Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2025-07-31-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: 7-31-25 Meeting was held hybrid via Zoom Members Present: Jon Himmel, Chuck Favazzo, Ian Adamson, Fred Merrill, Henrietta Mei Others Present: SMMA: Lorraine Finnegan (SMMA), Anoush Kraken (SMMA), Brian Black (SMMA Turner: Kate Cassin (Turner Construction), Jamie Meiser (Turner Construction), Dore & Whittier: Christina Dell Angelo, Mike Burton School Building Committee: Kathleen Lenihan, Mark Barrett, Mike Cronin, Julie Hackett, Dan Voss, Kseniya Slavsky Select Board: Mark Sandeen, Venita, Doug Lucente, Appropriation Committee: Glenn Parker, Alan Levine, Lilian, Vinita Verma Capital Expenditure Committee: Charles Lamb, Rod Cole, Sandy Beady, Mike D., Lisah Rhodes Mark Rubenstein The PBC meeting was called to order at 6:00 pm. A quorum for SBC was not met at the start of the meeting, but was called to order at 6:27 pm. The Select Board had a quorum, and the Select Board meeting was called to order at 6:07 p.m. The Appropriation Committee had a quorum, and the Appropriation Committee meeting was called to order at 6:08 p.m. The Capital Expenditure Committee had a quorum, and the Capital Expenditure Committee meeting was called to order at 6:09 p.m. Jon Himmel clarified that it was a Permanent Building Committee being held. Review of High School Project Schematic Design Estimates An Estimate reconciliation was done on July 8, and the two weeks were used to better align the areas of solar, HVAC, FFE, soft costs, and foundations. As a result of the meetings, the reconciled estimates were received on July 24. The total project budget at the end of the schematic design was $659.7 million. Although construction costs increased by approximately $4 million, the soft costs decreased by approximately $11 million. The anticipated funding from the MSBA grant was estimated at $110 million. The breakdown of the MSBA grant was provided. Out of 37 available points, 36.95 points were received by the project from the MSBA. Mass Save decreased by $4.5 million due to the change to the hybrid system and $1 million was received from the LABBB program, to help support LABBB spaces. Overall the anticipated district share was expected to be lower at $544.2 million. The IRA was not shown because it was not believed that IRA funding would be received. The numbers assumed that no value engineering would take place. All of the prices were based on Turner’s estimates on July 24. The MSBA grant would not be confirmed until after the schematic design submission, and it was assumed that the LABBB program would be included as eligible in SPED. The soft costs were reviewed. Information on contingencies was provided, which was a predetermined amount of money set aside to be used for any unexpected costs. The design contingency was 10%, which was standard, and would eventually roll up to the construction costs. The owner construction contingency was at 5% and soft cost contingency was at 5%. The total contingency was $85.9 million. Any savings (Contingency monies not spent) would be money that the town would not have to borrow, which would further reduce the district share. The construction cost escalation study was reviewed. Generally, Turner did a market launch for the greater Boston area. The labor, materials, and market conditions since 2009 were reviewed. The overall job was examined and broken into different components. For 2025, a 1% rate was carried. There were some increases seen, so 3% was used for 2026 and 4% was used from 2027 onwards to be conservative in the estimate. Geothermal and concrete would finish earlier in the project; sitework was escalated to the midpo int, equipment was escalated to procurement time, building was escalated to the midpoint, and demolition was escalated throughout the start of the work. The escalation total was $33.6 million. Jon Himmel commented that they were just estimates. The tariff study was reviewed. Generally, the US construction industry relied on imports for 25% to 35% of its material equipment. The theoretical impact of tariffs on construction materials and equipment was discussed, and the total cost increase was between 1 and 3%. An example of steel was provided, in which the current tariff was 25%. The impact on steel was the largest, which could be up to a $1.2 million impact. The team felt comfortable overall with the 3% increase. LHS also examined the impact of tariffs, which showed a 2% impact. Review Schematic Value Engineering The LHS anticipated project timeline was presented, which showed that the current stage was schematic design. Three more estimates were remaining. After the schematic design, the maximum amount for the MSBA grant was set. The recommendation from the project team was not to estimate VE and save those for the future elements when greater detail was available. If an item was taken out, it could not be added to DD and reimbursed. If the PBC made a recommendation on VE to the SBC, that had to occur on August 7, and the SBC would need to add their own items on August 11. Targeted Value Design Targeted Value Design was reviewed, which utilized the schematic estimate as a baseline and created silos by discipline to have a cadence of meetings as the design progressed. Once the reconciled schematic estimate was set, the cadence of meetings with the teams would start. There were seven proposed categories, and the meetings would be held every three weeks. The goal was to have open and timely communication to ensure no surprises at the end. Jon Himmel commented that on one of the earlier slides, it showed a 10% design contingency and asked if 10% was being placed in each of the seven silos or if it was a bottom-line 10%. It was clarified that it was a bottom-line 10%. Jon Himmel asked at what point after the debt exclusion the procedural paperwork could be signed. Turner was an initial purchase order that would get them through the end of the year with the extension of one PO, and then a PO or contract would be sought to get through the rest of the project. The diminishing rate of return on changes and postponing the discussion were discussed. It was commented that they should not just table the decisions and not look at them, but rather come up with the most efficient design that would be informative as they went. It was noted that to get reimbursement, the only way was to defer to DD. A list would be submitted and continue to be worked on. Jon Himmel asked if the reimbursement was made at an agreeable price per square foot, with the total square footage being 510,000 square feet. It was clarified that the true square footage of the building itself was 506,000 square feet, and the total project budget would reference that number. The construction costs were capped based on the square footage of 506,000 square feet. The delta would be picked up by the town. The construction cap was 586,000 of eligible square footage, and 87,000 square feet were ineligible of the 506,000 square footage. Once the 586,000 was applied, that resulted in the construction cap. Upcoming Meetings Information on the upcoming meetings was provided. It was asked what needed to be prepared for the special town meeting in November. Article information would be provided. Jon Himmel discussed that the project needed to sell itself. It was discussed how the capital stabilization fund would be used for the project, which was within the range of $45 to $50 million. The project hard costs went up, and all of the reductions were in soft costs. Fees were the largest factor, as well as the Eversource charge. Jon Himmel raised concerns that the public would not understand the pricing slide and suggested that a summary be included. It was stated that a cover sheet would be put out with the information. With the timeline of meetings and the request to see the comparison to other schools, it was asked where that information would be provided. It was stated that the information could be compiled early in the week of August 4. North Attleborough would be included even though they were in the early stages. Rod Cole asked about the $659 million and the contingencies, and if the contingencies were included in the $659 million. It was confirmed that the contingencies were included. Rod Cole asked if the escalation and tariffs were included, and it was confirmed that they were. Rod Cole commented that the stabilization fund did not change how much the town had to pay. Mark Sandeen asked for clarification on what was recommended on the process and timing of value engineering. He asked what the three different steps were. It was explained that the three steps included the three remaining formal Cost Estimates to be performed. The process was discussed. Also discussed was that the effective reimbursement rate was lower than the 36.95% eligible rate., as the 36.96% rate was based on eligible costs only. It was commented that the final effective rate could be around 17% to 18%. Jon Himmel asked if there were other communities that were similar in nature that received the cap number. It was stated that it had never occurred. One could come close to it, but not receive the maximum. Jon Himmel commented that there were VE items that removed square footage from the building, which should not be removed. They had a list that they would submit, which had good targets that they would examine in greater detail. He asked if there were adjusted estimates as they went along and requested more information. It was stated that the estimates would be updated as more information became available. Mark Sandeen asked for more information on the process and how decisions would be made, and it was discussed that it would be clearer in future discussions. It was asked if the design contingency was on the overall design. It was a design and pricing contingency to account for the scope that was not yet drawn. It was 10% of the direct costs of work in the current estimate. Jon Himmel explained that it was to cover the scope that was not yet articulated. It was noted that the contingency was $38.4 million on $384 million in direct costs. It was asked who was included in the TVD discussions. It was the design team, the construction manager, Dore and Whittier, and contractors as needed and allowed. It was asked if there were any areas in which the PBC would be included. It was explained that the PBC would be reviewing it, so they would not be part of the silos discussions. When there were certain topics, there could be breakout sessions or follow-up meetings. The fact that SMMA was an integrated design firm helped. Kseniya Slavsky, from the SBC, noted that they had never seen the maximum reimbursement granted. She discussed the bid strategy conversation and the discussion about including alternatives, and suggested avoiding trying to use the bid strategy to create a shopping list due to the inefficiency it created. She suggested adding percentage changes on the slide that showed how dollars changed since it was an important piece of communication. It was suggested to update the table that was circulated in community meetings that compared multiple schools, since it was already familiar to the community. She suggested including a short recap of everything included in the design. Public Comment Larry Frier discussed the potential impacts of the tariffs and asked about the money from the state. He asked if they were relying on any federal funding. It was confirmed that only state funding was being used. MSBA was funded through one cent of the sales tax. The items within the schematic design on top of the foundation were asked about. It was explained that there was a detailed estimate of the items. SMMA had finished their work, and Turner was doing their pricing, so a meeting would be set up after that time. RSE was looking into the foundation options. The foundation options were discussed, and Montague asked if other options had not been mentioned in the report. Lorraine Finnegan recommended the geotechnical recommendation. It was decided to schedule a meeting at 4:30 pm on August 7 to discuss the foundation options with Haley and Alridge, if available. A resident asked if the top-line figures included all contingencies listed or only design and escalation over time. It was confirmed that they were included. He requested a better explanation of the costs compared to the other comparable schools because it was hard to understand for people. He noted that he current tariff on steel was only 50%. He discussed that it did not matter where the money was coming from because it all came from the taxpayers’ money. Zeynep Bursal asked how comfortable they were carrying the 10% contingency. She noted that they generally carried 20% to 30% at the schematic design phase. She noted that the escalation carried was 1%, 3%, and 4%, and the real escalation would be much higher. She asked if it would be kept within the GMP and if higher escalation rates would be requested when the prices went up. She discussed that the foundation would be much more expensive than any of the other schools they were looking at as a comparison, w hich would drive up the cost. She asked how the pricing at the schematic design level addresses the foundation. It was confirmed that the foundation was accounted for. The team was comfortable with the escalation rates. It was noted that they had never seen a school project that used a 20-30% contingency, and 10% was likely higher than necessary for the current stage. Olga Guttag raised concerns about the presented timeline. She did not believe that there was a sufficient amount of time for the necessary components. She raised concerns that the most important meetings were held in the summer, when nearly no citizens were around. Lorraine Finnegan explained that the SD submission and permitting track were parallel, but separate, and did not rely on each other. Olga Guttag asked what would occur if the permitting track did not allow something. Lorraine Finnegan stated that they would work with the permitting authorities. Patrick Mehr asked what had happened to the $50 million for energy incentives. It was explained that there was a new administration, and the Inflation Reduction Act made it appear that it would not be available. Patrick Mehr asked for a detailed spreadsheet showing how the result was $110 million. Mike stated that he could share a draft, but it would not be finalized until October, after the MSBA Hearing. Patrick Mehr asked why the escalation for each year was added up for each year since it was computed to the midpoint of the packages. He requested a detailed spreadsheet to explain the numbers. He discussed that domestic suppliers would try to raise their prices as high as possible as a result of the tariffs, and he asked why there could not be different scenarios for varying tariff impacts. It was explained that they presented their best guesses and the options, and they were conservative estimates. Peter Kelley discussed the process that had resulted in the schematic design estimate and raised concerns about the quick timeline and the meetings being held in the summer. He raised concerns that they were forcing the community to speak to the project with no alternative being evaluated and considered. Dawn McKenna asked if it was possible to see the slide with the TBD silos. She asked who would be involved in the silos. It was a construction team exercise and would include conversations between the designers, contractors, and the estimators. Dawn McKenna commented that there was only one item on the list that was a specific programmatic issue, and she raised concerns about potential further changes to the field house. It was clarified that the target value design process was to come up with the most efficient method of building. The siloed processes would not affect the design. Dawn McKenna stated that there was existing expertise within the staff that could help and urged them to be utilized. Alan Seferian asked about the MSBA number and stated that it was reasonable to provide information on how that number was determined. It was explained that they had spent time during the meeting going over that number, and a draft report would be shared. Betsey Weiss thanked everyone for their work and effort and asked if the slide deck was available somewhere. It was confirmed that the slide deck was available on the website through an attachment on the agenda. Summary of any action items A meeting will be held on August 7 at 4:30 pm to discuss the foundation options with Haley and Alridge, if available. A cover sheet would be put out with the information and slides. The comparison to other schools’ schematic designs would be compiled during the week of August 4th. Urgent Business There was no further business. Motion to adjourn the Select Board meeting, all approved. Motion to adjourn SBC, all approved. Motion to adjourn the Appropriation Preservation Committee, all approved. Motion to adjourn the Capital Expenditure Committee, all approved. Motion to adjourn PBC, all approved. Next meeting: August 7