Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2025-12-11-PBC-min.pdfTOWN OF LEXINGTON Permanent Building Committee Permanent Members Jon Himmel, Co-Chairman, Charles Favazzo, Co-Chairman, Peter Johnson, Celis Brisbin, Elizabeth Giersbach, Frederick Merrill, Ian Adamson Associate Members: Wendy Krum, Henrietta Mei PBC Minutes for the meeting held on: 11 December 2025 Meeting was held hybrid via Zoom Members Present: Jon Himmel, Celis Brisbin, Ian Adamson, Peter Johnson, Fred Merrill, Henrietta Mei, Wendy Krum, Lisa Geirsbach Others Present: SMMA: Lorraine Finnegan, Anoush Krafian, Scott Goldcamp, Eugene Slavsky, Turner: Kate Cassin, Jamie Meiser Dore & Whittier: Christina Dell Angelo, Mike Burton Other: Mark Barrett, Mike Cronin, Kathleen Lenihan, Cindy Arens, Mark Sandeen, Bob Pressman The PBC meeting was called to order at 6:00 pm. HIGH SCHOOL PROJECT Schedule Update Mike Burton shared the Lexington High School project timeline, focusing on the design and construction phases. The design development (DD) phase will continue until April, 2026, when the construction document phase will begin. The construction document (CD) phase will last for approximately one year. The schedule shows overlapping bars because a series of early-release packages will be issued so that construction can begin on July 1, 2026. Phase 1, the completion of the new building, is expected to end in September of 2029, and the final site completion is expected at the end of 2030. Mike Burton shared a timeline that included three additional estimates. The estimate for DD is expected to occur in March of 2026. The CD 60% estimate is due in August of 2025, and the CD 90% estimate is due in January of 2027. Mike Burton shared a list of key Permanent Building Committee (PBC) dates that included updates regarding target value design (TVD) and value engineering (VE). Feature spaces, exterior design, and landscape will be discussed on January 8, 2026. The VE list will be provided to the PBC on January 29, 2026, and the Committee will have approximately one month to review it and request estimates for additional items. The DD package will be sent to estimators on February 20, 2026, and the estimates are expected to arrive on March 20, 2026. TVD Update Kate Cassen provided a high-level overview of the ground improvement options and updates from meetings with contractors. She listed four options for groundwork, foundation, and structure: a precast concrete pile option, a steel pile option, and two ground improvement options. She shared a chart comparing the direct work costs of the four options and the original schematic estimate, including the cost savings and settlement criteria of each option. The schematic estimate included a criterion of one inch of total settlement with a 0.5 -inch differential settlement over maximum spans of 30 feet. Both pile options allow for 0.75-inch total settlement with a 0.5-inch differential settlement over maximum spans of 30 feet, meaning these two foundation systems have less settlement. Neither of the two ground improvement options fit into those tolerances, and there was even greater allowable settlement in the case of a seismic event, which may not be achievable in a liquefaction scenario. Precast concrete piles present the stiffest foundation system. Ground improvement is designed to be less stiff, and the allowance of movement is inherent in their design. The choice depends on the desired building performance and risk tolerance. One inch of settlement may be suitable for a warehouse or office space but not for a high school. The design team worked with the contractors to investigate ways to add stiffness to the ground improvement options and assess the costs of these processes. The design team recommended the steel piles option. The steel and concrete options are similar, but steel is less likely to break. An attendee inquired about the cost for the special foundations and how noise would be mitigated. The cost is $8 million for the steel piles. A hydraulic break with additional barriers will be used for noise mitigation. The piles will not be driven continuously to the bearing elevation. An attendee referred to liability coverage and noted that several costly elements would be built on top of the foundation, and if an issue arises, the savings achieved by using a less costly foundation would be eaten up. Lorraine Finnegan responded that it is difficult to obtain competitive bids for ground improvement because contractors perform the work differently. The pile option is more straightforward. The main opposition to the high school project concerned the geotechnical conditions of the football field, and the information provided at the meeting might mitigate those concerns. Lorraine Finnegan noted that any of the options would have worked. The design team has worked with Menard on other projects, and its work has been satisfactory. Jon Himmel inquired about the difference between 0.75 and one inch of settlement. Scott Goldkamp responded that if there are columns in each corner of a room, if a column were to move, a corner would lower by that amount. This could result in spiderweb cracks in the walls, differential cracking, tripping hazards, doors not closing well, and windows coming out of alignment. An attendee asked whether precast concrete and steel piles were subject to seismic settlement. Scott Goldkamp responded that piles are embedded in the bedrock. A structural slab will frame the piles and hold everything together to mitigate the movement of the ground. Ground improvement options rely on soils, and when soils change due to time or a seismic event, the elements are impacted. The steel piles will be used for the school building, which will be rigid. The solar canopies will likely remain helical. It will be necessary to explore options to mitigate settlement for the concession stand, storage building, and bleachers. An attendee asked whether steel piles would perform better than concrete in a seismic event. Scott Goldkamp responded that the two materials perform similarly, but steel is better from an installation standpoint. An attendee asked whether the solar canopies would be placed above the mechanical equipment and whether the equipment and photovoltaics would add significant load. Lorraine Finnegan responded that the load would be inconsequential. The design team is considering placing the canopies above the mechanical equipment. An attendee inquired about the thickness of the slab associated with the steel piles. Kate Cassen responded that piles would have a 12-inch structural slab. The design team will be strategic regarding placement. The next step is investigating where the utilities will be placed and how to consolidate them to create a corridor. An attendee inquired whether the 12-inch slab spans the entire bay and whether it would be less costly to drive four inside the bay and reduce the slab to eight inches. Kate Cassen responded that this can be considered. An attendee inquired about the solutions considered to add rigidity to ground improvement options. Scott Goldkamp responded that the process is called rigid inclusion and is an unreinforced auger cast pile topped with a load transfer platform, which usually comprises crushed stone. Design Update Attendees reviewed the proposed floor plans. The major spaces extending from level to level have not changed from the previous design. On Level 1, the design team has been investigating solutions for the radial area in the center and the small spaces in the C wing and considering pathways for after-hours activities with compartmentation. The team is still considering how to close off classrooms and office areas after hours; grills are being considered for visibility. The back-of-house area is a work in progress. The team is investigating where to include social spaces for clubs to meet. The fieldhouse is also a work in progress, and the team is investigating ways to partition it with a firewall. The fieldhouse is seismically separate from the new school building, and it should not be necessary to upgrade it to code. The team has provided flexible accessibility to the gym and auditorium for events. Any of the three entrances may be used, depending on the school’s preferences, and the ability to block off areas will be built in. An attendee noted that the school building will be a resource for the town and suggested further discussion about how the public will be using the building. The design team has been discussing ways to ensure attendees can access the gym, auditorium, and media center only at night. One wing of the school may also be used for activities such as night classes and summer school, so the entire building does not need to be heated or cooled for them. The design team is working on ways to isolate an area. An attendee inquired which area serves as the town’s emergency shelter. The fieldhouse and the gym both serve as shelters. A repair analysis of the fieldhouse is needed. It will be upgraded, but it likely will not require upgrading to the standards of a new building. The team will know more once the DD phase is complete. Attendees reviewed the Level 2 floor plans. A music classroom that did not fit on Level 1 was placed in the A wing of Level 2, near the practice rooms. The teacher planning space was moved to facilitate the hierarchy of a main corridor loop and smaller loops to decrease collision potential. Triangular spaces that are indicated in white on the map are placeholders for shaft spaces for mechanical equipment and pipes. The superintendent and principal recommended that movable furniture rather than built-in benches be used in the corridors. The fire department will need to be consulted regarding furniture material. A classroom originally located near the Level 2 dining commons was moved to Level 4. Attendees reviewed Levels 3 and 4, which are similar to the lower levels. Henrietta Mei noted that costs and square footage can be saved if the end of each block on the stairs is not flared. It was noted that this would save a small amount of square footage and would elongate the landing by a small amount. Cynthia Arens noted that the teacher planning area on Level 2 was labeled “teacher dining” and asked whether teachers would be eating there or in the staff rooms. It was noted that teachers could eat in both places. The teacher planning area, which will have a kitchenette, will be more suitable for events and parties. Cynthia Arens recommended that at least two or three of the 11 staff rooms, as well as the planning area, contain dishwashers in an effort to encourage the use of reusable dining items. Jon Himmel noted that the teacher workroom for paraprofessionals has no windows. Lorraine Finnegan responded that it receives borrowed light. Jon Himmel suggested moving the large group space to border the roof deck, namely by moving a classroom back to Level 2 from Level 4 and placing one classroom in the paraprofessional space. Lorraine Finnegan responded that this can be considered. Jon Himmel noted that the music space was originally near the auditorium to evoke a theatrical aspect and asked if this was lost by moving the music room. It was noted that it is still possible to look up and see the music room. The design team hopes to provide additional visual materials in the next set of meetings so the PBC can experience a better sense of space with lighting and materiality. An attendee inquired whether moving a classroom from Level 2 to Level 4 would change the dimensions of the courtyard. It was noted that the courtyard will not be affected. Other Business An attendee inquired about the difference between TVD and VE, noting that they seem to overlap. It was noted that TVD involves working with the existing design and finding ways to make it more efficient. TVD improves the design without changing the scope. VE involves changes in scope. If TVD is done very well, very little VE will be needed. It was noted that some scope relates to performance. Some items may cost more but perform similarly to a less costly option; for example, there is no reason to improve the appearance of foundations, as they are not seen. The foundation only needs to perform well. It was noted that some items need to be completed earlier, and other items do not require discussion at this time. Staff has shared the running list of VE items. No VE items have been accepted yet. Mike Burton clarified that as the design team reviews DD and TVD, ideas arise and are added to the VE list. In July of 2026, site preparation, tree work, and platform building will occur. It was noted that the football team plans to move to the infield of the track on July 1, 2026. Any impact on traffic during construction will be contained. Logistics will be discussed soon. While the schedule indicates January 26, 2026, for DD, it actually began in September of 2025 and is still in progress. As soon as the DD package is sent to estimators, the team will begin preparing documents for the Massachusetts School Building Authority. The schedule is frontloaded to identify the scope, but the team will also be discussing details. Jon Himmel noted that the PBC’s confidence in the DD estimate will need to be solid on March 26, 2026, since the project is expected to move more quickly thereafter. Kate Cassen responded that the team works together on the DD and consults an independent estimator. She noted that some TVD items may represent increased costs, and it will be necessary to investigate a way to decrease costs elsewhere to balance the budget. The TVD target is $534 million in total construction costs, which includes tariff and escalation contingencies. There was no public comment. There was no urgent business. The date of the next PBC meeting is January 8, 2026. The Meeting was adjourned