2016-12-08-PBC-min - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

viii. Review the policies every 3 years as building innovations and opportunities to improve energy efficiency measures continue to evolve. b. The Board of Selectmen will take up this discussion on revising the 2005 Board of Selectmen Sustainable Design Policy in the February 2017 time frame, and is a 2017 goal for the Board of Selectmen. General discussion followed and highlights are noted below: i. It was noted that this decision on potentially increased "Sustainable Building" standards for Lexington's buildings could be a challenge for the Hastings Elementary School Project schedule. Discussion noted: 1. Lexington must identify an internal process to make increased sustainable building determinations in time to support the Hastings design schedule. 2. The Hastings project Design Team is currently designing to achieve the "LEED Silver" or "NE CHPS" equivalent rating to receive the MSBA 2 additional incentive reimbursement points. 3. A series of Staff meetings will be scheduled to review the direction for Hasting project, M Sandeen, R Borghesani, C Barrentine, and P Goddard agreed to meet on Monday, December 12th, at 8AM to begin the review of this topic. ii. The Group had discussions on the multiple decision levels of determining the mandated "policy" versus a "goal or guideline to try to reach" in the process of designing a Lexington public building. Some of the factors noted in the discussion were: 1. The committee agreed that Lexington is a community that wants to see their future investments in public buildings to be at the higher levels of "Sustainable Buildings" best practices 2. There should be a method to determine the "cost benefit" of the increased "Sustainable Building" standards and it may change for different building types /projects 3. There could be conflicts between various increased "Sustainable Building" standards as they may not be compatible with each other for a specific building type 4. The process to determine the best "Sustainable Building" directions and implement those recommendations is to have an Integrated Design Process as was successfully used on other recent Lexington Projects 3. Review Hastings Project Team recommendation to utilize NE -CHPS v3.1 or LEED Schools v.4 a. The Committee discussed many aspects of the best building evaluation measuring tools, either NE -CHPS v3.1 or LEED Schools v.4, for the next MSBA submission for the Hastings ES Project. Some of the discussion points were: i. MSBA reimburses two additional percentage of eligible project costs for school construction utilizing either NE -CHPS v3.1 or LEED Schools v.4 ii. The NE -CHPS v3.1 may align better with the Lexington "Sustainable Building" proposed initiates and be easier to gain accreditation points iii. The NE -CHPS v3.1 may not be as widely used as the LEED Schools v.4 iv. The NE -CHPS v3.1 is more paper work intensive and would require additional management time by the Designer's consultant, which is estimated to cost approximately $20,000. v. The MSBA has a requirement that in the next Preferred Schematic Report submission the team state if the project will be seeking the 2 increased reimbursement points and which tracking method will be used to measure them. vi. If the team, after the next MSBA submission, choose to change direction on the measuring system to used, the MSBA would allow this change to occur. vii. The LEED programs have been more widely used over the past 5+ years, so more contractors and vendors are accustomed to their requirements, however, the new version of LEED Schools v.4 has standards that are new and the building industry has not fully caught up to those reporting requirements. 2