Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2025-11-13-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: 13 November 2025 Meeting was held hybrid via Zoom Members Present: Jon Himmel, Chuck Favazzo, Peter Johnson, Celis Brisbin, Ian Adamson, Fred Merrill, Henrietta Mei, Wendy Krum, Lisa Geirsbach Others Present: SMMA: Anoush Kraken, Maddeline Lei, Brian Black Turner: Kate Cassin, Jamie Meiser Dore & Whittier: Christina Dell Angelo, Mike Burton Other: Mark Barrett, Dan Voss, Cindy Arens, Mark Sandeen, Alan Levine The PBC meeting was called to order at 6:00 pm. Approve meeting minutes Motion made, to approve the four sets of minutes (1/9/25, 3/13/25, 3/27/25 and 3/31/25) as reviewed and amended by the Committee. Motion carried. HIGH SCHOOL PROJECT UPDATE Overview It was noted that attendees the 2025 Fall Special Town Meeting were almost 90% in favor of progressing with the high school project. At the meeting, the capital expenditures chair commented that an affirmative vote would allow the public to vote on the project. Comments were well addressed by Turner Construction Company, Mike Cronin, and the design team in two videos posted to the website. Kate Cassen reported that the team has been working on an overall target value design (TVD) update regarding sitework and structure. She listed sitework items the team has been working on. A team meeting will be held on November 24, 2025, to discuss design options and pricing feedback. The team is reviewing opportunities for bollard reduction and two options regarding curb types. SMMA is researching options to enclose the area under the grandstands for storage, but this may not be feasible. SMMA has provided two alternative subsurface drainage utility systems; Kate Cassen is contacting a subcontractor to review them. The school will need two scoreboards. There was a request to redesign the concessions building to accommodate multi-use restrooms; therefore, the building may be larger than expected. Kate Cassen shared a drawing of the proposed parking area at the high school, highlighting the drop-off areas. The bollards were originally proposed to be 7.5 feet apart; SMMA proposed that they be nine feet apart for three drop-off locations. This revision reduces the quantity of bollards by 43, representing a savings of $144,000. The bollards are not impact-resistant. A concern was raised that bollards nine feet apart cannot protect a building from a ramming attack, as most vehicles can pass between them. It was noted that a regular bollard, like those proposed, will not stop a vehicle. Security bollards are nearly twice the cost of the proposed bollards. Additionally, the driveways typically approach the bollards at an angle, which allows the spacing to increase. It was noted that the entire team was in favor of the bollards revision. The PBC recommended the bollard reduction revision. Jon Himmel requested information regarding the cost estimates of the big-ticket items. Kate Cassen responded that the TVD process will include a discussion on where the money is being spent. Ways to reduce scope are being explored. Jon Himmel cited a discussion regarding the resilience level for the fieldhouse and the gym being Level 2, and the availability of locker rooms in that scenario. He noted that feedback on cost was not discussed further, and some assumptions may have resulted in design considerations that reflected policy; however, it may be necessary to review whether money is spent on items that make sense and whether specific policies are warranted. An attendee expressed agreement with Jon Himmel’s suggestion but cautioned against confusing his scenario with the TVD process, noting that the TVD process is not changing scope but making the current scope more efficient; for example, the revision of the bollards still prevents vehicles from entering the sidewalk but does so more efficiently. Changing the number of restrooms is not part of TVD. Jon Himmel responded that he was referring to emergency power. Kate Cassen responded that the Level 2 shelter was a breakout in the estimate. There was a discussion regarding the timeline of TVD versus value engineering (VE). It was noted that as the project progresses, additional cost estimates will be presented, and the Committees can decide which VE items to recommend or approve from the list. Jon Himmel suggested that a rolling list of VE items be made available, as additional information will allow the Permanent Building Committee (PBC) members to formulate valuable questions. Kate Cassen confirmed that the PBC may receive a TVD log the day after a team meeting in order to review it before the PBC meeting. Jon Himmel requested information regarding a list of items to be discussed in future meetings. Kate Cassen responded that the design team initially populated a list in a shared Excel file, and she owned the actual document. The list initially shown at SD is being combined with the Excel list. Curbing Kate Cassen described two updates regarding curb types: • Removing the flush granite curb and adding new detail for the concrete walk to abut bituminous pavement represents a credit of $76,000. • Removing the vertical granite curb on the north side of Park Drive for stormwater treatment concerns represents a credit of $123,000. Kate Cassen shared a drawing detailing where the flush curb and vertical curb are proposed to be removed. She clarified that the flush granite curbs at the entrances would be removed, but the drop-off locations would feature standard granite curbs. There was a discussion regarding potential challenges for snow removal. It was noted that, while there is no concrete edge where the flush granite curb is removed, the surface might not remain flush, and the concrete may be chipped by the snowplow. Another attendee expressed confidence in the design team’s judgment. The working team is in agreement regarding the updates. An attendee inquired whether the sidewalks would be fiber mesh or regular mesh, noting that the fiber mesh sidewalks around town are deteriorating. Kate Cassen acknowledged the concern and responded that the sidewalks would be wire mesh. It was noted that the bollard revisions and curb removals would not significantly impact the schedule. Cynthia Arens noted that the bollards would cost $650,000 and would not stop vehicles from driving onto the curb; she inquired whether they were needed at all. It was noted that, while the bollards might not deter a malicious act, they would alert a driver who accidentally hits the curb so that a student is not struck. Cynthia Arens agreed that spacing them out to save costs was a good idea. Celis Brisbin inquired whether large planters would be less costly than precast concrete bollards. Kate Cassen responded that they would be more costly. The PBC recommended the curb removals. Kate Cassen reviewed three structural options: • Removing one column line of footings from the current design, increasing the remaining footing to 12 feet by 12 feet by three feet, and increasing the floor-to-floor height by eight inches on each floor to align with the brick coursing, which would represent an increase of $2,346,000 in project costs. • Removing an additional column line of footings from the current design, increasing the remaining adjacent footing to 12 feet by 12 feet by three feet, and increasing the floor -to-floor height by eight inches on each floor to align with the brick coursing, which would represent an increase of $2,242,000 in project costs. • Overlaying the architectural plans, reviewing the added columns required for the portal openings to the classrooms, and considering centering the columns between the classrooms in lieu of the current layout, which would represent a savings of $245,000 in project costs. Kate Cassen shared diagrams of the three options, noting that the team recommended the third option. Centering the columns would involve reducing the two columns at either side of the set of classroom doorways to one column between the doorways. This would increase the bay size and provide access space for the large heat exchangers. The team is investigating the location of the bracing and ways of designing the hallway to be steel hollow. The first two options are based on engineer Minhaj Kirmani’s study. He will be shown the options after they are presented. None of the options reduce the 16-foot floor to a 14-foot floor; in fact, the first two options increase the floor-to-floor height. The PBC rejected Options 1 and 2 and recommended Option 3. Kate Cassen noted that the items discussed at the meeting represented a total savings of $588,000 in project costs. It was noted that this amount covers the cost of performing TVD. The next major TVD discussion is ground improvements, including whether earthquake drains are needed, and if so, which type. An attendee reported hearing a conversation regarding the Burlington High School project, which appears to be less costly than the Lexington High School project. Kate Cassen responded that she has recently started researching Burlington and plans to provide a comparison. She noted that Lexington is a new school, and Burlington is an addition and renovation of an existing school. Kate Cassen added Watertown High School to the group of comparison schools, noting that adjustments were made for comparison purposes. On average, Lexington High School remains 4.7% less costly than the highest - cost project. The noted percentages include scope-specific adjustments. It was noted that Watertown had high per-student costs. Some schools have Chapter 74 programs, which require additional space. Kate Cassen shared a slide on which direct work costs associated with sitework were removed from the comparison group statistics, as fieldwork is not necessary for Burlington. It was noted that mass save was added below the total project cost, and no adjustments for such programs were made to the comparison data. Kate Cassen confirmed that the square footage shown for Watertown represents the school and not the garage. Watertown has 128 parking spaces while Lexington has 500. It was noted that most projects have tariff and escalation contingencies. An attendee advised that the cost per student was a valuable metric to share widely. The discussion on life cycle cost for solar value engineering option was deferred to a future PBC meeting. Public comment There was no public comment. Urgent business There was no urgent business. Upcoming meetings The date of the next PBC meeting is December 11, 2025. Meeting was adjourned at 7:19 p.m.