Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2025-04-03-PBC-min.pdf 1 of 3 TOWN 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: 4-3-25 The meeting was held hybrid via Zoom. Members Present: Jon Himmel, Celis Brisbin, Wendy Krum, Peter Johnson, Fred Merrill, Henrietta Mei, Ian Adamson, Lisa Giersbach Others Present: Mark Barrett, Mark Sandeen, Mike Cronin, Joe Pato (SBC), Tom Shiple (Bicycle Advisory Committee), Jerry Yurgovitz The PBC meeting was called to order at 6:00 p.m. All present introduced themselves “Should the PBC be discussing other agenda topics not currently on SMMA’s Schematic Design Decisions matrix? If yes, what are they?” and Discussion on the March 31 Plan Review Jon Himmel asked for information on the project timeline. DPF reported that they were on the path to discuss and present a budget in mid-August. Jon Himmel discussed Attachment B of the Integrative Design Policy and the strategy for VE. DPF stated that part of their process was to think about items that could be part of VE, such as the floor-to-floor heights glass types, etc. Opportunities were already being considered, and Mike Burton from Dore & Whittier was compiling a list. Jon Himmel stated that part of the RFP for the OPM included value engineering. He stated that he expected them to be present at discussions and that the discussions would also be more public. DPF explained that they were still in the design phase, and it was hard to measure. Jon Himmel asked for others’ opinions. Peter Johnson stated that they should be looking into value management. He discussed that Turner Construction should also know what the architect was doing so that they could be working to reduce the costs. He discussed the importance of meeting the budget. Peter Johnson raised concerns about trying hard to hold the estimates given the uncertainty around pricing but also examining alternatives so that the budget was met. He discussed that he did not want opportunities to pass without properly evaluating them. He discussed that his projects involve everyone in the room together working out the design to meet budget. 2 of 3 Joe Pato suggested including Life Cycle cost analysis when looking at systems and materials and making decisions. We need to demonstrate the value to the Community. It was asked what the budget SMMA was working with, and it was reported that it was currently $662 Million. Jon Himmel suggested engaging Turner’s estimator to help understand the project costs using the latest estimates, looking at systems, and checking assumptions. He wanted a public number that was at or below $662,000,000 and manage the project by using cost modeling. Mark Sandeen stated that one of the main concerns of residents was how the building would affect their taxes. He stated he would like to look at it as a positive cash flow, incremental debt service is offset by reduced operating costs. Jon Himmel read Chuck Favazzo’s email, which raised concerns about the use of the budget estimating strategy and voiced support for establishing budget numbers ahead of the design so that re-design was not needed later on. He stated it was more efficient and less risky. Mike Cronin discussed that building height was a large impact on cost. He asked what the priority should be. It was stated that there was a VE list that Turner put together. Mike Cronin was asked to have the VE list circulated. Jon Himmel explained that there were four phases of the list, which included brainstorming and narrowing options based on rough cost estimates. He suggested coming up with a strategy for a net-zero core project with alternatives and information on where costs were more vulnerable. There was a large assumption in the estimate about the foundation, and they needed to be checked. It was asked if anyone was keeping track of what PBC and SBC were asked for. It was explained that SMMA was constantly considering suggestions. Jon Himmel discussed the need to all work collaboratively. It was discussed that both the budget and design had a contingency. Jon Himmel asked for the design to be examined and for the architectural design team to provide more information on allowances and the top 12 areas of cost. He stated that he believed they were on the planned timeline. He stated that they needed to understand where the unknowns were in terms of investments and assumptions and that they should not be absorbing any contingencies at the current point. Wendy Krum asked about the field house and whether the current design was consistent with the base case in the estimate. DPF stated that an additional 20,000 square feet were added to the base case. The changes did not impact the original budget because it included the contingencies. Jon Himmel noted that they were not entirely certain about the square footage of the existing design. He discussed that there was space removed from Wing A recently. Jon Himmel stated that the design, as originally developed, needed to be checked. In front of the auditorium, there was an irregular-shaped room for mechanical equipment. Making decisions based on the most conservative need was discussed since the impacts could be significant. It was suggested to build scenario-based assumptions into the integrative design policy. Henrietta Mei asked if a cost comparison for steel versus concrete structure was done. Mark Barrett reported that an analysis was sent out, and the recommendation was steel. Jon Himmel noted that if the analysis was a structural system only, it did not consider other factors. 3 of 3 Jon Himmel asked what the next steps should be. He recommended getting feedback from Dore and Whittier, the engineers, and Turner Construction. He suggested looking at the design matrix and the scheduled meetings. He commented that some items were repeated across meetings that did not need to be re-discussed. Mark Barrett reported that they had a meeting to discuss Life Cycle cost analysis (LCCA), which resulted in a more refined direction. Martine Dion did a lot of work on the LCCA, but more work was needed. The next discussion will be held in four weeks. It was asked if there were items that no longer needed to be discussed. Jon Himmel discussed how assurances from Turner Construction could be provided that the estimate would be manageable within a certain percentage. It was stated that they should get the target value information and work toward everyone being collaborative at all times. There needed to be someone to ensure that everyone was doing their part. If Turner Construction could be included more, they would be very valuable. The same level of vetting of the non-bricks-and-mortar numbers was requested. The SBC voted that they wanted an add-reno, so it would need to be discussed with them what parts could be removed. Jon Himmel suggested holding a meeting during the following week with Turner Construction and asking Turner Construction to provide information on what they do at their hospital project and do the same for the high school and what issues that could cause. He also asked to know what items could be accelerated and what Turner Construction needed to know. He suggested that the information be summarized and presented to the SBC since they had approved Option B, but he wanted to understand the cost tradeoffs of decisions better. Mark Barrett stated that he would reach out to Turner Construction and ask them to attend the next meeting. It was asked when the geo-tech report would be received, and it was reported that it would be looked into on April 4. Public Comment There was no public comment. Summary of any action items The VE list will be circulated. Mark Barrett will ask Turner Construction to attend the next meeting. The status of the geo-tech report will be followed up on. Urgent Business There was no further business. Motion to adjourn PBC, all approved. Next meeting: To be determined.