The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2016-10-05-PBC-min Lexington Permanent Building Committee - Maria Hastings Elementary School Building Project SBC Meeting Minutes DATE OF MEETING: October 5, 2016 at 7:00P.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#3) ATTENDING: Pat Goddard Lexington, Director of Public Facilities John Himmel Lexington PBC, Chair Andrew Clarke Lexington PBC Dr. Mary Czajowski Superintendent of Schools Louise Lipsitz Principal, MHES Eric Brown Lexington PBC Philip Coleman Lexington PBC Charles Favazzo Jr. Lexington PBC Carl Oldenburg Lexington PBC Richard Perry Lexington PBC Mark Barrett Lexington DPF Sandra Trach Lexington Judy Crocker School Committee Liaison Elaine Ashton Trip Elmore DWMP Rachel Milaschewski DWMP Donna DiNisco DiNisco Design ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1.Call to Order of SBC Meeting at 7:03 PM with 5 voting Members in attendance. The Committee discussed the use of remote participation for future meetings if a member is unable to attend. P. Goddard issued a copy of the Meeting Procedures in regards to remote participation and all agreed to put this topic on the next meeting agenda for further discussion. 2.Approval of Minutes: A short SBC review of the September 15, 2016 Meeting Minutes was provided by the M. Barrett. Discussion: None. Motion to approve the September 15, 2016 SBC Meeting Minutes by P. Coleman, 2nd by C. Favazzo. VOTE: 5 approve, 0 against, 0 abstain *2 More Committee Members arrive 7 voting members in attendance* 3.Architect Selection Update; DSP Meeting on 9/27/2016 at 8:30AM, 40 Broad Street, Boston, MA T. Elmore reported the results of the DSP Meeting held on September 27, 2016. He explained that the MSBA pointed out that they will not be selecting an Architect since only one proposal was received, but rather, they would determine whether the single submitting Architect is qualified. He added that there was a lot of discussion held between the MSBA and the Owner explaining the Architect Selection process. T. Elmore also pointed out that the Lexington Representatives who attended the meeting did an amazing job clarifying any misunderstandings and emphasizing their need to move forward with the project. He then added that after a lot of discussion, the MSBA voted DiNisco as a qualified Architect for the project and praised them for their past work and positive effects on communities. DWMP and the Lexington Representatives stated that they were happy with the outcome D. DiNisco of DiNisco Design told the Committee that she was happy to be there and that she and DWMP immediately began working on the schedule and discussing their fee after meeting with the MSBA. T. Elmore then s proposed fee of $530,000 (reference letter attached) and how it relates to typical fees for this phase of work. He went on to explain what is included within this fee, stating that DiNisco will have to revisit their previously produced Preliminary Design Program (PDP) and Feasibility Study deliverables prior to submitting to the MSBA, which is then followed by the Schematic Design Phase; He believed that their proposed fee was reasonable and recommends them for the job. D. DiNisco added that the current schedule has them submitting the Schematic Design materials on June 29, 2017 in order to make it into the August 23, 2017 Board Meeting with the MSBA, which is th followed by a 120 day stretch to get the approval for local funding, followed by another MSBA Board Meeting in February, 2018. The Committee then discussed the Model School option and how it would affect the schedule and explained that the MSBA would determine whether or not the Hastings ES is a candidate for a Model School based on their Educational Program, as it must meet in order to get their approval to build a Model School. In the meeting packet were documents that the OPM recently received from the MSBA. They have not been fully reviewed by the OPM and will need to be gone through to evaluate if this program is an option for the Hastings School Project. There was caution given by the MSBA that this Model School Program is very rigid and does not allow for any significant changes. There was a MSBA recommendation to consider a building like the Estabrook School that is in the Core Program but utilizes efficiencies in terms of decisions, layout, finishes, and the like that streamline the process. The MSBA offered that they might be able to waive a submission at DD to assist in this time savings. The Committee then discussed the pros and cons of the Model School Program, agreeing that they should further analyze the situation and look into the school/community needs as well as the differences in fees and reimbursements. T. Elmore added that he would try to put this Model School Program in perspective for the next meeting on November 10 to evaluate if there is schedule and/or financial benefit. He concluded, th saying that they have until the Preferred Schematic Report (PSR) submission to decide whether or not they would like to go with a model school; he clarified that DiNisco will be prepared to submit the 2 revised PDP on November 11, 2016 and will then immediately begin working on the Preferred Schematic Report (PSR). T. Elmore is typically10% of the estimated construction contract and this Fesibility/Schematic Design Fee amount will be a part of that amount, so you can give it to them now or later. It was noted that the Designer Fees are much lower in a Model School reimbursement, as the MSBA will only participate in 4.75% for Designer Services, adding that anything beyond this 4.75% would not be considered for reimbursement and would be 100% local costs. The reimbursement amount is very low on this Model School Program and typically the Designer is requiring significantly more fee to perform their services. The committee asked if the Dore & Whittier recommends the Designers Proposal. T Elmore responded yes, and noted that it falls within the typical range for designer costs as is represented in the MSBA Fee Analysis attachment to the meeting packet. The Town Facilities Department was also asked if they have reviewed the Designers proposal and would recommend that the committee recommend it be accepted by the town manager. P Goddard had reviewed the document and recommends it be accepted by the committee. Motion to accept DiN by C. nd Oldenburg. VOTE: 7 approve, 0 against, 0 abstain. Unanimous to approve. 4.Project Schedule T. Elmore and D. DiNisco pointed out that the submission dates are scheduled to make the most sense for the MSBA Board Meetings, though the schedule will be adjusted pending the decision to go with a Model School or not. As the schedule currently has the project running into 2020, the Committee asked if DWMP and DiNisco could explore ways to accelerate the project to make a September, 2019 completion date. Both DWMP and DiNisco agreed to explore any possible opportunities which will be discussed at the following PBC-SBC Meeting. 5.Project Goals A committee member asked that the completion target date of September 2019 be listed as one of the GOALS of this project. T. Elmore indicated that a couple of Committee members had submitted their Project Goals Worksheets were compiled and attached to the meeting packet. He said any additional goals received would be added to the compiled list. 6.Other Business Not Anticipated 48 Hours Prior to Meeting: None. 7.Public Comment: None. 8.Upcoming Meetings & Public Forums: a.Proposed, to be verified and edited prior to meetings i.November 1, 2016 School Committee Meeting 3 ii.November 10, 2016 Agenda Expected: Further discuss Remote Participation, Model School, Schedule and Design Option Development, Vote Expected to submit the PDP to the MSBA 9.Adjourn SBC Motion to adjourn by R. Perry, 2nd by P. Coleman. VOTE: unanimous to approve. Meeting adjourned at 8:40 PM DORE AND WHITTIER MANAGEMENT PARTNERS, LLC Rachel Milaschewski Dore & Whittier Management Partners, Assistant Project Manager 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