Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2024-07-18-PBC-min 5,r��R"'"� TOWN OF LEXINGTON Permanent Building Committee Permanent Members Jon Himmel, Co-Chairman, Charles Favazzo, Co-Chairman, IN(!T Peter Johnson, Cells Brisbin, Elizabeth Giersbach, Frederick Merrill,Ian Adamson Police Station Members: Semoon Oh, Wendy Krum Associate Members: Wendy Krum, Henrietta Mei PBC Minutes for the meeting held on: 7-18-24 Meeting was held hybrid via Zoom Members Present: Jon Himmel, Charles Favazzo, Peter Johnson, Elizabeth Giersbach, Frederick Merrill, Wendy Krum, Curt Barrentine Others Present: David Kanter, Charles Lamb, Bob Pressman, Kathleen Linehan, Mark Sandeen, Deepika Shawney SMMA Architects: Andy Oldeman, Lorraine Finnegan, Brian Black, Martine Dionne, Dore &Whittier: Mike Burton Staff: Mike Cronin, Mark Barrett The PBC Meeting was called to order at 6:00 p.m. and it was noted that a quorum was present. Police Station Update Mike Burton reported that the police station move occurred three weeks ago and all remaining work to be completed was outside, primarily around the parking area and where the solar panels would be located. It was anticipated that this work would be completed by the end of July. Mike Burton reported that some additional work would be needed around the town office building, which would take place during the first week of August. Inside the police station, there were approximately 850 punch-list items in total, of which around 11 percent still needed to be completed. It was reported that all punch-list items would be wrapped up at the same time as the site work. The updated pricing on the solar work was received and an analysis was being done to find something that was within the budget. Two teams were examining two different designs, and it was noted that a decision would have to be made soon. Discussion ensued regarding sod at Fletcher Field. It was discussed that if Sod was pursued it would be turned over to DPW. Lexington High School Project A slide deck was shown that would also be presented before the School Building Committee on July 22. It was reported that this project was still in its preliminary stages and the focus remained on the building. The Life Cycle Cost Analysis (LCCA) analysis included one addition & renovation design option and one new construction option. The energy costs shown were based on averages. The capture of energy credits remained a priority. Most of the design options were centered around four-story buildings, containing wings of classroom spaces and central commons. An overview of energy considerations was given, along with air filtration goals, lighting, efficiencies, insulation, and the meeting of bylaws, policies and codes. The replacement costs shown were specific to each system. Maintenance costs were associated with third-party services. Energy storage was shown as a line item. A summary was provided of the costs associated with each system. It was discussed that a drastic reduction in energy use was both efficient and offered an advantage from the standpoint of cost per square foot. Payback comparisons were provided, including the positive impact of incentives. The preliminary 75-year LCCA analysis and assumptions were given, reflecting both incentive and non-incentive costs in terms of installation, replacement, and maintenance costs. A table was shown outlining the various installation costs and scenarios. The cost of installing non-electric systems was included. It was reported that the incremental cost analysis looked at the installation costs of the systems. The solar project required approximately 3.5mw and would be fine-tuned along the way. LEED criteria and goals were outlined. It was reported that there likely would not be a need to reduce parking. The optimization of outdoor water use was addressed, along with energy storage/net use options under consideration. The use of low-carbon materials was also being explored. The LEED credits were explained. An inquiry was made as to how comments will be handled during Monday's presentation. It was pointed out that notes had been included in the margins. It was suggested that the presentation might have to be abbreviated. It was commented that two audiences existed for this presentation: those who had heard these discussions twice and can reasonably grasp the content, and those attending Monday's presentation in which individuals may not be as well-versed on these technical topics. A truncated, executive summary version was suggested. Mr. Himmel noted that it might cost a lot of money to install energy-saving equipment, but the payback period was very short. More analysis would be forthcoming, but this looked favorable. It was commented that the incentives and rebates for adding these systems were good news and the importance of these incentives and rebates needed to be understood moving forward. It was mentioned that there would be an inherent "shock value" that will be experienced by individuals upon hearing the overall price tag for the first time. People need to understand that the incentives and rebates that are offered will provide an offset in these costs, that it was important to put the bottom line up front in the presentation. He stated that one example could be pointing out that the upfront cost associated with a ground heat pump was lower than the upfront cost of an air source heat pump and it would require less energy use over time. It was suggested that, in terms of solar, air-source heat pumps would negate the presence of solar equipment on the rooftop. He stated that this aspect needed to be made clear in the slide and during the presentation. Mr. Levine suggested focusing on the lifecycle cost analysis on Monday and addressing IDP/LEED at a separate meeting [IDP = Integrated Design Policy]. It was suggested that the payback periods will likely be extended some, though these timeframes will still be acceptable. It would be risky to show payback at 2 years, it could be up to 10 years. It was noted that disturbance of the playing fields may not just be for geothermal wells, it would also be for laydown space. It was suggested that acronyms be explained at the onset as they could become distracting. It was reported that a glossary slide was being created. The following topics were briefly discussed. a. MSBA comments on PDP submission PDP review comments will be forthcoming next week. b. SMMA's"PSR Decision Schedule" Jon Himmel reported that the decision schedule might need to be reviewed. c. High School Comparable review at the Systems level It was noted that if information was found online that allowed for backing out Site Work costs, it would be handy for apple to apple comparisons. d. Add/Reno design assumptions and cost discussion If the renovation cost was less, which appeared not to be the case, it was noted that it could be worth looking at the assumptions and costs more carefully as more information became available. Some programs may "happily" fit into renovation space (though this would not be true for the core academic space) and due diligence demands that this be studied. There is a need to determine if the math, science and field house buildings are sound. e. Current cost consultant PSR scope From a presentation standpoint, it should be pointed out that a deep dive into the numbers was being undertaken. What was presented on June 24 was meant to be a draft for comment and feedback. The plan was to do an updated version based on these comments and to post a recorded meeting for the public to view, made available on the website. A simplified chart should be made available to help people understand. Improved indoor air quality (better filtration/MERV) was referenced as a positive from a health standpoint, given that the focus in creating the 2018 Integrated Building Policy was health. It should not be called sustainability but rather to maximize the health of students and staff. The costing challenge was in the morphing of historical costs from other MSBA funded schools, as per the presentation on June 24, to what Lexington wants. f. Chapter 149 : Chapter 149A CM discussion: It was reported that all prior publicly funded school project comparable in size to the Lexington High School project have been built using the Chapter 149A process [CM at Risk] because General Contractors [Chapter 149] do not have the necessary bonding capacity. Chapter 149A (a CM At- Risk contract) discussion was being introduced at the August 19, 2024, School Building Committee meeting. A month later, on September 16, a decision will be sought (if needed). The question if a general contractor could be located who could do the work remained. g. Value Management This item was not discussed, but the scope for the OPM includes a VE/VM consultant. h. Project building code requirements vs LEED/Lex criteria "requirements" This item was not discussed, but It was noted that `LEED Lexington' cost should be differentiated from LEED 4/Code requirements. i. Life Cycle Cost Analysis, EUI index, Solar Analysis This item was not discussed. Public Comment A comment was made about the following year's election at which the Lexington High School Project will be voted upon and the need for a simple chart showing a review of the five remaining options as well as justifying the one ultimately taken. It was noted that a general discussion should be had on these options, and the Building Committee should meet twice per month from herein. The anticipated date for a document of this sort would be around October of this year, with the goal of narrowing down to one option by November 11, 2024. By 12/16, it will be necessary to submit this option to the MSBA for review at their February Board meeting (they meet every 2 months). A comment was made that the evaluation criteria were a tool that can be applied in different contexts, and should be used in presentations as we consider alternative options. There was no weighing of the criteria to such a degree that they offset bigger questions such as whether to build/not build on the fields versus the high school site proper. There are different orders of magnitude of decision. Urgent Business There was no further business. Summary of Actions No actions were taken during the meeting. Next Meeting August 22, 2024 @ 6pm Motion to adjourn, all approved.