Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2024-06-13-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: 6-13-24 Meeting was held hybrid via Zoom Members Present: Jon Himmel, Charles Favazzo, Liz Giersbach, Henrietta Mei, Celis Brisbin Others Present: Robert Pressman, Mark Sandeen, Cindy Arens SMMAArchitects: Lorraine Finnegan, Dore &Whittier: Michael Burton, Christina Dell Angelo Staff: Mark Barrett, Michael Cronin The PBC Meeting was called to order at 6:00 pm. It was noted that the April meeting minutes were sent out. Police Station Update Mike Burton provided an update on the Police Station construction. All of the furniture was in the building and the current focus was on outside the building. Mike Burton provided photos of the progress. There were a couple of minor issues with the furniture. For the punch list, there were 723 total items; 62% were ready to close, and 38% had work required. The TCO [Temporary Certificate of Occupancy] walkthrough with ISD [Inspectional Services Department] would occur on Monday, June 17 along with the paving and seeding. The ribbon cutting was scheduled for June 18. Sidewalks would be done on June 18 and 19th. The line striping would be done on June 20th and 21St Move-in was scheduled for June 27th. Early Phase Two work would begin in July. Sod was being examined in Fletcher Field, which was on the northeast section of the site. It was discussed that the plants that were approved were in. It was asked if there was irrigation in the project. It was reported that irrigation was not done as part of the project as a whole, but they requested a quote for sod and temporaryl irrigation to keep the sod going for the first season. The importance of having a well-draining field soil was discussed. It was asked about condensate in the curtain wall. Mike Burton stated that ventilation had to be added at windowsills. It was stated that the passive grills were installed to avoid any condensation. Mike Burton explained that there was a concern by the design team, so providing air movement to the spaces was the mitigation. It was asked how the budget was looking. It was reported it was very tight, although they were still on the positive side of the budget. Lexington High School Project Mike Burton provided an update on the Lexington High School Project. He reminded everyone that the timing of the PBC meetings was adjusted to be closer to the SBC meetings so that the packet could be sent out on Thursday night. There was not an SBC meeting the following week, so there was not as much to present. Mike Burton presented the PSR [Preliminary Schematic Report] submission requirements. The Preliminary Design Program was approved on May 31 St, and comments were anticipated from the MSBA within the next week or so. The PSR submission requirements included an introduction of the project, an evaluation of existing conditions, a final evaluation of alternatives that looked at many different factors, the preferred solution, and local actions and approvals. The goal of the current phase, PSR, was to go from five to one solution. From June through September, analyses of each site would be done to examine many factors, including site limitations, building footprint, athletic fields, parking areas, drop-off areas, and site access. In September and October, final evaluations and the total project would be developed. In November and December, the vote on the preferred option would take place. Lorraine Finnegan stated that she was working to make sure that everyone was aware of the decisions and when they tied into the time frame. Lorraine Finnegan reviewed the decisions that needed to be made during the phase taking place from June through September 2024, such as the determination of the alternate spaces, reviewing of exterior and interior materials, defining the expansion potential, looking at structural wood components, and defining sustainability options. It was reported that the test well information would be available in mid-July. It was preliminarily determined that 3.2 acres were needed for 00-foot deep well field. Lorraine Finnegan reported that Eversource was engaged, and they were pulling together at a high-level what could be assumed for incentives; it was not guaranteed. She noted that the decision was not being made during PSR and the MOU was already signed. Lorraine Finnegan reported that there were designs to be made during PSR that would guide costs, but they could still be adjusted. It was asked when the public would be able to see the site drawings. It was reported that community meetings would be held in July, August, and September, and the updates would be provided in August and September. Jon Himmel discussed that a better understanding for the PBC and SBC was needed so the differentials could be understood when there were presentations. Lorraine Finnegan reported that she would work with Brian to create a concept narrative. Jon Himmel asked if all Massachusetts school projects of the scale of the Lexington High School Project were bid and built following the CM at Risk, Chapter 149a, process. Mike Burton indicated that was the case. It was therefore suggested that we proceed with getting a CM on board. Mike Burton stated that a draft of the CM contract would be circulating within the next week or two. He stated that the only risk for the CM at-risk contract was that they did not get to the next phase. He stated that he was happy to start working on the CM contract sooner than planned. Mike Burton reported that the timing of the 149A was incorporated into the schedule. The OIG application did need a good amount of information from Dore and Whittier and the design team. . Mike Burton stated that he was developing new project schedules that would include timelines for different project scenarios: add/reno -sand all new construction. Lorraine Finnegan discussed that it was easier to do the new construction on the fields. It was reported that there would be at least three different schedules. Lorraine Finnegan reported that they were working on getting ready to start the (LCCA) Life Cycle Cost Analysis. A Doodle poll would be sent out for a meeting in the next two weeks regarding the LCCA so that everyone's input could be provided. Jon Himmel asked if it would be a virtual or hybrid meeting. Lorraine Finnegan reported it would be virtual. Jon Himmel stated that some individuals in town had put together a preliminary analysis that dealt with geothermal and batteries. He asked if the meeting could include information on the life cycle and evaluating the information from residents. Mark Sandeen asked what the goal of the meeting regarding the LCCA would be. Lorraine Finnegan discussed that the importance of the meeting was to ensure that everyone was on the same page before beginning. The meeting dove further into the citizens' preliminary analysis. Jon Himmel discussed funding and reimbursement from Eversource and other entities. It was stated that rebates were one source of town reimbursement, and revenues were generated from connected solutions. Mark Sandeen then reported that the life cycle cost analysis examined many factors. The requirement was to have a scenario-based life cycle cost analysis. Interest rates had a significant impact on the overall cost. He discussed that there was a range of interest rates, and the life cycle costs were modeled on those ranges. Lorraine Finnegan discussed that assumptions needed to be made on certain things and the goal was to set the life cycle cost analysis up in a way that met everyone's needs and could be updated. Lorraine Finnegan asked for the spreadsheet to be sent over with the life cycle cost analysis sample. Mark Sandeen stated that he could provide it, but it would take time to explain how it all worked together. Lorraine Finnegan suggested having a call before the meeting to all understand it. It was decided to have that call with SMMA and a member or two from PBC. Lorraine Finnegan reported that she was not finding information in the Integrate Design Policy [IDP] about a method to use for Life Cycle Costing. Mike Burton stated that at the end of each phase, the IDP discussed a post-phase report. It was reported that that was more for the end of Schematic Design [SDs]. It was stated that the conversation could continue offline regarding the post-phase reports. Mark Sandeen commented that many people emailed asking about structured parking. Lorraine Finnegan stated that structured parking generally costs 10 times more than grade parking. Out of the five scenarios, two had structured parking. Mark Sandeen asked how much structured parking would be. Lorraine Finnegan stated that it needed to be examined. Chuck Favazzo discussed the design options and asked how the underground parking scenario would be handled. There was the assumption that excavation of 15 feet was occurring, but it was costly to remove the soil from the site. Lorraine Finnegan stated that they spoke with their structural and civil engineers regarding underground parking, An analysis needed to be done on the offset to see how much it would cost to do underground parking. Lorraine Finnegan reported that getting rid of soil was costly, and the whole scheme of exporting soil had changed due to the cost of offsite disposal. She stated that the fire department had concerns about EV parking being inside the structure, so there needed to be conversations regarding EV parking if parking was underground. She stated that there would always be some parking at grade. Lorraine Finnegan stated that they had not done soil characterization yet. The amount of transite pipe could impact soil. Lorraine Finnegan reported that the geo-environmental evaluation would occur in July, and the analysis was beginning. Jon Himmel discussed reimbursement as is was preliminarily presented on SMMA space plan and asked if there could be a discussion about what the MSBA did and did not reimburse. He discussed that some spaces had no reimbursement indicated on the space plan. It was confirmed that all special education spaces would not be reviewed by MSBA but by DESI. The historical practice was that DESI supported what the school needed, and MSBA agreed with DESI. Jon Himmel discussed calculating what would likely be reimbursed. It was stated that the SBC should be aware of everything that went into the reimbursement. It was discussed that the effective reimbursement would be in the mid twenty percentile despite the fact that prior to figuring the effect of capped and non-reimbursed costs can be seen to be in the mid 30 percentiles., Mike Burton stated that in the next phase, the total project budget spreadsheet had to be run for each of the five remaining options. He stated that he ran a few on the 18 scenarios, and $100 million was a good number to assume for MSBA reimbursement. He discussed that the problem was that there were no designs yet. For each of the five remaining options, a Form 30-11 would be run on every scenario, and that information would be made public. It was asked if three versus four stories determination was separate from the five scenarios. Lorraine Finnegan reported that it would be examined for the new construction. It was asked how early the three-versus four-story solutions would be examined. Lorraine Finnegan reported that they were examining that when they developed the options, but they needed time to complete it. It was asked if the square footage shown on the current studies was fixed. Lorraine Finnegan confirmed that it was for now an that the actual square footage would be calculated based on the final Schematic design. Urgent Business There was no further business. Motion to adjourn, all approved.