Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2025-08-11-SBC-min (draft) Project: Lexington High School Meeting:School Building Committee Meeting No. 32-08/11/2025 Page: 1 O Ilf iii: .iVVI°°ll i 11I11Il E P Project: Lexington High School ,,,, Project No: Subject: School Building Committee Meeting Meeting Date: 08/11/2025 Location: Hybrid(146 Maple Street&Zoom) Time: 12:00 PM Distribution Attendees, Project File Prepared By: J.Greco Present Name Affiliation Present Name Affiliation Kathleen Lenihan* SBC Chair&SC Member ✓ Mike Burton DWMP Michael Cronin* SBC Vice-Chair&LPS Facilities ✓ Christina Dell DWMP Angelo ✓ Julie Hackett* Jacob Greco DWMP Superintendent Steve Bartha* Town Manager Chris Schaffner Green Engineer Joe Pato* Select Board Chair Lorraine Finnegan SMMA J . Mark Barrett* Public Facilities Manager Rosemary Park SMMA Charles Favazzo PBC Co-Chair Thomas Faust SMMA Jr.* Jonathan Himmel PBC Chair* it ✓ . Brian Black SMMA Andrew Baker* Lexington High School Principal Erin Prestileo SMMA Carolyn Kosnoff* Finance Assistant Town Anthony Jimenez SMMA Manager Hsing Min Sha* Community Representative J Martine Dion JSMMA Kseniya Slaysky* Community Representative ✓ Anoush Krafian SMMA Charles Lamb Capital Expenditures Michael Dowhan SMMA Committee Alan Levine Appropriation Commit tee � Andy Oldeman �SMMA Dan Voss* Sustainable Lexington Rick DeAngelis Recreation Committee Department Maureen Director of Planning and Cindy Arens Recreation Kavanaugh Assessment Department Veirirrrncairnt Ma:assa:aa.ihUsett �rr�rnr.rlr irearudW�rlhliu::tlie .coin Project: Lexington High School Meeting:School Building Committee Meeting No. 32-08/11/2025 Page:2 Claire Sheth Recreation Committee Melissa Battite Recreation Department Lisa Rhodes Capital Expenditures Committee Item........ No Action Item Re Ball in Court Requested by q 32.5 Project Team Update the High School Cost Comparison SBC p g p 32.7 Send out the SD Package for SBC Review SBC DWMP - Please clickItm.e,ire'for the presentation o This will be referenced in the meeting minutes with slide numbers called out to refer t . ® Below is a summation of key points, please view the recording.!gjrg for full transcript. Item No Descriptio Action n 32.1 Call to Order& Intro:Called to order by J.Hackett at 12:00 pm Record 32.2 Approval of May 12&June 2-2025, Meeting Minutes: Record A motion to approve the August 4`"2025 Meeting Minutes was made by J.Pato&seconded by M.Barrett Roll Call Vote:A. Baker-Yes, M.Cronin -Absent,C. Favazzo-Yes,J. Hackett-Yes,J. Himmel -Yes, C. Kosnoff-Yes,J. Pato-Yes, K. Slaysky- Yes, H.Sha -Yes, K. Lenihan-Yes, D.Voss-Yes,S.Bartha-Yes, M.Barrett- Yes 11-0-1. 32.3 Public Comment Record Please click here to view the recording for public comment if any was conducted 32.4 Schematic Design/Project Update Record This agenda topic was not reviewed 32.5 Schematic Design Cost Estimate Review Record Page 2 of 7 Project: Lexington High School Meeting:School Building Committee Meeting No. 32-08/11/2025 Page:3 • M.Burton reviewed the timeline for the process of reviewing and reconciling the estimates(Slide 4) o M.Burton noted they spent a lot of time reviewing key areas such as Solar, HVAC, FFE, Soft Costs, & Foundations • M.Burton reviewed the SD cost estimates totals($659.7 Million with a District share of$543.2 Million)and how they compare to the PSR pricing(Slide 5) • M.Burton broke down the process of the MSBA grant and how the total number of funding is decided. He also touched on the contingencies(Slide 6 to 9) o J.Hackett noted that LABBB has normally provided their money in the FF&E category which may help with not having the funding reduced o J.Himmel asked for clarification that the town will be reimbursed for only$550/sf and is that the fee for the Designer and OPM • M.Burton noted that the fee for the Designer and OPM is not$550/sf that is just the cap o J.Hackett asked how the contingency process is managed • M.Burton noted that as the OPM they will always push back on change orders and there are many ways to handle it such as setting a limit for DPF to manage and if it goes over that number the SBC will approve it o K.Slaysky noted the conversation on approval of contingency use is very important as it can be helpful to have it public but can also hinder it and this should be a future agenda topic o K.Lenihan asked if the Tariffs will have any impact on the soft costs • M.Burton noted that the only thing would be the Furniture, Fixtures, &Equipment(FF&E) but those costs are already factored in o D.Voss asked for clarification on the design contingency and asked that as the design progresses and if the cost increases the contingency decreases • M.Burton noted yes that is correct • J.Himmel noted that it is not for new scope only existing • L.Finnegan shared that they currently have 100 drawings and after design is done there will be well over 1000 and as more detail is added the cost increases.She noted after design is complete the construction cost will increase by the design contingency amount and the design contingency will be at zero but the overall project cost would not have changed due to those two(2) items. Page 3 of 7 Project: Lexington High School Meeting:School Building Committee Meeting No. 32-08/11/2025 Page:4 o A.Baker asked if during construction there will be report outs on change orders M.Burton noted yes probably to both the PBC and SBC and there will also be monthly reports during construction o J.Himmel described his view of the contingencies and added how they are in a column on the slide but they will also take place over time J.Meiser&K.Cassen reviewed Turner's Escalation and Tarriff Report for the Greater Boston Area and for how it applies to the Lexington High School Project(Slide 10 to o A.Levine asked what happens if the escalation comes in higher than that$33 million • J.Meiser noted that would have to be a team decision on if it is scope reduction, contingency use or risk moving forward as is. • K.Cassen noted that this escalation will be reviewed at all the future estimates as well • A.Levine clarified that the escalation is not a contingency but it is an approximate estimate for the number • K.Cassen agreed and noted that it is similar to the design contingency and as the estimates progress the escalation should start to roll up into the direct costs. o A.Baker asked if there is enough steel produced domestically for this project J.Meiser noted that around 95%of steel used will be domestic and although prices have risen they will meet in the middle of the 50%tariff price and expect it to be more around 25% o J.Meiser shared that they conducted review of this separately in the office and all came in around the same amount of 2%which was also in line with SMMA's estimator from AMF o J.Pato clarified that the tariffs on the project are the best estimate for the impact of them and it is not the total percent of the tariff added on to it J.Meiser agreed o A.Levine asked if the tariff numbers will be finalized when contracts are signed with subcontractors J.Meiser noted yes and that the subcontractors will carry the risk on the tariffs whether good or bad. o A.Levine asked if Turner sets the GMP L.Finnegan noted Turner establishes the GMP but the owner approves it o K.Slaysky noted that if the subcontractors hold the risk of the tariffs the upfront cost may be higher and if the tariffs drop they will get it as savings Page 4 of 7 Project: Lexington High School Meeting:School Building Committee Meeting No. 32-08/11/2025 Page: 5 l 32.6 Value Engineering List Review Record • M.Burton reviewed value engineering(VE)and the timeline for reviewing it(Slide 18) • M.Burton also reviewed the estimating timeline and noted that there will be three more estimates but this one is important because once the grant is set the number cannot go up and can only be reduced. (Slide 19) • M.Burton noted that it is the project teams advice to not execute any large VE at this round of estimating so that it is still available in the future rounds and shared that most often VE happens at the end of Design Development(DD). • C.Favazzo noted that he is in agreement that no VE decisions should be made but that Target Value Design (TVD)should be executed and a comparison of divisions to other projects should be made. • A.Levine noted that the debt exclusions and town meeting votes will be the most important decisions made and it is important to have a lower cost. He noted that if a good project can be kept and the price reduced before November for the vote should be taken and he would support it. o M.Burton noted this is an important point and that the SBC needs to be approve the SD package and project budget by 8/18 and if A.Levine has a number he wants to reach he should bring it up to the SBC to review. • A.Levine urged the SBC to review the VE list and see if anything should betaken • C.Favazzo noted that TVD could be a way to reduce the project cost • J.Himmel noted there will still be time after submitting to reduce the price before the vote o L.Finnegan noted that is not the case and the MSBA requires the number submitted to the MSBA to be the same number on the warrant for town meeting and therefor on the debt exclusion • J.Hackett asked if any VE items if executed will have a negative impact on the grant o C.Dell Angelo noted they can add at column to show this • K.Lenihan clarified that if the VE happens later the cost of the project can be reduced but it will not reduce the number prior to the vote. She noted she does not want to rush to remove something because it cannot be added back in • A.Baker asked why not doing TVD will save$500k o M.Burton noted that TVD is a different way of going about getting to a number and is common in private work but he has not seen it on a public project. He noted that the MSBA contract is very specific and if TVD is going to be executed there will be additional costs for the project team o J.Hackett asked if TVD really will save money Page 5 of 7 Project: Lexington High School Meeting:School Building Committee Meeting No. 32-08/11/2025 Page: 6 o K.Cassen yes it can save money or at the very least it will keep it on track to not increase the cost but it does take a lot of meetings and time with many people and specific disciplines to achieve that goal C.Favazzo noted that VE is removing something form the project and TVD is trying to find a more efficient and less costly way to complete design and scope that is wanted. He agrees there is more work involved but thinks it is more efficient than normal design as you only design once instead of multiple times K.Slaysky noted there is other impacts aside from program such as life time cost if a less durable material is used or it could impact maintenance cost.She noted that it should be added if there will be life time costs associated with the VE list.She also noted that if any VE items are purely nice to haves they should be removed now. o L.Finnegan noted that one of the main reasons the impact to program was listed is because if the Ed Plan was changed via VE they will have to resubmit to the MSBA for approval J.Hackett noted it will be important for all SBC members to review this list especially the larger items for the next meeting K.Slaysky asked if the SBC has the ability to not replace the skate park as a VE items o M.Cronin noted that the wording is poor and the VE item would be to not swap the skate park M.Burton asked that if any members have questions on the VE list to ask them now or email K.Lenihan with the question as soon as possible so the project team can respond to them J.Pato asked if the VE list option for the field house would be to just do the option that keeps it alive with no addition o L.Finnegan noted yes J.Pato asked what would happen if they delayed the option to move central office could it be finished in a summer o M.Burton noted no it would take longer than a summer and there would be increase in costs due to escalation H.Min Sha noted that there should not be anything in the project that is"nice to have"at this point. 32.7 Reflections and Action Items Record • C.Dell Angelo shared the upcoming meetings(slide 26) • H.Min Sha asked if there is currently an escalation valley and will they increase into a higher inflation period o K.Cassen noted yes she thinks a delay would increase inflation and also noted the coasts of the country are slower to increase and the middle of the country is already around 4-5%.She noted that there are some indicators in their New York office that it is starting to increase on the east coast Page 6 of 7 Project: Lexington High School Meeting:School Building Committee Meeting No. 32-08/11/2025 Page:7 M.Burton noted that there was an article in the Lexington Observer stating the cost went up 11.7 million when it really did not and asked if the project team should reach out o J.Hackett noted that would be great C.Dell Angelo noted they will send out the schematic design submission today to the SBC for their review as they will have to approve this submission 32.8 Adjourn: Motion to adjourn at 1:51 was made byJ.Pato and seconded by Record M.Cronin Roll Call Vote:A. Baker-Yes, M.Cronin-Yes,C. Favazzo-Yes,J. Hackett -Yes,J. Himmel-Yes, C. Kosnoff-Yes,J. Pato-Yes, K.Slaysky-Yes, H. Sha -Yes, K. Lenihan-Yes, D.Voss-Yes, S.Bartha-Yes, M.Barrett-Yes 12-0-0. Sincerely, [D O lR ll::: .,I W IH F1 fl Il:::lR Jacob Greco Assistant Project Manager Cc:Attendees, File The above is my summation of our meeting. If you have any additions and/or corrections, please contact me for incorporation into these minutes. Page 7 of 7