HomeMy WebLinkAbout2024-08-19-SBC-min (draft) Project: Lexington High School V
Meeting:School Building Committee U
Meeting No. 16-08/19/2024
Page: 1
L O P I:iii: .iWI°°Illi 11I11II E P
Project: Lexington High
School
,,, Project No:
Subject: School Building Committee Meeting Meeting Date: 08/19/24
Location: Hybrid(146 Maple Street&Zoom) Time: 12:00 PM
Distribution Attendees, Project File Prepared By: J. Greco
Pr
esent 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* Superintendent ' Jacob
Greco DWMP
Jim Malloy* Town Manager Chris Schaffner Green
Engineer
✓ Joe Pato* Select Board Chair Lorraine Finnegan SMMA
I/ Mark Barrett* Public Facilities Manager Rosemary Park SMMA ff ✓
✓ Charles Favazzo PBC Co-Chair ✓ Matt Rice SMMA
Jr.*
Jonathan Him
✓ mel* PBC Chair ✓ Brian Black SMMA
✓ Andrew Baker* Interim Lexington High School ✓ Erin Prestileo SMMA
Principal
✓ Carolyn Kosnoff* Finance Assistant Town Anthony Jimenez SMMA
Manager
✓ Hsing Min Sha* Community Representative Martine Dion SMMA
✓ Kseniya Slaysky* Community Representative ✓ Anoush Krafian SMMA
✓ Charles Lamb Capital Expenditures ✓ Michael Dowhan SMMA
Committee
✓ Alan Levine Appropriation Committee Pete Timothy A.M. Fogerty
✓ Dan Voss* Sustainable Lexington Rick DeAngelis Recreation
Committee Department
Maureen Director of Planning and Cindy Arens Recreation
Kavanaugh Assessment Department
Veirirroa:inta-assaa.lr USEu US Wrarva(var.doireandWAilhliu::t:iierr,cc:)iii
Project: Lexington High School
Meeting:School Building Committee
Meeting No. 16-08/19/2024
Page:2
Andy Oldeman Melissa Battite Recreation
Department
....Kelly..Axtell
.................... Assistant Town Manager....................................
Item Action Item Requested by Ball in Court
No.
11.5 Set up Construction Manager at Risk DWMP �DWMP
Sub-Committee meeting
11.4 Fill out the provided criteria matrix of the PSR SMMA SBC Members
options
® Please click her for the presentation
o This will be referenced in the meeting minutes with Aide numbers called out t
refer to.
Item Description Action
No.
11.1 Call to Order&Intro: Called to order by Kathleen Lenihan at 12:00 pm Record
11.2 Approval of August 5-2024, Meeting Minutes: Record
• A motion to approve the August 5,2024, Meeting Minutes made by
J.Hackett and seconded by M.Cronin
• Discussion:
Roll Call Vote:A. Baker-Yes, M.Cronin-Yes,C. Favazzo-Yes,J. Hackett-
Yes,J. Himmel-Absent, C. Kosnoff-Yes,J. Pato-Yes, K.Slaysky-Yes, H.
Sha-Yes, K. Lenihan-Yes, D.Voss-Yes,J. Malloy-Absent, M. Barrett-Yes
10-0-0.
11.3 Discuss: Parking Quantity and Location, Driveways and Circulation, Current Use Record
and Anticipated Impacts of Fields
• J.Hackett wanted to share a statement:
"I want to share a recent concern about something that occurred after our
Community Forum on the evening of August 14th.
As you know,we have a Student School Building Committee,which is the
equivalent of this SBC, except it includes middle and high school students
interested in learning about the project and the process.They want to
understand more deeply how schools are built and how a community comes
together to make tough decisions.
Page 2 of 11
Project: Lexington High School
Meeting:School Building Committee
Meeting No. 16-08/19/2024
Page:3
The Student SBC is voluntary and includes children in grades 6 through 12.We
meet monthly,and the students have helped write portions of the educational
plan,joined SBC members in visiting other high schools, interviewed members
of our Town boards and committees, participated in job shadowing with SMMA
and Dore+Whittier, and more.
They are always eager to learn,and on August 14th,they got an education.
just before the start of the Community Forum, I spoke with four of our student
SBC members who were in attendance. I shared that as we narrow school
design options from 5 to 1,feelings will intensify, and we will likely experience
more tension as a community.We discussed empathy, how everyone's
perspective matters, and how emotional these conversations are for people
passionate about certain aspects of the project or personal concerns,such as
how to pay for a potential tax increase on a fixed income.
As always, I encouraged our students to participate in the forum,which they
are always eager to do. The people who are best qualified to describe life
inside LHS are the students and staff themselves.They have a unique
perspective to share as they live in their current high school and understand
what needs to change to improve it.
During the Community Forum, I invited our four S-SBC students to share their
perspectives on the condition of high school.They spoke very briefly, no more
than a minute or two combined, about the high school facility and their
experiences in it.
At the end of the evening,we had our typical debrief.They felt good about their
contribution,and one said they had so much more they wanted to say.
thanked them for attending,and they left.
When they left,they were approached in the hallway by several adults,
including a larger group of about ten people who circled around them, calling
them puppets and untruthful.They said that I was telling the students what to
say,and they were not taxpayers and,therefore,shouldn't be sharing their
perspectives at these meetings.When they tried to say that no one was telling
them what to say and that the words that they had spoken were their personal
perspectives,an individual pointed a finger in their face and said they"had lost
all credibility"and"people will no longer listen to what they had to say.
When things started to get confrontational, one of our students took a phone
call and excused themselves.The students then reached out to let me know
what transpired.Their primary concern was for younger S-SBC students who
may not have developed the skills yet to manage this kind of conflict with
adults.
Mr. Baker and I debriefed with the students the next day.They processed their
feelings and experience and spoke about this being an opportunity to mentor
younger S-SBC members.They also helped me craft the message I am sharing
with you now, and to their credit,they want to continue to have an open
dialogue with all members of the public, including those who don't happen to
share their perspectives.This is what we teach our kids to do in school—to
think critically, be reflective, have empathy,and engage in healthy dialogue.
Our S-SBC students have every right to have their voices heard.They are
members of our school community, and they are intelligent,thoughtful, kind,
and empathetic.They have minds of their own,and I will continue to invite
Page 3 of 11
Project: Lexington High School
Meeting:School Building Committee
Meeting No. 16-08/19/2024
Page:4
them to participate in these conversations and lend their voices as long as they
feel comfortable doing so.
wanted to share this with all of you because it's a good time for us to pause
and reflect.These are young people learning about the world,and it is
unacceptable for adults to confront them as they did. I hope those who were
involved take some time to pause and reflect.There is no requirement for
community engagement;we hold multiple opportunities for the public to
engage with the SBC—not because we have to but because we want to.
Community engagement in the project is essential,and we know that people
come from a genuine place of care and concern.
want to thank the many people on the SBC, in the community,and on our
Project Team who have encouraged our students and made them feel valued,
supported,and heard. Overall, it's been a wonderful experience for them,and
look forward to seeing them continue actively contributing to future SBC
discussions in meaningful ways."
• M.Rice noted that the SBC is in a continuum of decision making
throughout the Preferred Schematic Space. He shared how the
timeline has an introduction, discussion, and decision or confirmation
for each topic to help break it down into manageable pieces
o M.Rice shared a progress update on where the SBC is in the
timeline(slide 7&8)
• E.Prestileo noted that parking programs depend on a large number of
variables
• E.Prestileo shared a table of the existing conditions of the parking
program at Lexington High School (Slide 10)
C This included the quantity,type of spot,and utilization
percentage
• E.Prestileo shared a table showing the existing conditions of the
parking and the proposed quantity and asked for input on the
proposed numbers(slide 11)
o A.Levine asked if the percentages on the top are utilization
and if the central office has a rate
• E.Prestileo said yes that is correct and none was
provided for the central office
o M.Burton asked if all the designs are for 450 spots does the
recommended 496 spots fit on the site?
• M.Dowhan noted the first question should be if the
SBC thinks that 496 spots are required before space
is concerned as these are conservative numbers
• B.Black said that each scheme shows it can bear a
certain number of spaces and if more are required
there would be tradeoffs with outdoor learning space,
as an example.
o J.Pato asked if they are counting any on-street parking and if
not the select board could allocate those parts to the school
via permit only
Page 4 of 11
Project: Lexington High School
Meeting:School Building Committee
Meeting No. 16-08/19/2024
Page: 5
M.Dowhan noted they are not including the on-street
parking
o A.Baker said if having 25 student spots sacrifices any outdoor
learning or educational program he thinks it is not worth it as
it does not even serve the entire senior class enrollment
o H.M.Sha noted that the goal of this is not to decide the
number of spots but define an upper range and provide input
on the categories.The exact number should be decided at the
design phase.
o J.Hackett noted that this is a discussion and the next time they
come together they will confirm numbers for planning
purposes.
o A.Baker asked if we are only considering grade parking or if
below grade parking is being thought of?
o D.Voss asked for a row to be added for the electrical bus
depot, it can have zero or a question park but it needs to be
acknowledges
o C.Favazzo responded to D.Voss asking if the town owns the
buses?
D.Voss noted it is currently private but it is becoming
common practice for districts to procure their own
busses
o C.Favazzo agrees that 500 spaces is a good target number but
it only informs what the plan is but there is still questions
about how that is achieved
• E.Prestileo shared the massing options of each option and where the
parking would go along with a +/-of the maximum number of spaces.
(Slide 12)
o J.Himmel noted that most if not all the parking is needed
during the school day. Himmel also noted if there is structured
parking it does not mean all the cars would be in there, if it is
all surface parking when expansion occurs structured parking
may need to be built
• E.Prestileo shared considerations for below grade parking(Slide 13):
o Geotechnical: Soils, Ground Water, Bedrock
o Security and Access
o Environmental: Minimize Impervious
o Increase Student Program Areas
o E.Prestileo noted that for this site it will be very difficult and
expensive to pursue this but it would greatly free up the site
to allow for more fields.She noted that this will impact the
available space for the solar canopy
o C.Favazzo noted they cannot determine what the foundation
can be before the geotechnical boring are finalized
E.Prestileo noted that these have already been
conducted which led to the deep foundations in the
PDP phase but more testing will be required
o H.M.Sha noted there are many good ideas that have been
heard and not pursuing it does not mean it is a good idea.Sha
Page 5 of 11
Project: Lexington High School
Meeting:School Building Committee
Meeting No. 16-08/19/2024
Page: 6
noted what he has heard today to not do this are how it will
violate the current foundation plan and the site will lose a lot
of solar panel space
o J.Himmel noted that Waltham was structured parking not
below grade and does not have any of the ventilation required
or elevator for access so it would be a very different animal to
pursue this
o A.Levine asked how much area is needed for the PV array and
would one 500 spot lot cover it?
• B.Black answered no that would not be enough
space.The team is still finalizing this number and how
it will be distributed across the site. Black noted the
focus groups will be very helpful for this
• A.Levine is wondering about what other location
nearby parking could be located along with PV arrays
o D.Voss noted an easy assumption is that less parking is equal
to less PV array space.Voss also shared that with the machinal
spaces on the roofs buildings in Boston are placing PV arrays
over the systems.
• B.Black noted they are starting to explore this as well
and understand D.Voss'desire for this to be explored
early as can be
• E.Prestileo shared the space required for a bus depot on each massing
option(Slide 14)
o Prestileo noted this would equal roughly 2 acres of space for
all the busses and bus driver parking
o H.M.Sha noted that he is not sure if he would like a bus depot
on the site as they are large and not aesthetic
o A.Levine asked how when he drives by there are a lot of buses
lined up is this in addition to that?
• M.Dowhan noted that this is for the busses to be
housed, repaired, recharged,and for parking this is
independent of the queue for pick-up&drop-off
• A.Levine thinks these should be combined to not
waste space
o K.Slaysky noted if structured parking is considered it is
important to look at the cost and the maintenance for these
going into the future. Slaysky also noted the committee cannot
afford more of a delay on deciding if space needs to be
reserved for this bus depot and central office parking. She
noted if these two items get added to the project late in the
game it may require adding structured or below grade parking
which would be an expense and challenge.
o J.Hackett noted that the central office parking spots were
revised to 57 not 100
o K.Lenihan noted that the bus depot is so large due to the
amount of buses required for the size of Lexington. Lenihan is
wondering if they can have a distributed bus depot system
where they are housed at multiple schools or other locations
Page 6 of 11
Project: Lexington High School
Meeting:School Building Committee
Meeting No. 16-08/19/2024
Page:7
and not all on the Lexington high school site. Lenihan also
thinks the School Committee and Select Board should have a
say for this.
• E.Prestileo thinks this is possible but it will be less
efficient and more expensive
o M.Cronin wanted to clarify this space is just for the Highschool
busses and LABBB vans not any of the other schools
o D.Voss thinks that the space reserved should just be sure of
the buses not the LABBB vans as that has already been
accounted for.Voss noted that Beverly houses their buses on
site without a repair area.
o C.Kosnoff thought that the buses used for the elementary are
the same as the high school?
• J.Hackett noted that she thinks that there are three
different tears of busses and only some get reused
o C.Kosnoff asked how much battery storage would be required
and was this already being planned for? Kosnoff noted that
currently this whole operation is being outsourced and thinks
this is a whole separate conversation that needs to be had
o D.Voss noted that this topic keeps getting punted down the
road along with discussion and analysis that is required to
make a decision.Voss noted that this discussion needs to
happen so in two-three years the site is not being torn up
o A.Levine asked what the benefit of having this at the high
school is compared to having it at a bus depot
• M.Cronin noted they would be reducing their peak
electric demand by having this at the site
o H.M.Sha noted that maybe a decision does need to be made
but there is not the time currently
o J.Himmel noted they would need to know where all the solar
would go to power the depot
• M.Dowhan noted that when they reviewed the responses from
Thought Exchange the main comment was to keep traffic out of the
abutters' neighborhoods and they are aware of this and making sure
to accommodate it. Dowhan also noted how they heard about making
the queue space longer for pick-up&drop-off.
• E.Prestileo shared the impact on the fields for the duration of each
type of construction.This was shared through diagrams and photos of
the site starting on Slide 17.
o E.Prestileo noted that Phase 1 c will become more clear once
the test well is complete
o J.Hackett noted that this was brought up at the community
meeting and SMMA has contacted the necessary stakeholders
o C.Favazzo asked if they talked to the recreation department
for these?
• E.Prestileo noted yes
o J.Hackett asked if it is the town's job to look at what is offline
and figure out where the programs have to go
• E.Prestileo noted yes that will be ideal
Page 7 of 11
Project: Lexington High School
Meeting:School Building Committee
Meeting No. 16-08/19/2024
Page:8
• M.Burton noted that if Construction Manager at Risk
is chosen there is a chance to start the geothermal in
summer of 2026 instead of 2027
o H.M.Sha noted that if the geothermal incentives go away due
to administration changes the fields will be more free if
air-source is used.
o J.Himmel asked about how Framingham's unique drilling
would impact
• E.Prestileo is now positive about how that technique
would impact the timeline but they are looking into it.
o J.Himmel asked if drilling has to stop in the winter
• M.Cronin noted no they drilled through the winter
during the high school project
o C.Kosnoff asked if all the parking will be maintained through
this. Kosnoff noted that her child lived through the Hastings
project and if the modulars being so close to the well field
would even be possible.
• M.Burton noted that anytime you are building on the
same site there will be loud noise.The loudest part of
the project will be when steel is being erected. Burton
noted that acoustic barriers can be used to limit this
and offset it but it cannot completely block it.
• M.Cronin noted on Hastings they started without
acoustic barriers and then added them and there was
minimal impact or help
o A.Levine asked if the design team could modify the D.2 design
to reduce the use of modulars
• B.Black noted they did have this option in the PDP
phase but it limited the circulation and access to the
site
• A.Levine asked SMMA to take another look at this
11.4 Introduce:Ground Floor Program &Footprint Area,Total Gross Square Record
Footage, Choose one "New Construction on Fields" Massing Option
• B.Black noted that the presentation prepared speaks for itself and asks
the SBC to review this for the discussion next week due to time
constraints(Starts on Slide 30)
o B.Black ran through the slides quickly and read them of
• A.Baker noted the filled out Educational Criteria was based on his and
J. Hackett's opinions from meeting with staff, students,and
stakeholders. Bake noted this can be reviewed with the whole SBC as
well.
• A.Levine asked to clarify if the goal is to reduce from 3 new
construction on the fields to 1?
Page 8 of 11
Project: Lexington High School
Meeting:School Building Committee
Meeting No. 16-08/19/2024
Page:9
o B.Black noted yes this is the goal and at next meeting they will
have another phased in place option so it may be useful to
conduct this exercise for those as well so there are only 3
options going into the vote
11.5 Discuss:Construction Manager at Risk vs Design-Bid-Build (vote required) Record
• C.D.Angelo shared slides on choosing a construction manager or
design-bid-build option starting on Slide 70.
• M.Burton noted that a project this size does not really have an option
as general contractors normally do not have the bonding capacity for
this project
o J.Himmel added there has not been one in the last ten years
for a project near this size
• J.Pato asked if the funded design process includes this cost
o M.Burton noted yes it is covered and the MSBA does
reimburse
• J.Hackett asked if the CMR's job is to oversee the project team?
o M.Burton noted no,the purpose is to bring them on early and
help mitigate future problems by using the construction
knowledge.
• J.Hackett asked this could end up saving money in the long run
o M.Burton noted yes this is the goal as the best time to solve
problems is during design before they are being built
• C.Favazzo noted in 35 years of experience he has never done a M.G.L.
c149 project(Design-Bid-Build or General Contractor)
• K.Slaysky noted she comes from a Construction Manager at Risk
background but in recent years she has seen estimators question the
efficiency as you never see the problems solved.Slaysky noted that
with the duration of this project it is very useful to have the early
release packages. She also noted that with all the back and forth with
educational programs that will add more people into the equation,
Slaysky believes the RFQ should be very clear about the level of
involvement from the CMR.
• J.Himmel noted he has worked for and managed CMR, he wanted to
note that one of the estimators will be dropped and replaced by the
CMR so this would offset cost in some way. Himmel noted they will be
very useful,the only drawback he can think of is if they do not perform
up to standards. Himmel noted this can be solved by the RFQ noting
that the construction administration is not a guarantee from having
the design Purchase Order.
• J.Himmel motioned to vote for M.G.L.c149a Construction Manager at
Risk Delivery Method and was seconded by C.Favazzo
Page 9 of 11
Project: Lexington High School
Meeting:School Building Committee
Meeting No. 16-08/19/2024
Page: 10
Roll Call Vote:A. Baker-Yes, M.Cronin-Yes,C. Favazzo-Yes,J. Hackett-
Yes,J. Himmel-Yes, C. Kosnoff-Yes,J. Pato-Yes, K.Slaysky-Yes, H.M.Sha
-Yes, K. Lenihan-Yes, D.Voss-Yes,J. Malloy-Absent, M. Barrett-Yes
11-0-0.
• J.Hackett motioned to approve M.Cronin, M.Barrett,J.Himmel,
C.Favazzo, and K.Slaysky to the CMR Sub-Committee and was
seconded byJ.Pato
Roll Call Vote:A. Baker-Yes, M.Cronin-Yes,C. Favazzo-Yes,J. Hackett-
Yes,J. Himmel-Yes, C. Kosnoff-Yes,J. Pato-Yes, K.Slaysky-Yes, H.M.Sha
-Yes, K. Lenihan-Yes, D.Voss-Yes,J. Malloy-Absent, M. Barrett-Yes
11-0-0.
11.6 Public Comment Record
• D.McKenna 9 Hancock Street: Dawn wants to make a point about
liquidated damages and instead of issuing a penalty for late finishes
and instead offering a bonus to finish on time. McKenna agrees with
removing the 25 student parking spots and asks what the point of the
visitor parking is as if it's for visitors it is not enough space. McKenna
thinks the bus depot does not belong on the site as that is an industrial
building. McKenna thinks it is wrong how the MSBA is driving the
choice for the field house,the language used for the field house is
wrong and making it seem like it is not important to the educational
program.
• M.Battite:She noted she is excited to see how some fields may stay
online and would like to review this offline with someone. Battite noted
it seems like wells on the parking lot could be an option and hopes it is
truly looked at as the impact on parking would be less than the fields.
11.7 Reflections/Action Items Record
• A.Baker asked how the geothermal well system is accessed and
maintained
o E.Prestileo noted that the manifolds would have to come up to
grade somewhere but there is time to plan that
• C.Kosnoff thanks the project team for the visuals of the square
footages described
• J.Himmel asked if recreation uses the current Lexington High School
and if the planned meeting will be for the use of building too
11.8 Adjourn: Motion to adjourn at 2:13 was made by A.Baker and seconded by Record
H.M.Sha
Page 10 of 11
Project: Lexington High School
Meeting:School Building Committee
Meeting No. 16-08/19/2024
Page: 11
Roll Call Vote:A. Baker-Yes, M.Cronin-Absent,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-Absent,J. Malloy-Absent, Mark
Barrett-Absent 8-0-0. f
I
Sincerely,
NN1iTU:::.: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 11 of 11