Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2024-03-19-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: 3-19-24 Meeting was held hybrid via Zoom Members Present: Jon Himmel, Celis Brisbin, Charles Favazzo, Philip Coleman, Fred Merrill, Wendy Krum, Curt Barrentine Others Present: David Kanter, Mark Sandeen, Deepika, Bob Pressman, Kathleen Lenihan, Dan Voss, Bridger McGraw, Dr. Julie Hacket, Superintendent of Schools Dore & Whittier; Christina Dell Angelo, Michael Burton, Steve Brown SMMA Architects; Rosemary Park, Lorraine Finnegan, Brian Black, Phil Poinelli, Matthew Rice, Staff; Mark Barrett & Mike Cronin The PBC Meeting was called to order at 6:00 pm. Meeting Minutes The Approval of Meeting Minutes was moved to the next meeting. Police Station Update Steve Brown from Dore and Whittier provided an update on the Police Station construction. He reported that metal and membrane roofing were complete, and work on the gutters and ridge vents was continuing. There was a lot of work done underground. The solar canopy footings were ongoing, and they were 50-60% done. The canopy footings were expected to be done in approximately two weeks. Installation, plumbing testing, and ductwork testing were ongoing. Tile work was complete. The second coat of paint applications were ongoing. Electrical and data rough continued on both floors. The elevator installation was complete. The ceiling tile installations were mostly complete. In March, the remaining curtainwall, caulking, sealing, and trim would be complete. The metal roof crimping and ridge vents would be completed. The exterior trim would be prepped and painted. The rooftop HVAC components would be complete. The generator was received and would be installed. Eversource had begun working on transformers. It was expected the transformer for EV charging would be arriving in mid-May. The upcoming milestones included April 5th for permanent power energized, MEP startups finishing on May 6th, paving in mid-May except for the parking area would be done, testing and balancing to be done by June 3rd, the owner FFE and move-in would begin in the third week of May, the E911 switchover would occur on June 20th, and the remaining paving would be done by July 1. Steve Brown provided a diagram of the building with the phases. It was asked when the move-in date was. It was stated it would be on June 20th [subject to status of the Certificate of Occupancy]. Cost reductions on solar steel were asked about. It was reported that there was some commentary on simplifying one detail to save money, and the Historical Commission voted and approved the reduction, which would save $450,000 on the steel component of the project. The galvanization process was reduced to save money. It was clarified that the schedule was still the same. It was reported that the steel, installation, welding, and paint cost $2.4 million. It was discussed that $2.4 million seemed to be the low number. It was asked how the overage affected the payback. It was explained that the number was pushed out further, but a recount would have to be done once there was a final cost. It was reported that there were three models, all of which had zero returns on investment. There would be a presentation to the Select Board on the 3rd regarding the canopies. $900,000 was spent out of a $2 million contingency, and there were still some change orders coming. Update on Lexington High School Project Lorraine Finnegan from SMMA provided an update on the Lexington High School Project. She reported that the space summary set the baseline for the school project, and it needed to contain only the school. The initial submission also included an 18,000-foot gymnasium and a renovation of the field house. The total building gross floor area proposed was 440,816 square feet, which included the 18,000-foot gymnasium. The core academic section captured all of the classrooms, and the usage of every space was confirmed with the school. It was asked when the schematic design would be submitted. It was reported that the schematic design would be submitted in August 2025. The sizes of different high schools were discussed. It was asked if the massings included the future central administration building. Brian Black reported that the central office was being integrated and represented approximately 4% of the floor area. Brian Black shared the PDP design workflow. He discussed that site analysis and how the building might be organized went into the workflow. They were listening to the community about creating a campus for everyone to make sure it was recognized that the fields were a whole community resource. There was also a desire to build within the context of Lexington, which was included in the plan. One of the first drivers of the studies was where to place the program. Diagrams were presented to show the options. The first option was to build on the existing footprint, which would minimize disturbance to the rest of the site. The second option was to build part of the school on some of the fields. The third option was to build the new building on the field, which would not overlap with the existing building at all. The fourth option was to build new on the existing fields in a phased manner. He discussed the pros and cons of each approach. He stated that there were 13 options developed so far and would be taken into consideration for the pricing. The B-category involved renovation and addition. The imagined scenarios were presented, and the pros and cons were discussed. The phased-in-place approach would be highly disruptive, but there would be no permanent changes to existing fields. The center shift approach would preserve some existing structures and allow access for students during construction, but it would displace some athletic fields. The building would create a courtyard between the old and new construction. The new construction-in-one-phase approaches were three-story schemes and then 4 to 5 stories in the next round. There were some concerns about going too tall. The academic village was originally a three-story scheme and created an enclosed courtyard but created a wall between the center rec and the rest of the athletics. The four-story scheme of the academic village had a larger and less light-intensive space in the north. The C.5 new construction had an upper courtyard considered and had an outdoor space that was contained, and it was paired with a new field house. D.1 was four stories and was a reconfigured village scheme that made room for the courtyard. It was discussed that the gym was placed on the second floor in all of the options, with lockers and other rooms that would not be affected by the noise underneath. It was clarified that the schoolhouse had to begin before the field house construction. Lorraine Finnegan presented the PDP cost estimating assumptions. She stated that there was a preliminary evaluation of alternatives. There was a description of all of the systems at each level and alternatives. There were a couple of options to be priced. The pricing would be dollar-per-square-foot and would not be shown in a line-item format. She reported that coming out of PDP, the design team would need to be given at least three alternatives, including an addition-renovation option, and after PSR, the design would need to be chosen for schematic design. The breakout pricing options were reviewed. The fieldhouse options would start one year into the school construction. Lorraine Finnegan reviewed the scope of work, including sustainability alternatives, remediation, civil, site, and earthwork, layout and materials, grading and drainage, utilities, off-site improvements, structure, architecture, interiors, HVAC, electrical, plumbing and fire protection, and miscellaneous items such as food service, the auditorium, hazardous materials, and temporary. It was noted that civil, site, and earthwork would not be done at the current phase. The estimate for hazmat materials was $2.1 million. The estimate for hazardous soils was $1 million. She stated that they tried to ensure they captured the recommendations they had received. Regarding the PDP estimating process: It was asked if there would be estimates for each of the subcomponents. It was reported that they would like to receive the costs for the subcomponents. It was stated that only the bricks- and-mortar costs would be received. It was suggested that one of the reasons for the battery source was to enable the connection with EverSource since there was a different-sized battery to accomplish it. It was asked if the 1250kW generator was pushing a threshold. Lorraine Finnegan stated that she would ask Andrew why it was so large. It was suggested to put brackets after the heading to be in line with the uniform at code. It was discussed that historical information related to public projects would be useful to see. It was discussed that the MSBA required a code-only upgrade cost estimate as well to help the community understand the baseline. It was asked what direction was given to the estimators on the different options for the schoolhouse and fieldhouse, especially regarding the MEP systems. Lorraine Finnegan reported that the fieldhouse options, it was a standalone project with all separate utilities. On the central office, MSBA agreed it could be part of the school project. The pool would fall into the same category as the fieldhouse. She stated she would add more clarification. It was discussed that it would be useful to see the section on inclusions, exclusions, and assumptions that would go along with the estimates. It was discussed that the fieldhouse and pool would be treated as added alternatives, for estimating purposes. It was suggested to use a different term, such as "added projects," instead of added alternatives when referring to the fieldhouse and the pool. Lorraine Finnegan confirmed that cost estimates would be done for the furniture, soft costs, FFE, technology, and more. It was discussed that some of the projects would be longer durations. Lorraine Finnegan stated that schedule information would be added to the forms. It was asked if there was enough lay-down space. Lorraine Finnegan stated that they would likely need satellite parking lots, which were often used in projects. It was discussed that at the current level, high-level assumptions needed to be made. It was asked if the design team had recommendations on how the town could think about the value of the options. It was suggested to add information on parking for the different options in the future. Mike Burton reported that evaluation criteria were being discussed to help decide on the one project that was desired. The evaluation criteria assigned a numerical rating to different items. The tool would be used at a high level at the current phase and would be helpful for the SBC in deciding what option was wanted. It was stated that the parking count was identified as a challenge and an analysis suggested that if parking were going to be reduced, bus access and more pavement for shared transportation would be needed. It was discussed that there were many conversations about parking and there was an assumption from the public that structured parking could be added. Lorraine Finnegan reported that the decision had not been made, and she added a note about structured parking. The attenuation for the construction equipment for noise control was discussed. It was suggested that an executive summary be created for public consumption that includes the numbers, diagrams, and the narrative. Urgent Business There was no further business. Motion to adjourn, 8pm, all approved.