2015-12-10 PBC-min - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

The work at Clarke requires meeting with the Conservation Commission (ConComm) because of wetland impacts. This is scheduled for December 18 th. It is anticipated that an Order of Conditions would be issued at their February meeting. The range of alternatives for heating, ventilation, and air conditioning units at the middle was a reasonable compromise for controlling costs while providing acceptable air temperatures/humidity in the schools, and that a two pipe system, which requires a manual changeover, was acceptable, although hvac system selection was being reviewed by the Integrated Design Meeting participants which includes, representatives from Sustainable Lexington, Energy Conservation Committee, BOS, PBC and School Committee. There was discussion about the costs associated with expanding Clarke because of the wetland issues. Mr. Himmel suggested that only doing the inside work at Clarke and enlarging Diamond beyond the current envisioned expansion could be less expensive than expansions at both schools. It was noted that this scenario could result in Diamond losing soccer fields if ten rooms were added, needing an additional storm water system to accommodate an increase in impervious surface, and needing an upsized chiller. This option had previously been presented to and rejected by the School Committee as the proposed cost savings was projected only in the $1,000,000 area, although, this occurred before the current level of cost estimates were available. Because the PBC was concerned that the reflected savings of design option generated less than a $5.m savings over the current design, DiNisco agreed to once again prepare estimates that would allow one to better understand the -of-magnitude associated with this approach. It was also noted that in September 2016 the Clarke middle schools will be short two ortfall, and such a project should go to bid by January to elicit the best prices. Mr. Goddard reviewed the process that had been pursued to-date and noted that the School Committee had asked the PBC to comment on the VE options. There was discussion about the role of the PBC in this process. PBC members expressed concern that many of the VE options impact school programs, and they are reluctant to make judgements about the advisability of such alternatives. Mr. Himmel and Mr. Hurley requested more detailed information regarding the renovation costs. It was agreed that DiNisco Design Associates would provide additional detail for discussion at a PBC meeting on December 22 at 2:00 p.m. The nd School Committee is scheduled to meet on December 15 and January 5. thth Meeting adjourned at 10:08 p.m. 4. Motion to adjourn was made and seconded: Page 3