HomeMy WebLinkAbout2015-11-10-PBC-minPermanent Building Committee (PBC)
201 Bedford Street, Room 221
November 10, 2015, 6:00 p.m.
Members Present: Jon Himmel, Chairman, Eric Brown, Vice - Chairman, Philip Coleman,
Charles Favazzo, Carl Oldenburg, Bill Hurley,and Lee Noel Chase
Members Absent: Dick Perry, Peter Johnson
Guests: Paul G. Kalous and Dave Billings, Hill International; Ken DiNisco and Vivian Lowe,
DiNisco Design Partnership; Mike Lambert and Ken Johnson, Bond Brothers; Angel Khazadian,
A.M Fogarty; Glenn Parker, Kate Colburn and Andrei Radulescu -Banu, Appropriation
Committee;; Jessie Steigerwald, School Committee; Jill Hai, Capital Expenditures Committee
Liaison, Joe Pato, Peter Kelly and Suzie Barry, Board of Selectmen; Diane Biglow, Town
Meeting Member, Precinct 8
Lexington DPF: Patrick Goddard, Director of Public Facilities and Mark Barrett, RA Project
Manager
Recording Secretary: Sara Arnold
Jon Himmel called the Meeting to order at 6:06 p.m.
1. General Business
• The members reviewed the PBC Meeting Minutes dated October 8, 2015. There were
some suggested edits.
Motion to approve meeting minutes dated October 8, 2015, with suggested edits. The
Motion was approved: 6 -0
Ms.Chase arrived at approximately 6:15 p.m.
2. Master Plan Multiple School Projects Update, Clarke and Diamond Middle Schools
(Clarke and Diamond):
i. Opening Remarks: Mr. Himmel reported that the BS is looking at the overall
budget and the context for all of the Town building projects that are being
contemplated. Looking at the Clarke and Diamond projects, he suggested that
value engineering (VE) is appropriate.
ii. Update by DiNisco Design Partnership: Using a PowerPoint presentation, Mr.
DiNisco reviewed the processes for developing the cost projections being
presented for the middle school projects and discussed details about the design
development costs, as follows:
• Bond Brothers and A.M. Fogarty were used as separate design development cost
estimators. Their costs were generally comparable.
• The previous Friday there was a reconciliation meeting with all the players and
estimates. The results of that meeting are being presented tonight.
PBC Meeting 100115 Page 1
• The reasons for the higher design development costs as compared to the
schematic design costs were identified. Some of this reflects scope changes,
expressed as add alternates.
• The costs include contingencies, including design contingencies.
• For each school there is a base construction only cost of, $21.825 million for
Clarke and $35.895 million for Diamond, plus a list of costs associated with the
following:
➢ Potential add alternates, such as access road improvements, projects
that address current HVAC problems, or projects that improve
functionality.
➢ Projects that have previously been studied and are desired or needed.
➢ Environmental sustainability projects; it was noted that most of these do
not result in any pay back, although roofs are generally being built to
accommodate solar panels.
• PCB removal had been identified as an add alternate to the project for some
exterior window caulking. A question was asked if this needed to be done in
association with the larger project or if it could be done separately. The
response was that it could be done either way, but needed to be done this
coming summer, so it was thought to be most efficient to have it incorporated
into the larger project.
• Phased construction is identified for both school buildings, with the work
completed by September 2017 at Clarke and by May 2018 at Diamond.
• The work at Clarke requires getting an Order of Conditions from the Lexington
Conservation Commission; this should be pursued as soon as possible.
• Once funding is available, the shop drawing phase should be created
immediately if the projects are going to meet their target dates for
completion.
• The VE process must be pursued expeditiously, with a master list of potential
VE items to go to policy makers.
iii. General Discussion: Comments included the following:
• Studies indicate that the heating, ventilation, air conditioning system is failing
at Diamond. DiNisco has identified four alternatives for addressing this
problem. Mr. Goddard noted that the two low cost options do not adequately
address air temperature /comfort and the lowest cost option does not address
acoustical issues. He noted that this project had previously been included in
his routine five year capital plan.
• There is a tight schedule for meeting project target dates and the cost for the
CM to support enabling work, such as shop drawing preparation to properly
support summer foundations and steel work needs to be identified. It was
noted that this cost for CM enabling support is estimated at $150,000, and
should be included in Article 2 (Appropriate for School Facilities Capital
Projects) that is being brought to the fall 2015 Special Town Meeting #1 in
December.
PBC Meeting 100115 Page 2
• Mr. Himmel asked for input from the finance committees and the BoS. He
asked what will be palatable to the taxpayer and suggested that it will be
important to manage expectations.
• Mr. Hurley noted the "sticker shock" when looking as approximately $76.0
million for just two schools. The projects need to be scaled down. (The 76
million reference represents the base construction costs for Clarke and Diamond
referenced above as well as ramp to teacher planning, option 3 hvac, science
classroom upgrades at Diamond and damproofing, pcb removal, classroom partition
replacement, and science room upgrades at Clarke.)
• Ms. Hai noted the many variables regarding the impact on the taxpayer. The
finance committees do not make policy, and these are difficult issues.
Alternatives for the middle schools are needed immediately.
• Ms. Steigerwald asked about the order of magnitude in cost reductions that
might be reasonable during the VE process.
• Mr. Parker stressed the need to redefine the projects. Elements should be
ranked. He noted that an operating override is anticipated in a few years in
addition to debt exclusion overrides needed primarily for the schools.
• Mr. Goddard suggested focusing on capacity issues and identifying solutions
with the lowest possible costs.
• It was suggested that perhaps Diamond should be looked at for addressing all of
the middle school capacity issues and have a single project that might be less
expensive.
3. Master Plan Multiple School Projects Update, Pelham Road Design Consultant: It was
reported that, in anticipation of the Town purchasing the Armenian Sisters' Academy
on Pelham Road, a selection committee reviewed the two proposals that were
received for a design consultant and recommended DiNisco Design Partnership
4. Motion to adjourn was made and seconded: Meeting adjourned at 9:20 p.m.
Meeting Materials:
• Meeting Agenda;
• PowerPoint: Lexington PBC Meeting: Multiple Schools Construction Project,
November 10, 2015, prepared by DiNisco Design Partnership
• DRAFT, Potential Costs for Multiple School Projects (excluding Pelham
acquisition costs, 11/10/15, prepared by Mr. Goddard
• Spreadsheet: Financial Impact of Major Capital Projects - FY17 -21, prepared
by Finance Department
PBC Meeting 100115 Page 3