2023-01-12-PBC-min - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

It was asked what the methodology was that determined this number and if recent Town developed projection methodologies were used. Further now having the DE, do we know the formula the MSBA uses to project necessary building size. Both Mike C and Kathleen L. (Chair of School Building Committee) discussed the process of methodologies and calculations used to arrive the final Enrollment Certification. Mike C also pointed out that the number that MSBA comes up with for estimated square footage is a starting point and building and program needs cause adjustments and negotiations with those square footages. Kathleen pointed out that the Lexington High school population is much higher than many communities of a similar size and so our high school will be larger than similarly sized communities. In response to a question Kathleen pointed out that a “Yes” committee will be developed to start educating the community on the project / building needs. Integrated Design Jon received a note from the Sustainable Lexington Committee (SLC) chair that the SLC had drafted a summary of items they proposed to update in the Integrated Design Policy (IDP). Jon suggested that PBC would like to review the actual language being proposed, the Jon and Chuck will meet with the chair and rep from SLC to review the proposed changes and language and then bring it back to the PBC. Jon discussed the Bridge Document that was previously agreed upon and also prepared a couple of slides about the MSBA required modules and their impact on the High School project Schedule. The discussion included the following thoughts; • The Bridge document and the updated IDP should be made available to or part of the RFQ for both the OPM and Architect when hired for the High School project. • The town might consider hiring a conceptual estimator and have the architect lead Value Engineering workshops during the design process. • There should be community brainstorming sessions at the early stages (50 days) into the feasibility and Schematic design phases. • The Bridge document should include the lessons learned from prior projects and be part of the RFQ. • It was pointed out that the RFQ is a MSBA document that we may have to append our items. • It was asked who controls the schedule during this module process and DPF replied that the MSBA drives the schedule. • It was asked if a listing existed of all the committees and users exists that could be referenced. Jon indicated that a matrix of this sort had been develop a few years ago and he would see if he could locate it. It was suggested that Traffic and Recreation might be two important early participants. • It was discussed that we already have a Town Meeting authorization for 1.8 million to take us thru feasibility and there will be additional appropriations in FY 25 and 26. The issue of projected costs came up and DPF stated that early numbers were based upon a $900/sf cost. It was suggested that construction escalation may not be included in these possible project costs and it was suggested that these numbers should include 5 to 6% escalation for each year going out. The Chair suggests that a draft schedule be prepared, others agreed however a Bridge Document and the updated IDP are of paramount importance to be available for the MSBA RFQ for OPM and Architect. Celis indicated that there were about 6 primary edits to the IDP proposed and he suggested an offline (no quorum) meeting between chairs for the initial review before coming to the full committee(s). Jon and Chuck would coordinate with SLC chair. Motion to adjourn, all approved. Next meeting 2/9/23