Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2024-10-10-PBC-minTOWN OF LEXINGTON Permanent Building Committee Permanent Members Jon Himmel Co -Chairman Charles Favazzo Co -Chairman Peter Johnson, Cells Brisbin, Elizabeth Giersbach, Frederick Merrill, Ian Adamson Associate Members: Wendy Krum, Henrietta Mei PBC Minutes for the meeting held on: 10-10-24 Meeting was held hybrid via Zoom Members Present: Jon Himmel, Charles Favazzo, Peter Johnson, Fred Merrill, Ian Adamson, Henrietta Mei, Wendy Krum Others Present: Mark Sandeen, David Kanter, Cindy Arens, Taylor Singh, Deepika Shawhney SMMA Architects: Lorraine Finnegan, Martine Dionne, Matt Rice, Tom Faust Dore & Whittier: Michael Burton, Christina Dell Angelo, Jacob Greco Staff: Mark Barrett, Michael Cronin The PBC Meeting was called to order at 6:00 pm. Approve Meeting Minutes The August minutes should be re -sent to the committee. The approval of the meeting minutes was tabled. Lexington High School Project Discussion updates including: Preliminary PDP Estimate feedback Mike Burton provided an update on the Lexington High School Project. The project timeline was presented, and it was noted that the last estimate before the Fall 2025 town meeting would be the schematic design estimate, and it would be done in August 2025. The package to the estimators for the PDP estimate was sent on September 16, the estimates were due on October 1, the reconciliation was done on October 4 to get to 5% or less delta between the estimators, and the estimates were final on October 9. Mike Burton presented the options summary, noting that the PDP options were based on the Ed Program only, meaning 440,000 square feet without district offices included. A final scope decision on the field house had not been made, so those costs were not included. Mike Burton presented the updated PSR estimates as they relate to the prior PDP estimates. There were still some minor issues with pricing to work out with Braid and Bloom. The cost for Quad went up because a closer look was taken, and it was discovered that the durations for the phasing were much longer than originally realized. Weave had assumed five years and 30 modulars, but it increased to five and a half years and 38 modulars. Mike Burton noted he would look into Weave further. Mike Burton presented Table A for the PSR estimates, which included scope options, descriptions, GSF without the options, PM&C estimates, AM Fogarty estimates, the average between the two estimators, and the delta. He noted that for the deltas, 5% or less was okay, 3% was better, and 1 % or less was best. The goal was to get the deltas within 1 %. The average cost was presented in the total construction. Table A also included soft costs of 20% for C and 22% for B and D options, owner contingency at %, modular classrooms for the options required, a total project cost, and the dollar per square foot. The average SF cost, including construction and soft costs, was $1,475 psf for B1 and B4, Scheme C costs were $1,353 psf, and the D option was $1,522 psf. Mike Burton presented Table B for the PSR estimates, which broke down the different options, such as the field house. Table C included the overall project cost and psf. Mike Burton noted that the MSBA increased their construction cap, for which they would reimburse, which would help with the anticipated reimbursement. Jon Himmel asked about the renovated field house and which line on the Table was associated with the full renovation. Mike Burton explained which was for the full renovation. Jon Himmel suggested adding the word "full" to the line item. Mike Burton noted that the 5 to 10 year renovated field house would get the field house to code, but nothing else would be done. Jon Himmel suggested having "New Construction" go across C and D on the PSR Options Summary table. It was suggested to change the wording to "total project cost" on all of the tables. Mike Burton stated he would change that. Mark Sandeen asked about the overall cost of the field house. Mike Burton explained that the numbers were tightened up slightly. When examining the add/reno field house, it cost more than the small, renovated field house. He reported that anything with the word "renovation" did not require a new vote, but anything with the word "new" did. Lorraine Finnegan presented the field house alternative summary. Lisa Giersbach asked if the presentation could be shared. Mike Burton stated that he could send it out. Christina Dell Angelo reported that it was linked to the agenda. Lisa Gierbach asked what options A, B, and C and the alternative HVAC costs referred to. Mike Burton stated that there was a description on the document. Mike Burton reported that they were looking at the alternative costs for air sources versus ground sources, so the alternative costs in the presentation were associated with those. Lisa Gierbach asked about the Belmont costs and what some of the key points were. Lorraine Finnegan explained that when there were large spaces and the cost was divided, it minimized the cost of construction per square foot. Belmont retained their field house and pool, so while some upgrades were done to those spaces, the overall cost that was then divided, including the large square footage of both the field house and pool, therefore the cost psf went down. Jon Himmel asked if the sustainable design in the PDP estimate was included into the estimate. Mike Burton reported that they were included, and the life cycle analyses were also part of the recording available on the website. Jon Himmel asked who applied the markups for the escalation costs and the price and design contingency. Mike Burton reported that the estimators did it, and the price and design contingency were 15%. Public Comment It was asked if the price for the restoration of the new fields was included. It was reported that it was It was asked if the project cost included the field house and the demolition of the Harrington Building. It was reported that it did not, as they were separate projects. It was asked if there would be another community meeting and a chance for community input and input from the school. It was reported another community meeting was scheduled for October 30. It was reported that on there was an all -day retreat with the School Building Committee to select the final option. Jon Himmel discussed the acre and a half knoll next to the field house and suggested doing an inventory while the leaves were still on the tree. Mike Burton stated that there was a cost to get rid of the knoll, but there was not a planned inventory. Jon Himmel suggested doing an inventory of the trees to make them palatable for the community. It was discussed to add funding to replace some of the trees. Henrietta Mei asked to see the architectural plans for Bloom and Weave. Lorraine Finnegan reported that they were available on the website. Mark Sandeen asked about the timing after November 12. Lorraine Finnegan reported that the Building Committee would select the preferred alternative on November 12. The submission of the PSR to the MSBA was due on December 19. The Board meeting would be held on February 26, after which authority to move into the schematic design would be provided. The project scope and budget would be done at the end of schematic design. It was asked what it meant that Article 97 had to be resolved. Lorraine Finnegan reported that MSBA would not start reimbursement if there were outstanding permits. It was clarified that they would retroactively reimburse the town. Lorraine Finnegan stated that Article 97 required a lot of alternative analyses, which were being done. The data was required to be submitted to the PLPA, and the process for Article 97 took a year. The PSR had to be finished before the Article 97 process began. Mark Sandeen asked if Article 97 had implications depending on which option was selected. It was reported that it did, and he explained how different options were affected. Jon Himmel asked about one parcel having some restrictions on it and if it was solved. Lorraine Finnegan stated that the issue was solved, and it was confirmed that there were no restrictions. Lorraine Finnegan stated that every piece of parcel was examined and defined. It was asked how the basin was being treated. Lorraine Finnegan stated that it was a town -regulated wetland, so the consultants were working with the town. A meeting was being held on October 21, and it was hoped that there would be acceptance of the plan at that point. Urgent Business There was no further business. Summary of action items Mike Burton will make the discussed changes to the tables. Motion to adjourn, all approved.