HomeMy WebLinkAbout2023-03-09-PBC-minTOWN OF LEXINGTON
Permanent Building Committee
Permanent Members
Jon Himmel, Co-Chairman, Charles Favazzo, Co-Chairman,
Peter Johnson, Philip Coleman, Celis Brisbin, Elizabeth Giersbach, Frederick Merrill
Police Station Members: Semoon Oh, Wendy Krum
Associate Members: Curt Barrentine, Henrietta Mei
PBC Minutes for the meeting held on: 3-09-23
Meeting was held remotely via Zoom
Members Present:
Jon Himmel, Charles Favazzo, Phil Coleman, Celis Brisbin, Elizabeth Giersbach, Fred Merrill, Wendy Krum,
Henrietta Mei,
Others Present:
Steve Brown & Mike Burton (Dore & Whittier), Joe Pato, Mark Sandeen, Jeff McElravy(Tecton), Nancy Sofen,
Deepika Sawhney, Carolyn Silva, Mike Mclean, Teresa Wilson, David Kanter, Kathleen Lenihan, Mike Cronin
Todd Rhodes, Dan Voss
The PBC Meeting was called to order at 5:00 pm
Meeting Minutes
The minutes for the 10-25-22 meeting was distributed earlier in the week. Chuck made a motion to approve the
10-25-22 meeting minutes, Fed Merrill seconded, and the motion was passed unanimously.
The minutes for the 2-9-23 meeting was distributed earlier in the week. They will be updated and sent out again
for review.
Westview Update
DPF provided an update on the Westview Project.
The electrical rough was underway. The exterior wall panels were beginning next week. The exterior windows
were at 80%, and the exterior panning and trim had begun. The trench for the electrical service was planned for
next week.
Police Update
DPF provided an update on the Police Project.
Staff showed two pictures of the Police Station from the construction cameras showing that the steel frame is
underway.
Steve from Dore & Whittier reported that in February, the foundation work was completed. In March, there will be
structural steel framing in areas 3-6, which includes steel decking. In March, there will also be excavation and
preparation of the West side exterior retaining wall, and installation will begin on the under slab electrical and
utilities. Final preparation, and pouring of concrete floors, will follow. Steve shared more progress photos.
It was asked how the schedule was compared to the contract. DPF reported it was on schedule.
Solar Canopy Update from 3-2-23 HDC Hearing
Jeff provided an update on the Solar Canopy. Current renderings were presented. There was one significant
issue presented to HDC, which was a plan modified to preserve trees and provide clearance to the utility. The
canopy was adjusted to move further away from the gas valve. The canopy was also slightly rotated to maintain
distance from the property line and preserved the distance from some of the trees along the property line, but
two more parking spaces were lost. There will be the ability to preserve one of the parking spots with
adjustments. At the last HDC hearing discussion was raised about the arch in the design however an informal
vote was taken, and the majority wanted to
retain the arches in the design. Given some negative feedback from some abutters there will be an upcoming
meeting with a presentation to receive some feedback as well as show everyone what it will look like in the
different seasons with some updated renderings.
With regard to battery storage on site, the potential capacity was asked about. It was reported that the final
numbers on the capacity would be determined once more detailed calculations on solar generation were
available. The target would likely stay under 500.
Update on LHS Project Status
The RFS schedule was presented. Staff reported they the Town was invited to a meeting on March 1st with the
MSBA
for their process. Module 2 would involve the selection of the owner’s project manager and the designer, and
Module 3 would be a feasibility study. The first deadline for submission of the draft RFS is Next Friday. The
sustainability policy requirements were the last piece. Advertisements for RFS will be available on March 30th.
The next document will be
due May 10th as a ranking of OPM finalists, with a meeting to present to the MSBA OPM Selection Panel on June
5th.
On June 12th, an OPM contract would be executed.
The designer selection processes are expected to be completed by October 2023, with the feasibility study
completed in October 2024. It was reported that a subcommittee would need to be put together.
It was asked if the MSBA contribution would be 27% or 31%. It was confirmed that reimbursement is 31% of
eligible costs only or roughly 25% of the total cost. Estimated size of the new building was asked. Staff stated the
new building would be approximately 425,000 square feet, with a design for 2,395 students. Currently the
estimated Square Foot costs need to be determined as moving forward, costs are rising. It was asked if the
School Administration offices were being considered as going into the High School Design and this was
confirmed as an option, although those spaces are not eligible for reimbursement.
There was some discussion about reviewing other communities Bid Documents to see what is behind their
Square Foot costs. Staff stated it was possible but would require some detailed review.
General discussion on sharing the Integrated Design Policy updates with attachments to the High School RFS,
which opens the door for some discussion on these issues at Interviews.
Update on Integrated Design Policy Bridge Document
General discussion about the components of the RFS that we want to add to the RFS to detail specific Lexington
needs.
Jon shared some discussion on the proposed Attachment B to the ID policy
Jon had previously distributed a draft workplan which includes a draft schedule and reviewed both documents.
Jon also prepared and reviewed some stakeholder & input organizational charts and proposed that these
documents be part of the Interview process.
It was shared that there are more people over 65 that pay taxes than there are students in the high school and
we should get those over 65 excited about the project. It was also pointed out that given the High School site
location and other uses of the property could be woven into the community.
Three versions of the Organizational chart were reviewed.
Jon also reviewed a sample project Schedule outlining the higher level milestones.
Jon shared thoughts for the interview process to be more interactive. It was discussed that the project manager
and the team also needed to show up for the process. It was suggested to have a 60-minute interview and
introduction of the project, a 5-minute presentation by the prospective OPM individual and team, a 40-minute
interactive work session, and answer any questions. It was stated that the bridge document needed to be
tweaked, so it did what was desired. It was discussed that the relationship between residents of the town and the
high school would change for years.
It was asked if the color coding of the org charts would be explained to the recipients. It was stated that the
colors came from a meeting to break it into three separate slides and explain what the gray, blue, and green
presented. Mike stated it would be made clear what the colors mean prior to sending the document out. It was
suggested to include dates on documents sent out. It was explained that the blue represented individuals with
design input for the project. It was discussed that the document must be revised and labeled in a working group.
The draft schedule was presented. The forming of the team will be throughout 2023; the feasibility study will go
far into 2024; there will then be a four-month MSBA approval process, a vote, 114 workdays for design
development, a bidding process that will begin in 2027, Phase 1 construction completed before the end of 2028,
followed by Phase 2 construction. The first students would move in December 2028 if everything remained on
schedule.
It was asked if the two months for commissioning was typical for school projects, and it was stated that the flush-
out was intended to get everything out of the building, and it may take two months, but the amount of time may
change. In the town meeting next week, there will be an update about this information. It was also recommended
to hire a third-party estimator.
Mike reported $8 million in funding for the fiscal year 2025 and $12 million for the fiscal year 2026. It was asked if
there was a problem sharing attachment A in its draft form. Jill will be emailed and asked if it is okay to share it. It
was asked when the draft could be ratified with the select board. Jon stated it should be done soon, but adding a
sentence to the design policy needs to be worked out. It should be ready by the next meeting.
Wendy suggested that further revisions to be shared should be dated.
For the integrated building design, it was decided to add an eighth bullet item that “the consultant shall prepare a
work plan consistent with attachment B.” In addition, it was decided to change bullet two under policy revisions
and updates to “This policy and its attachments” and to add “as well as stakeholder coordination, project
management, and budget and schedule control” to the end of the second bullet point.
Chuck moved to recommend the revised policy to the selected board and SLC., but it was decided that A draft
will be shared with Todd and his group and to have a joint meeting on March 21st at 6 pm via Zoom prior to
making a motion to approve and sending it to the boards. It was asked for clean versions of the documents to be
sent on Friday, March 17th at the latest. The subcommittee will work on attachment B.
Motion to adjourn, all approved.
Next meeting 4/9/23