Laserfiche WebLink
Lexington Permanent Building Committee 14 June 2012 <br />• Chair reports that the school committee or Town Manager appoints members for specific projects. Question asked if PBC <br />should get to meet persons being appointed and vote if they are to be accepted. DPF reports that the appointment is per the <br />bylaw. <br />Discussion on 7 Member organization: <br />• DPF reported that the 7 member organization takes effect some 60 -90 days after ATM or approximately August. <br />• Discussion that a Criteria needs to be developed for determining new members. <br />• Discussion that an HVAC or Civil Engineer would be a good knowledge base for a new member <br />• Discussion on using town lists for seeking members rejected, focus should be on looking for prospect members individually. <br />• Agreed PBC members should bring prospect list of people they feel would be a good fit. <br />6/9/11 <br />Gary Lerner, an engineer currently involved in manufacturing, visited the PBC meeting to gain insight into the work of the PBC in <br />consideration of the expansion of the PBC membership. <br />9/8/11 <br />There was general discussion on Bylaws for adding members to PBC. Question rose if PBC should have input into appointments on <br />the committee. Pat Goddard advised that the PBC is a Town Manager appointed committee. The issue of whether or not the PBC <br />should make recommendations on new members to the PBC needs to be investigated with the Town Manager. <br />10/13/11 <br />PBC agreed that they should make recommendations to the Town Manager on new members after the prospective member attends <br />a few meetings and the PBC has some dialogue with them on participation. <br />12/1/11 <br />There are two resumes in hand; however it was discussed that a future meeting should include discussion with these people on <br />involvement with the committee, roles and participation. <br />2/9/12 <br />Discussion about two candidates who have expressed interest in joining PBC. Currently there is one open position. Chuck Favazzo <br />expressed interest in filling the vacancy. Eric Brown agreed to contact the two candidates on their interest in an auxiliary member <br />appointment. <br />1.5 Change Order Approval Process <br />2/22/12 <br />Discussions on authorization of change orders and the process of how this could be done to avoid delay and to maintain approval of <br />change order elements with PBC, through the use a pre- approved encumbrance that DPF staff would apply interim change orders <br />to. PBC would like to see a flow chart showing approval process. <br />3/8/12 <br />Flow Chart Circulated and process discussed. Further discussion planned; no action. <br />4/26/12 <br />Motion to approve $50,000 to be encumbered for the purpose of allowing Pat Goddard to approve change order proposals for <br />Bridge & Bowman to allow work to be expedited, which shall be reconciled and amended to the GC contract through a formal <br />change order at the next PBC meeting to release them from the $50,000 encumbrance. <br />Motion: Eric 2 nd : Dick Vote: Unanimous <br />4.0 Bridge & Bowman Renovation Projects <br />4.26 Roof Top Unit screening <br />11/2/11 <br />It was reported that the roof top hvac equipment would be larger than originally anticipated and could be 18 inches to 2 feet taller. <br />There was some concern expressed over the aesthetics of the larger units and the overall view of the school to the public, <br />notwithstanding any sound abatement concerns. Various options for screening and placement of support structure for future <br />screening were discussed. Currently six units suspected of a need for screening based on sound abatement were modified to include <br />roof reinforcing for future screen panels. It was discussed to increase this count to 10 to include units where screens may be desired <br />for aesthetics as well, however this motion was not acted upon, leaving just the original 6 locations <br />12/8/11 <br />This issue was again discussed and the PBC elected to request a unit price be added to the bid submission for adding the steel <br />support to other RTU locations if the town elected to do so during construction. <br />1/19/12 <br />Initial feedback from architect was that they did not want to include a unit price for additional RTU locations, but they later agreed <br />to do so. <br />Page 2 of 8 <br />