Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2024-01-11-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: 1-11-24 Meeting was held remotely via Zoom Members Present: Jon Himmel, Celis Brisbin, Charles Favazzo, Philip Coleman Others Present: Mark Barrett, David Kanter, Mike Cronin, Wendy Krum, Henrietta Mei, Michael Burton, Fred Merrell, Lisa Giersbach, Lorraine Finnegan, Martine Dion, Joe Pato, Phil Poirelli, Matthew Rice, Rosemary Park, Bob Pressman, Julie Hackett, Kathleen, Bridger McGaw, Deepita Sawhney, Dan Voss The PBC Meeting was called to order at 6:05 pm. Update on Police Station & Solar Canopy Project Mike Burton from Dore and Whittier provided an update on the Police Station construction. He reported that in December, overhead mechanical, electrical & plumbing (MEP) rough installation and labeling were ongoing, AC piping and ductwork passed the pressure testing, fire stopping was ongoing, wall tile began in the bathrooms, and most windows were installed. The brick and brownstone continued through December. The drywall installation was mostly done, and painting was ongoing. The exterior conduit was signed off from Eversource. The northwest corner was filled, and it will be used for loading in the Spring once the binder is down. The roof trims and gutters were ongoing. The main boiler and chiller were successfully pressure-tested. AT&T put a grounding ring around the newly installed antenna base for the tower. The ceiling grid begins on the second floor. The plumber was working on his items. There was curtain wall testing and one window-wall test, both of which passed. The town of Lexington building inspector and electrical inspector were on the job. Mike Burton reported on the work occurring in January. The curtain wall and all exterior trim, as well as caulking, will be finished in January. The metal roof panel installation will continue. The electrical installation was the main focus for Griffin. Paint and wall tile will continue. The elevator installation and millwork began. The ceiling grid on both floors was ongoing. The interior illumination storefront and locker installation began. The solar canopy footings were hoped to be started in January. He stated that he hoped Eversource would sign off on the PME9 switch. Mike Burton provided photographs of the ongoing work. It was asked if they were still on schedule. Mike Burton stated that the addition of the PV panel work caused the end of the schedule to shift. The building turnover was set for April 19th, and after the 19th, the site around the building proper would continue to be worked on. Everything to the west of the solar canopy would be turned on May 17th, and the rest would be turned over on June 17th. The police department would be moving back in at the end of June or in early July. The final site work and planting would likely happen in June, but the canopy was being finalized and could cause adjustments. It was noted that there needed to be more conversations related to the pricing of the canopy. Update on Lexington High School Project Lorraine Finnegan from SMMA provided an update on the Lexington High School Project. She reported that the preliminary design program activities included developing the educational plan and the vision. It was reported that the education plan gets drafted by the district, the MSBA has specific categories that they want Dore and Whittier to deliver the educational plan in, and then Dore and Whitter will work with the district to make any edits. There were four visioning workshops planned, each with 60 attendees. All of the visioning sessions will be recorded and posted to the website. Educational programming meetings were in-depth meetings with the staff, students, and educators at the school. In past projects, the director of the department and teachers or staff often attend them. It was noted that for this project, every person would be met with so all voices would be heard. There were five full days of meetings, and meeting reports will be created from all of them. There was one more day of programming meetings that needed to be scheduled in the near future. When the educational program meetings were done, there were other spaces impacted other than core academics. There would be more discussions with the School Building Committee (SBC), and there were certain limitations in some spaces that would not be supported from a funding or project perspective. The existing building condition analysis was ongoing. A property survey was done, existing traffic patterns and counts were performed, wetlands were flagged, geo-environmental research began, environmental acoustics was ongoing, geotechnical work had begun, and geothermal work will be scheduled. The existing site analysis and investigation survey diagram was presented to show where the existing intersections were studied, where borings were performed, and where existing wetland resources were flagged. Design alternatives would begin soon and would span from renovations to new construction. The code upgrade only included items that were required to bring the building up to code. There would be multiple options for each configuration for renovations and additions. The site development requirements would be examined to define the project requirements related to site development, including emergency vehicle access, safety and security requirements, and more. The systems and sustainability will be discussed. The sustainability goals that were being proposed would be discussed by the focus group. Massing and materials included materials, maintenance, longevity, and interiors, all of which fed into creating an overall cost model. A requirement of the MSBA was defining expansion possibility, which could mean going up or going out. It was noted that safety and security were always in mind and impacted all design elements. The focus group meetings gain input on specific topics. There was a kickoff meeting on January 15th, 2023, and each individual self-selected from four groups. All of the members received an email to set up an agenda and future meetings for each workgroup. Meeting one would involve an introduction to topics and goals and listening to participant priorities, meeting two would involve reviewing and responding, and meeting three would include confirming and recommending. Some issues crossed amongst all groups. The focus groups were typically not done at the level of PDP on other projects, but the goal was to make sure that the goals and expectations were understood early – these meeting were done early on the Lexington project as required by Attachment B of the Integrated Design Policy (IDP). It was noted that these meetings would be high-level and get more granular as they progressed. The responsibilities of each of the four groups were discussed. The integrated design policy is a standalone Lexington policy that utilizes LEED version 4 as the basis of the Attachment A checklist. It was modified, and there will be a LEED Scorecard for the project. there will be identified credits for the Lexington Specific, LEED Gold Certification, MSBA specific requirements, and LEED Platinum Certification. The attachment that was sent out prior to the meeting was presented, and it was noted that there were columns added for specific requirements from the MSBA. A section was also added on highlighting decision milestones. There were comments added since it was a living document. It was noted that the checklist should be used as a communication tool back and forth and a tracking tool. It was asked how the sustainability information was being shown at a systems level and how the various systems would change over time. It was reported that some of the systems had criteria that were necessary to meet the minimum benchmarks, and certain levels were given due to being a requirement. Other requirements would be addressed as well. It was discussed that the financial analysis was a moving target. The incentives will be discussed in future meetings. It was confirmed that life cycle costing is included in the presentation of sustainability items. It was suggested to have a meeting to look at the model before running any scenarios. It was asked if the schedule had been gone through yet. It was noted it would be gone through later in the meeting. The team was thanked for all of their work. Jon Himmel noted that there were weekly SBC meetings. He discussed that a postcard should be received by all Lexington residents a week before the community meeting so everyone was aware of it. There was a scheduling working group meeting on January 18th. It was discussed that any land taken out of recreational land had to have similar land added. There was a meeting during the week of January 15th to discuss the integrative design process. A milestone look ahead document was shared, which included the dates, meetings, and topics. The document would be issued at the next SBC. A checklist was created after going through the IDP to put deliverables on a spreadsheet, and it was stated that feedback on the checklist would be helpful. The checklist would be a matter of record as part of the packet after the SBC meeting. It was suggested to have the documents on their own on the website. It was suggested to watermark the document as tentative so that it could be posted. It was stated that a meeting log was required to be kept, and an agenda column was added to show what was being discussed at each meeting. The meeting log would also be publicly available. It was discussed that some critical dates were important for everyone to attend, so having the meeting log in advance was helpful. It was decided that documents should be simultaneously sent to the Sustainable Lexington Committee and the PBC. Mike Burton presented the integrated design policy checklist and explained it. It had a policy column, a status column, any actions and comments, and their corresponding dates. The second section covered attachment B and showed the same columns. It was asked if there was a way to circulate the information about what was decided at meetings. Mike Burton stated that he could share the information with the appropriate people. It was stated that no decisions had been made on parking/EV charging yet. It was requested having some element of the reports be sent to the members of the PBC. It was suggested to have a presentation go to committees prior to the town meeting. David Kanter stated that the public would appreciate an explanation of the cost and what was happening in the project and asked that periodic updates be made available to the Finance Committee. Jon Himmel stated that there would be crude estimates, but these would be more relative costs and not absolute costs. For instance, upgrade and renovation will involve more general conditions (GCs) for shiftwork, so we need to discuss how to make informed comparisons. It was discussed that a schedule of when items would be available could be provided. It was stated that the cost estimates would be available in April, but it was clarified that these would not be the final numbers as there would be many decisions to be made, but even benchmark costs would be helpful in choosing options. David Kanter stated that enough information was needed to provide before the town meeting, and he stated that the report to the town meeting needed to make a compelling sense of what was being done so that everyone understood it. It was suggested that potential adjustments that would be made to the costs be discussed during the February meeting. Mike Burton stated that once the educational program was finalized, the MSBA would measure all options based on the educational program. Lorraine Finnegan noted that meetings will be held with the estimators to provide the necessary information. She stated that the package of the preliminary costs would be sent at the end of March so that the pre-estimate conversation would be held in March. Lorraine Finnegan stated that she could provide the information from the conversation with the estimators at the March PBC meeting. It was discussed that the school committee meets for five hours per month and may need some assistance. It was stated that the PBC meetings may need to be shifted. It was stated that the schedule dictates what is being produced, and meetings should be scheduled shortly after the material was issued. It was stated that the milestones should be discussed in the scheduling work group. It was discussed to hold joint meetings with the SBC. It was discussed that the intent of the discussion was for the PBC to share the knowledge in advance of meetings. Jon emphasized that the PBC wants to review schedule, costs, massing and materials, in advance of presentations to the SBC. Also, site logistics is a priority, the PBC should discuss and review even at the conceptual stage. It was discussed that finished documentation to be presented at the PBC prior to it going to the School Building Committee was not necessary. It was suggested to have members of the community look at the meeting minutes and send their thoughts to Mark Barrett. Jon Himmel stated that the current draft of the 12/6/23 minutes should be shared with the consulting team, and then there could be discussions on any changes to the schedule. Discuss format and time of future meetings It was discussed to make the meetings a hybrid format. It was discussed that hybrid meetings would be beneficial. It was stated that there was a fully Zoom-capable room. The consulting team stated that hybrid meetings would work for them, and they would determine on a case-by-case basis whether they would attend virtually or in person. It was decided to keep the meetings beginning at 6:00 pm and hold them in a hybrid format. Urgent Business There was no further business. Motion to adjourn, all approved. Next meeting: February 8th