HomeMy WebLinkAbout2025-09-25-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: 9-25-25
Meeting was held hybrid via Zoom
Members Present:
Jon Himmel, Chuck Favazzo, Fred Merrill, Henrietta Mei, Peter Johnson, Wendy Krum
Celis Brisbin
Others Present:
SMMA: Lorraine Finnegan, Anoush Krafian, Brian Black, Scott Goldkamp, Eugene Slavsky, Andrew Joynt
Turner: Kate Cassin, Jamie Meiser
Dore & Whittier: Christina Dell Angelo, Mike Burton
Other: Alan Levine, Cindy Arens, Maggie Peard, Mark Sandeen, Mike Cronin, Mark Barrett
The PBC meeting was called to order at 6:00 pm.
Approve meeting minutes
Motion to approve the minutes of the following Permanent Building Committee (PBC) meetings: October 10, 2024;
January 23, 2025; February 20, 2025; and February 27, 2025. Motion carried.
It was noted that meeting minutes should not use stationery that includes the names of people who are no longer
part of the group. Abbreviations and acronyms should be spelled out the first time they are used. The February 20,
2025, minutes had a summary of action items that was helpful.
Discuss Target Value Design (TVD) Schedule
Kate Cassen summarized the expectations of TVD. A meeting was held on September 22, 2025, to discuss
ground improvements and foundations. A meeting was also held on September 25, 2025, with a subcontractor to
discuss ideas, negotiate pricing, and design. The following discussions are planned: structure the week of
September 29, 2025, and sitework the week of October 6, 2025. The design phase needs to progress further
before plumbing, mechanical, and electrical systems can be discussed in depth.
It was noted that TVD is a common process in construction and is not proprietary to Turner Construction
Company. Discussions took place with engineer Minhaj Kirmani regarding the steel structure. There are concerns
regarding the steel heights, and this, along with spans, is being discussed with the structural engineer. Changing
the size of the beams may affect the utility corridors. The corridors are nine by nine feet and will contain the noisier
utilities and mechanical processes. They will be constructed with maintenance access in mind.
At the School Building Committee (SBC) meeting scheduled for October 6, 2025, and the PBC meeting scheduled
for October 9, 2025, updates will be provided. It should be possible to investigate ideas for potential savings in
November and December, 2025.
It was noted that TVD is not intended to eliminate value engineering (VE), but should supplement it in larger
categories. A VE exercise is necessary to show the Massachusetts School Building Authority (MSBA) that there
are VE relief valves if needed.
Kate Cassen noted that the comparables will be available for each silo at the next meeting. The fieldhouse has
been blended into the overall project cost. Some aspects of the project cannot be estimated until the design phase
is complete, as they are based on parameters such as square footage.
There was a discussion regarding the options for the fieldhouse, which is a polarizing topic in the community. One
option is to do nothing, while another is a smaller expenditure that will allow future construction. The area where
construction is not planned can accommodate a track. It is hoped that individuals who are providing advice
regarding the fieldhouse will attend the October 6, 2025, SBC meeting, which is public. A design discussion is not
planned for that meeting.
Early release package No. 1, which will include ground improvements, including for the addition, will be available
on April 8, 2026.
Foundation Discussions
Lorraine Finnegan noted that subcontractors have proprietary systems for some variations of ground
improvements, but they are all very similar.
Scott Goldkamp provided an overview of various types of ground improvement and how they could be applied to
the high school project. Numerous investigations were done across the site to understand the conditions of the soil
and groundwater and to evaluate the suitability of the soil to support the high school. The soil testing on the site
has been completed.
There are pros and cons to both ground improvement and deep foundations. Sites where ground improvement
has been performed have a lower load-carrying capacity than sites with a pile-foundation system. Scott Goldkamp
noted that improving the ground would not preclude the construction of deep foundations in the future, if the
building use were to be changed, for example. Ground improvement would not disrupt the sensitive environments
nearby and would produce less vibration and noise than the construction of a pile foundation. Ground
improvement involves laterally displacing organic materials in the soil and replacing them with crushed stone or
grout.
In response to questions regarding his recommendation, interference with utilities, and liquefaction in earthquake
scenarios, Scott Goldkamp recommended grouted aggregate piers or rigid inclusion, which are two methods of
ground improvement that perform well under static loading. The design work involves deciding which utilities can
lie above the improved zone and which need to be lower to meet pitch or gravity needs. Utilities should not run
through the middle of an improved zone. The site will be designed to mitigate the effects of liquefaction during an
earthquake.
The type of fill used during ground improvement depends on what is known about the subsurface, as well as
feasibility and economic considerations. Higher loads require deeper foundations. The expected load of the high
school makes it a good candidate for ground improvement. Ground improvement is designed to exceed the design
life of the building above it. There should be no need to remove the fill for future uses.
Ground improvement has a wider range of settlement compared to a pile foundation system because it is not as
stiff. The design of the elements should account for static and seismic settlement. Testing is performed during the
quality control process. If a test fails, another improvement is added, just as another pile would be added if the
testing of a pile foundation were to fail. Displacement is localized between elements and does not extend laterally,
so nearby homes would not be disrupted.
Lorraine Finnegan noted that making the lower slab accessible from below for utilities would not be beneficial in
this case. This option was vetted from a cost and feasibility standpoint. Helical piles will be constructed for the
canopy footing in Phase 2, as it uses a different foundation system.
Public comment
There was no public comment.
There was no urgent business. It was suggested that the high school project website be made more searchable,
particularly the meeting agendas, so that visitors to the website can find when a presentation was made or when a
certain topic was discussed. There have been discussions regarding the use of Procore for this purpose. Procore
would allow users to search meeting minutes, but not the presentations themselves.
The Committee discussed upcoming meetings and agendas. The date of the next PBC meeting is October 9,
2025.
Meeting Adjourned