Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2025-08-07-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: 8-7-25 Meeting was held hybrid via Zoom Members Present: Jon Himmel, Chuck Favazzo, Ian Adamson, Fred Merrill, Henrietta Mei, Celis Brisbin, Peter Johnson, Wendy Krum, Lisa Giesbach Others Present: SMMA: Lorraine Finnegan, Anoush Kraken, Brian Black, Anoush Krafian Turner: Kate Cassin, Jamie Meiser Dore & Whittier: Christina Dell Angelo, Mike Burton, Jacob Greco Others: Mark Sandeen, Mike Cronin, Mark Barrett, Lin Jensen, Elana Murphy, Dawn McKenna, Kavitha Rhodes, Lisa Rhodes, Bob Pressman, Mike Kelly The PBC meeting was called to order at 6:00 pm. The meeting was called to order at 6:00 p.m. Discussion on Comparable projects and TVD Kate Cassen (Turner Construction) shared a chart comparing the proposed Lexington High School costs with those of Arlington, Belmont, Revere, Waltham, and North Attleborough high schools, noting that North Attleborough was the closest comparison. The current construction and project costs have been updated, and scope adjustments were added for factors including all-electric, geothermal, and PV. A line was added to account for adjustments needed to meet the new building and stretch codes, which affect HVAC, electrical systems, and exterior walls. The adjusted total project cost per square foot is currently estimated to be $1,320/SF. Kate Cassen shared a cost comparison sheet for Lexington, North Attleborough, Waltham, and Josiah Quincy high schools, noting that many aspects, such as the foundation and subgrade enclosures, are dependent on the site. The estimated sum of B10 structure through E20 furnishings (direct work) for Lexington High School is $541/SF; with the allocated design contingency of 10% added, the estimate is $595/SF. The estimated costs are within the realm of the comparison schools. She shared the per-division data. It was noted that the summary sheet showed a 3% difference, representing an opportunity to save $15 million. Kate Cassen advised that targets will be set when it is time for the next phase. It was noted that the disciplines in each silo can be compared against similar products. Kate Cassen responded that at this time it is necessary to focus on foundations, structure, and electrical work. There may be a way to perform ground improvements in a more economical way. The Committee discussed interior finishes and construction. It was confirmed that the difference between the total direct work cost and cost of work subtotal compared to that of Waltham High School is due to the design contingency. Because Waltham has guaranteed maximum price (GMP) numbers, the design contingency has been absorbed into the direct cost of the work. It was noted that regarding the schematic design, 10% is being held for work that has not been drawn yet. Lexington High School will have design aspects that Waltham does not, and it will be an all-electric building. Waltham has a lot of special finishes, and the Committee will discuss to what degree Waltham represents a benchmark. Review of Schematic Value Engineering (VE) The Committee reviewed some previously discussed information, noting that the Committee needs to discuss a formal recommendation to present to the School Building Committee (SBC) at the August 11, 2025, meeting. At that meeting, the SBC will be asked to confirm what VE items are accepted at that point. The final SBC vote to approve the budget and schematic design submission will be on August 18, 2025. There will be three additional points at which estimates will be provided and discussed, including the design development estimate in March, 2026. The VE list was shared, representing approximately $44 million in items, the two largest being the removal of the field house and reduction of solar, both of which are polarizing within the community. There was a discussion regarding whether an option should be provided to add more solar capabilities later. Michael Cronin noted that the project team recently recommended that VE not be exercised at this point and to focus on design development. It was noted that the items being discussed resemble scope reduction rather than VE and that a distinction should be made. Charles Favazzo recommended that VE not be accepted at this stage. It was noted that items published regarding the school building process should include what is being submitted and demonstrate that the Committee has discussed ways to save money for the town without reducing the program and therefore the reimbursement aspect. The standard MSBA process involves milestone estimates. The Committee discussed the change of location of the skate park, with one Committee member noting that it should not be part of the debt exclusion. While the cost is not significant and the project should be done, including it may lead people to see the school project as a “Christmas tree” project. It was noted that moving the throwing cage next to the track and field and the skate park next to the playground is part of a long-term vision for the site. After the debt exclusion vote scheduled for December 8, 2025, it will be more difficult to grow the project; however, those voting may not be convinced by assertions that VE exercises will be performed later. There will be early voting as well as same-day voting. Approximately $30 million in savings has been identified, and the SBC and design team may be satisfied with the targeted savings; however, the Select Board may be in a position to disallow that savings from being spent without permission, meaning the project will have a lower ceiling than what was voted on. It was noted that the budget submitted on August 18, 2025, will set the project’s high bar, and the targeted value design (TVD) process will set the project’s low bar, and the actual cost will be between those. There was a discussion regarding how voters will perceive the increased taxes. It was suggested that other sources of funding be investigated. It was suggested that voters be informed that implementing solar energy in the school will save money, and cutting it will raise taxes. A question was raised regarding the MSBA’s expectations regarding VE items. It was noted that the MSBA is satisfied when there are choices, particularly if there is a “relief valve” and a “Plan B, C, D, E, and F.” The MSBA may expect ideas on how to provide resources in alternate ways. The wrestling room and outdoor classroom were discussed; it was noted that outdoor access was the second request. The PBC agreed to recommend that the SBC postpone any discussion regarding value management decisions. Targeted Value Design (TVD) A schedule was shared for PBC and SBC meetings and the discussion and creation of various documents and drawings. Normally, two silos will be discussed per week. It was suggested that the field house be blended with the other silos rather than being a standalone silo, as the other silos are systems. However, the field house will remain a focus to ensure there is value in it. It was noted that the first meeting of each silo will include setting of targets. It was noted that TVD does not involve changing scope, but rather making the current scope as efficient as possible, and the current scope includes the field house. The comparison sheet shows opportunities for savings in plumbing, mechanical, ground improvement, site work, electrical, and structure. The Committee discussed whether the report regarding declines in attendance will affect the project size and scope. It was noted that the report countered concerns around town that the proposed school is not large enough according to zoning changes. The Committee’s recommendation is to proceed in a full TVD process. Public comment The floor was opened to public comment. Minhash Kesani: Noted that he was asked to provide structural suggestions, but they were not included in the presentation. The Committee: Responded that the suggestions were not forgotten, but there is an item on the VE list to further investigate structural engineering efficiencies, and the columns and foundations will be included at that time. There was no urgent business. The Meeting was Adjourned.