HomeMy WebLinkAbout2016-11-10-PBC-minTOWN OF LEXINGTON
Permanent Building Committee
Permanent Members
Chairman: Jon Himmel
Peter Johnson, Dick Perry, Carl Oldenburg, Philip Coleman, Charles Favazzo
Project Specific Members
Diamond Middle School Hastings Elementary Fire Station Visitors Center
Margaret Coppe Curt Barrentine Robert Cunha Joel Berman
Edwin Goodell Andrew Clarke Joseph Sirkovich Peter Kelly
Clarke Middle School
Lee Noel Chase
Howard Hobbs
November 10th, 2016
Members Present:, Peter Johnson, Carl Oldenburg, Phillip Coleman, Edwin Goodell, Howard Hobbs,
Andrew Clarke, Curt Barrentine, Joe Sirkovich, Robert Cunha
Members Absent: Lee Noel Chase, Jon Himmel, Chuck Favazzo, Dick Perry
DPF Staff: Patrick Goddard, Director of Public Facilities, Mark Barrett and Ann Marie Ponzini
Guests: Donna DiNisco (DiNisco Designs), Trip Elmore (Dore & Whittier), Paul Kalous (Hill), Dr. Mary
Czajowski, Louise Lipsitz, Sandra Tach, Judy Crocker
Minutes:
At 7:05 the meeting was called to order, with 2 PBC members present. All agreed to proceed with the
discussion of topics and updates.
DPF went through the Design Process for the Fire Station Project. The committee was informed that
Tecton Architects, located in Connecticut, was selected to do the first phase of the Police /Fire Project.
• The first phase will be at a cost of $92,000.
• $30,000 had been budgeted for the traffic study. Tecton will be able to use some of the existing
study information; resulting in a savings.
• DPF introduced the Fire Project Members; Robert Cunha & Joseph Sirkovich to the committee,
and informed them of how the meeting structure works.
1. Hastings Proiect Update — Dore & Whittier
See attached meeting minutes from Dore & Whittier
"11 -10 -16 PBC Minutes Hastings ES SBC Meeting Minutes TE"
2. Clarke & Diamond Proiect Updates — Hill
Motion to approve 10/13/16 Clarke & Diamond Minutes as amended — APPROVED.
• A monthly report was sent by Hill per PBC's request, with one report showing weekly information
and the other does not. The committee was asked to share their preference.
• Hill reviewed his slide presentation for the schools site plans.
• Clarke /Diamond Site Work Review:
o Brookside Drive site trailers at Clarke are being relocated to make more room for parking.
o New addition foundations are complete and are being backfilled.
201 BEDFORD STREET • LEXINGTON, MASSACHUSETTS 02420
o Steel is going up and decking is schedule to start next week.
o Planning to have decking closed in by December.
• Budget Report Review
o Bond will be sending an overall project budget.
o Per town requirements, each project's information needs to be shown separately.
• Clarke /Diamond Project Schedule Review:
o Big milestones have been completed at both schools such as finalizing the GMP,
foundations, steel, and decking which is now ready to make weather tight.
o The exterior envelope mockup date will be discussed at the next PBC meeting.
o It was stated that Carl, Lee Noel, Howard and Ned would receive notice for mock up
review.
o PBC asked about the size of the mock up — Likely 10x10 or smaller.
• PBC voiced preferences for the reports going forward to include references to budget
contingencies, holds, allowances, and OT.
• PBC stated the GMP was voted on 10/13/16 and has not been presented as of yet. This should
be addressed.
• DPF stated that a meeting is scheduled for next week with Bond to discuss management issues.
• DPF informed the committee that SC has asked for a study on multiple locations for a permanent
site for LCP. DiNisco is doing an evaluation, and if there is a request for design funding, it would
then come to PBC.
Motion to adjourn was made and seconded: Meeting adjourned at 9:30pm.
PBC Meeting 11.10.16 2
Lexington Permanent Building Committee Meeting
Maria Hastings Elementary School Building Project
SBC MEETING MINUTES & LOCAL VOTE RESULTS
DATE OF MEETING: November 10, 2016 at 7:15P.M. at 201 Bedford St, Lexington MA
PROJECT: Maria Hastings Elementary School Building Project
Dore & Whittier Project #MP16 -0112
SUBJECT: School Building Committee Meeting (D &W #4)
ATTENDING:
Andrew Clarke
Dr. Mary Czajowski
Louise Lipsitz
Philip Coleman
Peter Johnson
Carl Oldenburg
Curt Barrentine
Pat Goddard
Mark Barrett
Sandra Trach
Judy Crocker
Trip Elmore
Donna DiNisco
Lexington PBC
Superintendent of Schools
Principal, MHES
Lexington PBC
Lexington PBC (arrived 7:45)
Lexington PBC
Lexington PBC
Lexington, Director of Public Facilities
Lexington DPF
Lexington
School Committee Liaison
DWMP
DiNisco Design
1. Start of Hastings SBC Meeting at 7:17 PM with 5 voting Members in attendance, as of 7:45.
2. Approval of Minutes:
SBC reviewed the October 5, 2016 Meeting Minutes.
Motion to approve the October 5, 2016 SBC Meeting Minutes by C Oldenburg,
2nd by P Coleman.
Discussion: none
VOTE: 5 approve, 0 against, 0 abstain
3. SBC Committee Member update (PBC)
Eric Brown notified the Town Manager that he has resigned from the Permanent Building Committee.
There was discussion about other members 3 year terms and if a replacement was being considered.
4. Ed Program presentation update (DiNisco)
There was an introduction of the process followed to date to define and verify elements of the Design
Program written by the school district. Several meetings and discussions have taken place to
understand the space needs and adjacencies required to make the Lexington Education Program
work.
This program and outline of space required was summarized by DiNisco Design in a power point
presentation given in the meeting and distributed as a paper copy in the meeting packets. See Power
Point attached to these minutes for details discussed. The overview included:
ANIA ;EiM'EE N1
A.R"1'NE'E2 ., 1
PROJECT MANAGERS
ARCHITECTS
ITECT'S
Ne8J11.1uui'49rano`r„ MA 01950
260 hdrrriorm6 HtrQ =cw Bldg 7
978.499'1999 h..
9"78, 499.7C44'flax
ncflwlt ttit^r° „cc
• Education Program is the basis for decisions on many aspects of the building
• The Educational Program is one of the drivers for the size and layout of the building
• The process is a step by step process that starts with enrollment (645 students), the
Educational Program for types and sizes of spaces required that begins to point to
adjacencies and potential building layout
• This information was compared to the current building to show the difference between the
needed space and lack of space available currently.
• The information was also compared to the Estabrook School program and highlighted a
larger enrollment and different SPED /ILP student population at Hastings
• It was noted that the differences between the Estabrook and Hastings school population and
SPED /ILP program were significant enough to "Substantially Modify" the layout of an
"Estabrook Model" if it remains as a consideration for the Hastings project.
This information was presented to the School Committee at their meeting on November 1, 2016. The
School Committee voted to approve this educational program in their meeting.
5. PDP submission overview (DiNisco)
DiNisco Design outlined the requirement of Preliminary Design Program (PDP) document that needs
to be submitted to the MSBA as out first submission in their module process. The PDP materials in
the submission include:
• Enrolloment, as agreed to by the MSBA (645 Students)
• The Education Program
• Space required to deliver the education program (roughly 110,000 square feet)
• Existing conditions of the existing building
• Preliminary site evaluation
• Preliminary options that could solve the current issues with the building and educational
program delivery, which must include:
o Repair of the existing building, as a basis for comparison even though it doesn't
solve the issues
o An addition /renovation option to solve the issues, however there is no place to
relocate the existing students while a project is constructed
o New option(s) for consideration on the existing site, which had previously been
determined to be the optimal solution
SBC recommendation vote to submit the PDP to the MSBA:
Motion by the PBC /SBC to recommend that the Town of Lexington authorize
the OPM and Designer to submit the Preliminary Design Program to MSBA
for their review and comments, by P Coleman, 2nd by C Oldenburg.
Discussion: none
VOTE: 5 approve, 0 against, 0 abstain; Motion Passes
6. Schedule review / Model School Option (D &W, DiNisco)
Schedule:
In the October 5th PBC meeting, the PBC asked if DWMP and DiNisco could explore ways to
accelerate the project to make a September, 2019 completion date.
2
T. Elmore had sent out an email on October 31st to the PBC Members that included attachments of
the OPM review of schedule options that had been developed and vetted by the team to determine if
there was a path to complete the building by the September 2019 school start date.
This review was included an Executive Summary document and 5 Concept Schedules that were
distributed again in the meeting packet. A summary Power Point was reviewed in the meeting.
As no designs or tangible scope decisions have been made at this point this exercise was more on
the Concept Level than an actual scope based schedule evaluation.
T. Elmore reviewed the assumptions, 5 schedule move in dates and the recommendation to anticipate
a winter 2019/2020 turn -over and move in for planning purposes. (see power point attached)
The possibility of improving upon that time -frame could happen in the future as more is known about
the project detail and the process unfolds.
It was discussed in the meeting that there were certain elements that would dictate the ability to
compress the schedule. P Coleman commented that various tasks should be examined further to see
if there might be ways to compress schedule drivers. This included tasks like beginning the
Conservation Committee approval process as early as possible and utilizing any possible time saving
approach to not give up on a September 2019 turn over date. This was discussed at length. There
were additional points raised that the initial hope for the September 2019 completion date was based
on MSBA acceptance in to their program approximately 6 month prior to the actual acceptance in to
their building program. The delay in the beginning has direct impact on the team's ability to forecast a
September 2019 date.
The Model School program was raised as a potential time saving solution, which was then discussed.
Model School:
T. Elmore had sent out an email on November 7th to the PBC Members that included attachments of
the OPM review of the Model School program offered by the MSBA.
This review included an Executive Summary document that was distributed again in the meeting
packet. A summary Power Point was reviewed in the meeting.
T. Elmore reviewed the fundamental parameters of the program, the benefits and challenges of the
program and the recommendation to follow a traditional core program process for the Hastings
project. (see power point attached)
The discussion included the PBC Members, Public Building Staff, OPM, DiNisco Design, School
Representatives and others attending the meeting. The OPM pointed out that the analysis done and
included in the meeting packet, indicates that there are multiple factors that would not be supported
by a Model School. DiNisco Design has looked at the Hasting site and preliminary conclusions are
that the Estabrook Model School is possibly the only Model School that would fit on the site. DiNisco
Design has also looked at the Hasting Educational Program and determined that it would not fit in the
Estabrook Model School without Substantial Modifications. This was a significant factor in dismissing
the Model School as an option.
The Public Building Department also informed the committee that Estabrook was designed and
built prior to several new Lexington initiatives that would "substantially Modify"
3
the design in terms of systems, thus eliminate the Estabrook as a Model for
Consideration. Two worth noting are:
• The Lexington Board of Selectmen have a goal to adopt a "Better Building"
policy with clearly defined policy objectives, including Healthy Buildings,
energy efficiency, and other stretch goals.
• The Lexington Sustainability Committee has been tasked with initiating the
policy discussion with a presentation to the Board of Selectmen.
Based on the limitations discussed, the PBC Members all agreed that the Model School Program was
not a good fit for this protect for 2 primary reasons. The Lexington "Better Building" initiatives and
potential policy for new construction that will upgrade the sustainable aspects of all future Lexington Public
building projects likely eliminates the Model School as a viable option. The inability to fit Hastings
SPED /ILP requirements into a Model School without substantial modifications was also a factor to
determine that the Model School Program is not a viable option.
7. Upcoming Meetings & Public Forums:
a. Proposed, to be verified and edited prior to meetings —
i. Other Elementary School site visits are scheduled for November 18th and 22nd
ii. Other community forums are going to be scheduled in December
iii. Tentatively - December 8th PBC Meeting to review preliminary options
Hastings Project portion of the meeting ended at 9PM
DORE AND WHITTIER MANAGEMENT PARTNERS, LLC
Trip Elmore
Dore & Whittier Management Partners, Project Director
Cc: Attendees, File
The above is my summation of our meeting. If you have any additions and /or corrections, please contact me for
incorporation into these minutes. After the minutes have been voted to approve, we will accept these minutes as an
accurate summary of our discussion and enter them into the permanent record of the project.
4