timeline for the town meeting and debt exclusion. K.Slaysky highlighted the need to clarify the connection between the special town meeting warrant articles and the High School project, suggesting that this should be addressed in the QA session. J.Pato agreed, noting that the resolution is non-binding and a request to the school committee and select board. K.Lenihan suggested that the forum might not be the appropriate place to discuss the town meeting article, but K.Slaysky insisted that it should be addressed when it comes up. The team agreed to discuss the matter further with the select board and school committee on the 4th. - The team discussed the need to prepare slides addressing enrollment, which had been a topic of interest in previous meetings. They agreed to include these slides as part of their presentation, but not as the main focus. The team also discussed the potential inclusion of information on student enrollment, with the consensus being that it could be added to Page 3 of 5 the Q&A portion of the presentation. The team also considered the possibility of having J.Hackett, who was not present, discuss the enrollment numbers. The team agreed to add the enrollment information after the lifecycle cost analysis section. - The team discussed the differences between a thought exchange and a survey, with a focus on the thought exchange results. They acknowledged that the thought exchange isn't a survey and isn't representative of the whole community, but it's a valuable tool for gathering feedback. The team also discussed the possibility of conducting a more formal survey in the future, possibly at the beginning of the year for comparison later in the year. The idea of using a mailer for distributing information was also brought up. Lastly, J.Miller expressed his interest in revisiting the Lex Media videos for immediate feedback. 3. Videos - J.Miller expressed concerns about the lack of visual elements, context, and branding in the videos produced by Lex Media. He suggested that the videos needed to be more visually engaging and contextually relevant to the project. K.Slaysky agreed, mentioning the possibility of adding a frame or graphic to the videos. C.Dell Angelo proposed reaching out to Devin Shaw from Lex Media for editing and visual enhancements. J.Pato suggested that the videos could be dated with a more visually engaging version. A.Krafian suggested that KartoonEDU might already have the necessary materials for consistency. 4. Additional FAQ Topics - The team discussed the need to update the RFQ on the website, with J.Miller volunteering to take on this task. K.Slaysky expressed a desire to link specific FAQ responses to the website for easier access but noted that she hadn't yet figured out how to do this. K.Lenihan suggested using Page 4 of 5 screenshots as a workaround. C.Dell Angelo emphasized the importance of responding to inquiries received through the website, with K.Lenihan confirming that she was handling this task. 5. Close Sincerely, 11)0I11: WI IlllI I`TlIIii: 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 5 of 5