Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2024-10-16-SBC-min (Communications Working Group) Ip Iii°` MEETING NOTES 1,Q Z1�.:.: ...IILi I�....ILrTHE.EIR Meeting Date: October 16, 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(CA) DWMP-Project Manager tl_...__Y Mike Burton(MB) PDWMPartner r Greco Jacob UG) DWMP Assistant Project Manager Lorainne Finnegan(LF) SMMA-Principal in Charge..................................................................................................... r Anoush Krafian (AK)) SMMA-Assistant Project Manager Mark Barrett(MB2) LHS-Public Facilities Project Manager Mike Cronin(MC) SBC Vice Chair& LPS Facility Director " l Joe Pato QP) Select Board Julie Hackett UH) Superintendent Jon Himmel UH2) PBC Chair rrte^ � � Kathleen Lenihan(KL� ) � ....SBC Chair I_. Kseniya Slaysky(KS) � SBC Community Representative Hsing Min Sha(HMS) SBC Community Representative Jonas Miller QM) Communications Director Ball in Court„ Item Action Item Requested by N o. q 2 updated cost information slide to the group for Working Group Dore+Whittier review by the end of this week. 2 ].Hackett requested a screenshot of the updated ].Hackett A.Krafian PSR table Agenda Item Description 1. Introduction: Refer to attendees list. 2 Review Community Meetings(Abutter&Community) Veirirrrncairnd I Va:aSSa:aa.ihUseU �rr�rnr.d¢airea��c aFnrlhliV.u::iier„c�rerrn Presentation Organization and Abutter Meeting o The team discussed the organization of the abutters meeting presentation,with M.Burton working on tailoring the revised cost information and aiming to send it out for comment by the end of the week.They also discussed the abutter meeting and the need for clear communication about the current options and pricing.The focus was on the two shortlisted options,with the team agreeing to stop discussing the other four options. K.Lenihan emphasized the importance of using precise language to convey this information.The team also discussed the ongoing work on the two shortlisted options,with M.Burton and A.Krafian confirming that they would continue to work on these.The team discussed the recording of the Abutters meeting and agreed to record it via Zoom.They also discussed the estimated cost for the field house renovation,with J.Greco agreeing to update the website with the new information. Mike suggested leaving the other four options in the presentation for potential questions.J.Hackett requested a screenshot of the updated slide for the upcoming stakeholder engagement meeting with the Select Board. Project Complexity and Site Work Discussion o The team discussed the complexities of their project, particularly the issue of site work and its varying definitions across different scenarios.The team also discussed the potential for future changes,with the understanding that once they reach a more focused stage,they could better explain the plus one on the phases section.They agreed to consult with L.Finnegan for further clarification.The conversation ended with the suggestion of adding an asterisk to indicate site work, but it was noted that this would need to be applied to all scenarios. - Project Costs, Incentives,and MSBA Grants Discussion o The team discussed the potential costs and incentives related to a project. K.Slaysky emphasized the importance of presenting the fact that the likely cost to the town would be reduced from 700 to 600 with the MSBA Grant,and further reduced to around 550 with incentives.J.Pato suggested adding a double asterisk on project cost and expected 150 million dollars in MSBA and incentive reimbursements.J.Hackett pointed out that the magic number for the project was getting it under 500 million,and if they deduct the 150 million from 6.48, it gets them to 4.98. M.Burton clarified that they have been saying 140 million, expecting to do better with the MSBA and incentives. K.Slaysky reminded the team that the MSBA Page 2 of 4 grant agreement has the word "maximum"on every square inch of the paper, indicating that the funding might not be the exact number. - Discussing Construction Phase and Upcoming Meeting o K.Slaysky suggested that the committee should prepare a concise explanation for choosing the construction phase in place over other options, despite its higher cost.J.Pato agreed and suggested that each committee member should be prepared to explain their reasoning when the narrowing vote is taken. K.Lenihan proposed that committee members should come prepared with a statement for the November 4th meeting,where they will discuss their preferences.The committee also discussed the upcoming meeting on November 12th,where they will finalize their choices.J.Hackett suggested that the topic of sustainability should be included in the presentation,and Jacob agreed to send out the new TSR recording ahead of time. 3. Videos - This topic was not discussed 4. Review Additional FAQ Topics/Adjustments This topic was not discussed S. Close Sincerely, Page 3 of 4 :.) IIRI;;;' + i°c III"'I°rIIE 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 4 of 4