HomeMy WebLinkAbout2024-07-08-SBC-min Project: Lexington High School V
Meeting:School Building Committee U
Meeting No. 13-07/08/2024
Page: 1
L OPI:iii: .iWI°°Illi"'III'°"'III'"IEP
Project: Lexington High
School
,,, Project No:
Subject: School Building Committee Meeting Meeting Date: 07/08/24
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 Jason Boone DWMP
✓ Jim Malloy* Town Manager ✓ Jacob Greco DWMP
✓ Joe Pato* Select Board Chair Chris Schaffner Green
Engineer
�✓ ....Mark Barrett* .�
Public Facilities Manager Lorraine Finnegan SMMA
✓ Charles Favazzo PBC Co-Chair ✓ Rosemary Park SMMA
Jr.*
✓ Jonathan Himmel* PBC Chair ✓ Matt Rice SMMA
✓ Andrew Baker* Interim Lexington High School ✓ Brian Black SMMA
Principal
✓ Carolyn Kosnoff* Finance Assistant Town ✓ Erin Prestileo SMMA
Manager
Hsing Min Sha...
✓ * Community Representative Anthony Jimenez SMMA
,(
✓
Kseniya Slaysky* Community Representative Martine Dion SMMA
� ..............................................................
� �'
✓ Charles Lamb Capital Expenditures ✓ Anoush Krafian SMMA
Committee
Alan Levine Appropriation Committee Michael Dowh an SMMA
✓ Dan Voss* Sustainable Lexington
Committee
Maureen Director of Planning and
Kavanaugh Assessment
Veirirroa:inta-assaa.lr USEu US Wrarwa(arar.doireandWnrlhliu::t:iierr,cc:)iii
Project: Lexington High School
Meeting:School Building Committee
Meeting No. 12-6/24/2024
Page:2
Andy Oldeman
�
Kelly Axtell Assistant Town Manager
Item Action Item Requested by Ball in Court
No.
11.4 The PSR timeline shown should be labeled"MSBA J.Hackett The SBC
Timeline Requirements"and the SBC shall create a
"Lexington Timeline"
11.5 A summit shall be held with all stake holders J.Pato The SBC
regarding the Field House&Pool Decisions
11.8 Find out if the MSBA has room on their April Board J.Himmel Dore&Whittier
Meeting agenda for Lexington's PSR Submission
Item Description Action
No.
11.1 Call to Order&Intro: Called to order by Kathleen Lenihan at 12:01 pm Record
11.2 Approval of June 24-2024, Meeting Minutes: Record
• A motion to approve the June 24, 2024, Meeting Minutes made by
M.Cronin and seconded by M.Cronin.
• Discussion:
Roll Call Vote:A. Baker-Yes, M.Cronin-Yes,C. Favazzo-Yes,J. Hackett-
Absent,J. Himmel-Yes, C. Kosnoff-Yes,J. Pato-Absent, K.Slaysky-Yes,
H.Sha-Yes, K. Lenihan-Yes, D.Voss-Absent,J. Malloy-Yes, Mark Barrett
-Yes 10-0-0.
11.3 Review Educational Adjacency Diagrams Record
• A.Baker reviewed the Adjacency Meetings from Lexington's view
o Baker noted that a large goal of this was to share and review
the educational criteria
o Classroom configurations that promote collaboration
• Adjacencies of different curricular areas for a wide
variety of interdisciplinary learning
o Flexibility to organize school in different ways:
Page 2 of 12
Project: Lexington High School
Meeting:School Building Committee
Meeting No. 12-6/24/2024
Page:3
i.e.: mall learning communities, Schools within a
School, Freshman Academy)
o Accessibility to and shared opportunities of Innovation Labs/
Makerspaces
o Organizational and character-defining elements:
o Library/media center(centralized)
o Student dining(centralized)
o Auditorium
o Outdoor student space similar to existing LHS Quad
o Active hallways
o Outdoor learning opportunities
• At the ground
• On elevated floors/rooftop
o Ability to reduce impacts of open campus
o Promotes student agency
o Ease of wayfinding
o Reduced student corridor passing time
o A.Baker noted this experience has been very eye opening for
him to see the challenges that each option has.
o A.Baker noted that no matter what massing option is chosen
there will most likely be more program than can fit in the
new Lexington High School
o A.Baker noted it has been very exciting to look at all these
options and how the maker spaces will be used to share
spaces throughout the school and connect different
programs
o A.Baker noted to keep in mind that these are still at a
massing level,and these are not design or floor plans.These
are ways of thinking where spaces will go and what they will
be nearby.
o J.Himmel asked what"promote student agency means"
A.Baker noted it means to enable students to
demonstrate their learning and how they can
choose their own course of study
• R.Park and B.Black reviewed the Educational Ad°acency Dia rams
o R.Park noted that these meetings are very helpful because
although the project team is an expert of designing high
schools the Lexington School Department are experts on
Lexington
o R.Park noted how a goal of this exercise is to visualize the
space summary and how each program fits and interacts
with the other programs
Page 3 of 12
Project: Lexington High School
Meeting:School Building Committee
Meeting No. 12-6/24/2024
Page:4
o R.Park showed the whole school bubble diagram and
explained how it shows the rough correlation between all
the different programs and locations
• The epicenter of the diagram is the cafeteria and
dining along with the Media Center nearby.
Everything else radiates around it
• This bubble diagram is used as a guide to place
program in the massing studies
o R.Park noted that the central offices will have their own
dedicated entrance and elevator, so visitors do not interact
with the students or school
o R.Park noted a large goal of this was to hit Lexington's desire
for cross-department ability and connection of program
throughout the school
o R.Park noted that there is a lot of programs that wants to be
on the first floor but there is only a finite amount of room
and some items had to be prioritized
o R.Park noted that the gymnasium has been located on the
2nd floor in most options. Both locations have pros and cons
o B.Black highlighted some of the major points of the massing
study adjacency diagrams
• B.Black emphasized that these are not floor plans
o Option C.1 d-"Branch"
• The solar orientation is very good on this option
• Each option provides a multi-story open entrance
• Outdoor courtyard on the 3rd level
• Large group instruction rooms can be moved
around
• Media Center at Level 2
• Gym at Level 2
• Stacked Innovation Labs adjacent to Dining
Commons
• Outdoor courtyard at Level 3
• Visual Art at Level 3
• Gym may not be close to both main entry AND
Field House
o Option C.2b-"Braid"
Gym at Level 2
• Media Center at Level 3
• Distributed Innovation Labs
• Outdoor terraces at ends and
middle of academic wings
Visual Arts at Level 2
• Detached from Existing Field House
o Option C.Sb-"Bloom"
Page 4 of 12
Project: Lexington High School
Meeting:School Building Committee
Meeting No. 12-6/24/2024
Page: 5
• Media Center at Level 2
• Gym at Level 1
• Distributed Innovation Labs adjacent to Dining Commons
• Outdoor courtyard at Level 3
• Visual Art at Level 3
• Allows Gym to be near Field House
o Option D.2
• Gym at Level 2
• Media Center at Level 3
• Stacked Innovation Labs adjacent to Dining Commons
• Outdoor courtyard at Level 3
• Visual Art at Level 3
• Gym may not be close to both main entry AND Field House
o Option B.1
Media Center at Level 2
• Gym at Level 2
• Distributed Innovation Labs
Roof Terrace at Level 3
• Visual Art at Level 3
• Gym adjacent to Field House
• B.Black noted that this was a first pass at the ardency diagrams and
more detailed/different versions will be created in the future.
• J.Himmel noted it was very exciting to see this and how the SBC can
ask questions as there will be a lot
o L. Finnegan noted they can create a document where
questions can be asked and then the team will report out.
• J.Himmel noted that one of the best parts of Somerville was the
center"concourse"and how you can see a large amount of program
when you enter. Himmel asked if the central space goes into the
gross or the net square footage.
o L. Finnegan noted it will fulfill the need no matter what it is
called and will be reimbursable
• C. Favazzo asked if the central office space was included
o B.Black noted it was labeled expansion space
• J. Malloy noted this was great information, but it would be more
helpful if the entire packet was sent out to the SBC
o C. Dell Angelo noted it was sent out to the whole SBC on July
3rd
• K.Slaysky noted that thought exchange could be used to receive
feedback.Slaysky asked which field house is assumed on each of
these options
o B.Black noted that they showed multiple variations to show
how they are interchangeable,and one option does not
commit to one field house
Page 5 of 12
Project: Lexington High School
Meeting:School Building Committee
Meeting No. 12-6/24/2024
Page: 6
• K.Slaysky noted multiple parts of each option set off alarm bells for
her as they are not the most compact option that could be produced.
How some buildings have two stories on one side and four on the
other side.Slaysky asked if an option could be more compact and be
full height.Slaysky noted that locations like cafeterias do not need to
be double height although it does look good.
11.4 Decision Timeline for Preferred Schematic Report
• L.Finnegan noted that this timeline is a DRAFT.
o The timeline lays out when a topic will be introduced,when
it will be discussed, and when a decision or confirmation will
be made
• L.Finnegan noted a SBC meeting will be required every two(2)weeks.
• L.Finnegan noted that focus groups will be restarted during this
period and an "eco-charrette"will be held for the public community
o This has been successful in the past
• L.Finnegan noted there is a legend in the bottom to show the various
topics
• L.Finnegan noted that the end of the timeline(11/12)is very
important and will be when the SBC votes to advance the selected
option as the team still has work to do before submission
• D.Voss asked about the dotted lines on the sustainability topics
o L.Finnegan noted that this is just for confirmation on the
path as no decisions will be made until Schematic Design
o D.Voss asked that if the system is going to be decided by the
chosen layout and land use does that therefore make the
decision for us?
o L.Finnegan noted that as an example the options would
demonstrate the available roof&land space and the PV
placement will be decided in Schematic Design.There will be
discussions about it prior to this that may impact the
options, but it should not be the deciding factor.
o D.Voss noted there should be caution as in previous projects
this item was put on the back burner until it was too late.
o L.Finnegan noted that, as solar panels as an example,they
have been showing this already and will continue to be
reviewed.
• J. Hackett asked about public input on the PSR options
o L.Finnegan noted that there are community meetings listed
at the top of the timeline.
• A.Levine asked why the date of 11/12 was chosen
o L.Finnegan noted that the submission date to the MSBA is
12/16(this was pulled in due to the holidays)as the MSBA
has strict deadlines to allow the project to move forward and
be at the next board meeting.
o M.Burton noted that if a deadline is missed it does not
automatically mean there is room on the next MSBA agenda,
Page 6 of 12
Project: Lexington High School
Meeting:School Building Committee
Meeting No. 12-6/24/2024
Page:7
and the November 2025 town-vote has been driving the
schedule
o A.Levine emphasized he is very concerned about the project
schedule and how the community and other groups need to
be involved
• J.Hackett noted that more retreats can be held
• C. Dell Angelo noted that the communications
working group shared that the community meetings
should be more Q&A focused
• L.Finnegan asked for feedback from the SBC on the presentation of
the timeline
• D.Voss asked that the parking confirmation must be made in
September and what the difference is between a vote
o L.Finnegan noted that a confirmation will be used as a guide
and a vote on the topic will be held in Schematic Design.The
purpose of trying to confirm the parking is to be able to
price them for each option. Finnegan said she does not see
room on this site for a bus depot.
o D.Voss noted this is an important decision for the Town of
Lexington and that the SBC needs to think seriously about
getting third party input on what should be accommodated
on site in terms of transportation
o L.Finnegan shared that this will be good to bring up when
this topic can be introduced,and she looks to town leaders
to look into where else in the town these could be
accommodated.
o A.Baker noted that there are only 25 parking spots for
students on the site currently
• A.Levine noted that he is concerned about the schedule and the vote
for building on the fields or off the fields. Levine thinks that the costs
for the options not building on the fields are not accurate and that a
cost comparison between the two site locations should be looked
into. Levine noted that this could sway the people who do not want
to build on the fields if it will cost$50 million less to build.
o M.Burton noted that the pricing for the 18 options was for
cost comparison and now that we only have 5 options,the
soft costs and extra costs will be examined in more detailed
in this phase.These decisions on the schedule are important
so the estimators can have greater detail in pricing the
options.
o L.Finnegan noted that pricing for the modulars and phasing
was built into the PDP pricing
o A.Levine asked when the new cost estimates will begin
o M.Burton noted the start of October,and they will be
presented on 10/28
• J. Pato noted that there are a lot of misconceptions about prices in
the community. Pato noted they may require more time, in months.
To handle the"town process".
Page 7 of 12
Project: Lexington High School
Meeting:School Building Committee
Meeting No. 12-6/24/2024
Page:8
o M.Burton noted that this is a draft and the point of sharing
this was not get this feedback
• H.M Sha noted that it needs to be looked at postponing a year
• K.Slaysky noted that items like this need to be dated, Slaysky shared
that this is a really great start, but it shows the commitment to the
MSBA who is only funding 1/5th of the project. Slaysky noted there is
a lot about what decisions are needed from the SBC, but she would
like to see what the project team will be presenting and what
deliverables will be shown.
o K.Slaysky also noted that predicting the future regarding
parking, is hard but having open space is best as it is easily
converted.
J.Hackett noted that this timeline should be labeled MSBA,and another
Lexington timeline will be created
11.5 Pool and Field House Discussion Record
• J.Malloy asked the SBC if this should really be a SBC decision and
topic or if the town should handle this as it will be a separate project
with separate funding.
• K.Lenihan agrees for a new field house but renovating the existing
seems to fit more in the SBC
• J.Hackett noted for consistency's sake the SBC should be handing it
as it currently exists
• J.Pato noted a summit should be held with the other committees as it
is a significant decision,and the SBC needs to decide where they are
devoting time. Unless the School Committee says a new field, house
is part of the educational plan it should not be part of the SBC
• J.Himmel noted that before this decision can be made the pool has to
show up on the current options
o SMMA noted they can show a footprint
• A.Levine said that the SBC should wait and see if the town wants
these recreational items before time and resources are devoted to
them
• A summit should be held by September with all required stake
holders
11.6 Recreational Fields Impact Record
• Prestileo shared an existing site plan that showed what is currently
available on the site and how the site is used
• E.Prestileo noted that after everything is accounted for there is
around 6.8 acres left
• H.M Sha asked about the land across the street from Worthen Rd.
Page 8 of 12
Project: Lexington High School
Meeting:School Building Committee
Meeting No. 12-6/24/2024
Page:9
• E.Prestileo shared it is not viable space and has a lot of
complications
• C.Lamb noted that this land is elevated and heavily forested.
A town vote is required for changing it
Total Site Acreage 57.8 ac
Northern tennis courts,playground,pool,
track/field
.........Recreation l 2 ac,
Wetlands 4.1 ac not including basin area
SUBTOTAL 16.3 ac
Remaining Area 41 5 ��ac mm
Parkland Area 16.9 ac maintain or swap(existing A97
area less northern recreation area &
wetlands,this includes 11.3 acres of
playfields)
Existing Field House 0.8 ac
Field not within 1.2 ac
parkland
4-story HS footprint 6.0 ac average-includes 10'(+/-)buffer
around exterior
azas 1 8 a
p c,
Outdoor 1
450 parking spaces& 8.0 ac Range 6-8 acres depending on
access drives clustered or distributed
SUBTOTAL LEFT 6.8 ac
__
• E.Prestileo shared the field usage diagram showing which
organizations play on the fields,which fields,and when
• E.Prestileo noted that they are planning on geothermal currently
• E.Prestileo geothermal require large work area per loop and
underground vaults/manifolds may be required
• M.Burton noted that when it comes to geothermal it is not
just straight down and starts roughly 10 feet below grade. It
also has to go horizontal to connect to the other wells and to
the school.
• L.Finnegan noted that the wells could also be phased to
keep some fields online.The fields will also need to two
growing seasons
• E.Prestileo shared DRAFT conceptual construction phasing
Page 9 of 12
Project: Lexington High School
Meeting:School Building Committee
Meeting No. 12-6/24/2024
Page: 10
0 For phased in place items like temporary parking,
construction laydown, modular classrooms, and geothermal
well field will be required
• C.Favazzo asked if the modular classrooms are
showing 100% relocation
• L.Finnegan noted it is only around 40 classrooms
• K.Lenihan asked if the environmental goals can be achieved without
geothermal
o L.Finnegan said yes with air-source or ground-source heat
pump.There is a test well being conducted tomorrow that
will provide more information
o K.Slaysky noted that there is a large majority more rebates
being provided to geo-thermal
• A.Levine asked how long the geothermal well scope would take
0 M.Burton shared that there are many variables, but it would
take at least a year, but the fields would not be offline for
the full duration of the construction
11.7 Public Comment
• Jim Williams: Noted that he is not on bored with this project along
with the 100s if not 1000s of people behind him.Williams asked for
three(3)documents to be added online.The SMMA master plan,
which showed building on the playground/field/track complex.
• Steve McKenna:As the track and field coach for Lexington Highschool
the numbers for the field house at Williams College were$30 million
to build a 55,000-sf field house($545/psf)McKenna noted that if we
are this far off with the field house estimate how far off is the high
school?
• Dawn McKenna: McKenna noted that there is not enough discussion
about how to resolve the issues being revised.The field house is an
existing structure that dates back decades and is used by many
different groups not just track and field. McKenna noted that the
athletic director needs to be spoken to as they do not coordinate well
enough with the recreational director
Melissa Battite:The recreation department would like slides on field usage. M.
Battite wants to point out that information for slides was gathered from the
recreation director, athletic director, PE, health and wellness director sports
council
11.8 Reflection/Action Items
• J.Himmel asked if there is a way to find out if the PSR can be added to
the April MSBA Board Meeting. Himmel also asked if earlier estimates
can be conducted as we already have more information
0 M.Burton said yes,they can always ask but the concern is
that by doing so the end date would be pushed out to
November which is when Town Meeting is. Burton also said
Page 10 of 12
Project: Lexington High School
Meeting:School Building Committee
Meeting No. 12-6/24/2024
Page: 11
yes that the estimators can look at something at any time,
but the decisions laid out on the timeline need to be made.
The estimators that conducted these cost estimates are the
best people in the Commonwealth to conduct this.
• J.Malloy noted that comparing a public Lexington project to a private
one at Williams College is not the same as the public procurement
drastically increases the costs
• A.Baker noted that the timeline cannot be pushed out as these MSBA
is the large impact in pushing this project forward. It is the SBCs job
to find time to figure out responses and answers to what the project
team requires to meet the MSBA timeline.
• K.Slaysky noted that she agrees with not delaying the process as it
will reduce the sense of urgency that this project needs.Slaysky
noted that she works in the industry and is an OPM as well,the
estimators used are the best available for public procurement in the
state.
• J.Pato noted that as a report from the Communication Working
Group the July meeting will be skipped and the August meeting will
be an interactive meeting with the community
• J.Hackett asked if the estimates for the sustainability aspect of the
school can be taken out of the full price to compare
o M.Burton noted that this can be done,and they are currently
working on it for the PDP price options and will include it in
the new update price comparison video
D.Voss noted that the memo sent out is important to incorporate in the costs.
The memo discusses life cycle cost analysis estimation,and it is not apples to
apples to look at other schools and compare them.They were built under the
prior building code and now face extra cost to meet the current code.Voss
noted that some items in that list are not optional as the label may seem.
11.9 Adjourn: Motion to adjourn at 2:30 was made by J.Hackett and seconded by Record
J.Pato
Roll Call Vote:A. Baker-Yes, M.Cronin-Yes,C. Favazzo-Yes,J. Hackett-
Absent,J. Himmel-Yes, C. Kosnoff-Yes,J. Pato-Absent, K.Slaysky-Yes,
H.Sha-Yes, K. Lenihan-Yes, D.Voss-Yes,J. Malloy-Yes, Mark Barrett-
Yes 11-0-0.
Sincerely,
DOli E:i + WIINN1fTNE:.::lR
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 12
Project: Lexington High School
Meeting:School Building Committee
Meeting No. 12-6/24/2024
Page: 12
Page 12 of 12