HomeMy WebLinkAbout2024-04-25-PBC-min g4�'351775p TOWN OF LEXINGTON
g Permanent Building Committee
4H -
3 Permanent Members
< APRIL Jon Himmel Co-Chairman Charles Favazzo Co-Chairman,
kI IN 61
Peter Johnson,Philip Coleman, Cells 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: 4-25-24
Meeting was held hybrid via Zoom
Members Present:
Jon Himmel, Charles Favazzo, Elizabeth Giersbach, Celis Brisbin, Fred Merrill, Wendy Krum
Others Present:
Greg Shenstone, Kathleen Lenihan, David Kanter, Mark Sandeen, Deepika Sawhney, Peter Kelley, Dan Voss
From SMMAArchitects; Matthew Rice, Rosemary Park, Michael Dowhan, Lorraine Finnegan, Phil Poinelli,
From Dore &Whittier: Michael Burton, Christina Dell Angelo
The PBC Meeting was called to order at 6:00 pm.
Approve Meeting Minutes (October 26, 2023; November 16, 2023; December 6, 2023; January 11, 2024;
February 15, 2024)
A motion was made, seconded, and unanimously passed to approve the amended meeting minutes from October 26,
2023, November 16, 2023, December 6, 2023, January 11, 2024, and February 15, 2024.
Police Station Update
Mike Burton shared his screen to provide an update on the police station. He presented progress photos. As of
April 22, the building was energized, and there was permanent power. Over the following weeks, the
commissioning process would begin. The date of turnover for the building was June 6th, and the schedule for the
E911 switchover was June 20th. There is a schedule update coming, and there will be some updates due to
permanent power. The AT&T tower was up, and the footings for the solar canopy were complete. Interior millwork
was underway. Streetwork and curbing were ongoing throughout. Exterior work was ongoing. It was asked for an
update on the solar panel canopy structure. It was reported that the Select Board had discussed the budget
situation for the canopy structure, panels and battery and it was determined to put the solar canopy panels and
batteries up for bid, to try and get improved pricing. As soon as the drawings were finalized, the bidding progress
would begin. The foundation was already installed, and the steel canopy frame was the next piece to resolve. An
outside vendor for steel was being examined. The current pricing that was submitted was approximately$2.4
million for the structure. It was all welded, and there were no bolted connections per requirement of the Historic
District Commission [onsite welded connections are extremely expensive and never embodied in the established
budget cost). It was asked if the solar was separately funded. It was stated that the whole solar canopy system had
its own funding of$3.4 million.
Update on Lexington High School Project
Preliminary Design Program phase )PDP) Costing exercise discussion:
Mike Burton provided an update on the Lexington High School project. He stated that a packet was originally sent
to the estimators on March 25th, there was a reconciliation on April 16th. Thereafter SMMA came up with some
new options based on the community feedback, that would need to be included. In terms of the estimates and the
schedule, the estimators had to work hard to get the new numbers for the new options. Mike Burton stated that the
numbers were likely to change.
The full PDP submission packet included folders with cost estimates, estimator data for pricing, a PDP cost
estimate tracking sheet, updated massing, a full presentation, and focus group recommendations that were
finalized.
Mike Burton presented and discussed the high-level assumptions. He noted that the cost of the options was
intended to be a relative cost between the options, not a final cost. There were still many decisions to be made.
The cost outline in the report was not the final construction budget. In terms of time, there were still another three
years of design before construction would start. The qualifications that could impact pricing included mechanical
systems, wetland determinations, construction sequencing and phasing, and future expansion because it was not
determined if the design would go up in stories or out in footprint. There was a range for a base "code only" repair
option from $280 million to $300 million. The add/renovation options ranged from $580 million to $650 million. The
new construction options ranged from $590 to $620 million.
Mike Burton presented the PDP cost estimate breakouts. Table A included all of the options that were priced,
scope descriptions, the square footage, PM&C estimates, AMF estimates, the average between the two, 20% of
soft costs, 5%for contingencies, the total project cost, and projected duration. The average of the new options
was $1,091 per square footage. It was asked for the average construction for the square footage to be added to
Table A. Most of the new options had a three-year construction frame and one year to take down the old building
and complete site work. Table B included various options, such as the New Field House options, a new pool
pricing, a central office, structured parking, and mass timber options. Table C included the overall project pricing
that had the new construction options with alternates. It was asked if the base building was the education building
that included all of the LEED and LEED Lexington components. Mike Burton confirmed that this was the case.
LHS project Schedule Review:
Mike Burton presented the schedule. The goal of the Preliminary Design Program Phase (PDP) was to learn
everything about the program and come up with as many ideas as possible. The goal for the end of the PDP phase
was to narrow it down to three to four options. At the end of the PSR phase, one option would be selected for
schematic design. The MSBA PDP requirements were presented. All of the submission requirements were
accepted by the School Building Committee (SBC) and what remained were the preliminary evaluation of
alternatives and local actions and approvals. The preliminary evaluation of alternatives was included as part of the
pricing package, but it would be updated. There were several meetings, and the package would be submitted on
June 4 to the MSBA.
The PSR submission requirements were presented. Building systems would have narratives developed, and
construction phasing would be examined. The goal was to have three alternates by the end of the PDP. It was
clarified that one option had to be an add/reno. There did not need to be a conclusion if there would be a new
building yet. It was clarified that the minimum number of options was three, but there could be more. It was asked if
it was okay for an option to change after it was selected. It was stated that it was. Different options were discussed.
From June through September, the options would be narrowed to three to four options and would be closely
examined. From September through October 2024, the costs, logistics, and phasing for the three to four options
would be closely examined. In November and December 2024, the goal was for the SBC to take the three to four
options down to one. It was asked about the relevance of the construction manager weighing in on the impact of
the schedules on the cost. Mike Burton stated that there would be value in having a construction manager
weighing in, but it was often done later in the process. It was asked when the CM would be hired and what the
consequences were of hiring them too early. It was discussed that a company could be brought on as a consultant,
and it could be explicitly stated that they would not be excluded from the final project. The purpose was to develop
the comparative schedule and logistics budget, and it was stated that Dore and Whittier and SMMA could likely get
the project close enough without the need to hire a CM now. The PSR phase was broken up, and the dates were
presented. The May 9 meeting would involve further review and the May 23 meeting was to review the draft PDP
submission and to provide guidance.
It was commented by the Architect that the front-end loading of the project had been very helpful, and it was
suggested to focus more on the community meeting aspect in the next steps. Mike Burton stated that they wanted
to hold another community meeting in June that would take place at the high school. people would be invited to
share their thoughts on design ideas. The next community meeting would be held on May 2, and it would be the
typical style in Batten Hall where costs and options would be reported on. In September, it was planned to have
monthly meetings.
It was discussed that ThoughtExchange was a type of public survey software that can be displayed at the
community meetings, the school department website, and the project website. This could be used to engage the
community about the pool, field house and other options. Feedback could also be provided to other survey
responses. The software was owned for a period of time and surveys were generally kept open from 10 to 14 days.
Matthew Rice presented and discussed the summary of construction alternatives. The B3 reno and addition option
would work around the idea of salvaging the C and D wings (the auditorium, as well as the math and language
departments), and a new set of classrooms would be built with the potential to demolish the A and B wings. The
challenges included preserving fields without too much impact to them, and a parking structure could be required.
Also, the old buildings cannot accept additional stories. A layout of the plan and a three-dimensional model were
presented. It was reiterated that the geothermal wells would impact approximately five acres of land and a
horizontal trench was needed to connect the wells, which would likely affect the fields. . It was reported that air-
source heat pumps were still being considered. A new, smaller field house is included in this scheme.
The C options were all four-story options, and the biggest adjustment was made to not impact the wetlands as
much. The C options were still proposing options on the field area, except C6, which would build on the existing
building area. Option CIA would have the existing building remaining in use, good solar orientation, good access
to the outdoors, generous entry at the east, and less than 5,000 square feet of wetlands would be impacted. There
would be a parking structure to get the necessary parking. Fields would be replicated on the old site.
C.4c would involve a more compact footprint, with 4 stories, no phasing. The C.5b option would involve creating
and activating the dining common space in the front of the building and the footprint was smaller, which helped in
mitigating the impact on the wetlands. The solar orientation was a bit less optimal. There was a potential for the
existing fieldhouse to be renovated with any of the C options. Option C.6 would have the potential of not impacting
parkland and would avoid going through the Article 97 land process. Also, no modular buildings, hopefully. The key
to making it work was to build a first phase outside the existing structure. One nuance was that getting any site
access off of Worthen Road would be challenging. This option also preserves the relationship to the center of town.
Layouts and three-dimensional models were presented. The desire to be more respectful of the surrounding
wetlands was one of the driving factors in the determination of the options. Thinking about additions or renovations
without modulars was another challenge. It was clarified that renovating existing buildings was a requirement. It
was clarified that the second addition/renovation option that was mentioned at the SBC meeting did not work out,
as there are structural limitations to adding stories onto the existing buildings. Also, existing buildings have
classroom sizes inconsistent with modern educational requirements and bay size issues It was suggested to add
an explanation of the costs and how they compared to other schools. It was commented that it could be beneficial
to schedule a meeting on sustainability and related issues with the SBC. It was also recommended that the public
should know when the massing/design window closes, and that in the June public charette, the design of various
options along with costs be highlighted.
A resident asked about concepts he put on the table for consideration. Lorraine Finnegan stated that they tried to
consider his concepts. The resident asked about having a three-story building. Lorraine Finnegan explained that it
would be a very long building, the wetlands would be more impacted, and it would impact education. The resident
discussed his desire to lessen the impact of the project and raised concerns about the impact on the
neighborhood, specifically traffic circulation from the north (Muzzey Street). The resident also recommended that a
meeting with the Conservation Commission is needed.. Lorraine Finnegan discussed that they were trying to
consider feedback and she stated she would provide feedback to the resident.
A resident commented on Table A and Option B.3 and stated that it was a mixed message. The resident also
discussed the cost estimates. Mike Burton stated that the options had not been vetted, and some options had a
huge gap between them and needed to be reconciled. He stated that the numbers would be reconciled before the
meeting on April 29. It was recommended, by the resident, that a discussion of the B options be presented by
SMMA, indicating why more were not pursued.
Urgent Business
There was no further business.
Motion to adjourn, all approved.
Next meeting: May 9, 2024