Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2026-03-26-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: Henrietta Mei, Wendy Krum PBC Minutes for the meeting held on: 3-26-26 Meeting was held hybrid via Zoom PBC Members Present: Jon Himmel, Chuck Favazzo, Celis Brisbin, Peter Johnson, Fred Merrill, Wendy Krum, Ian Adamson Sustainable Lexington Members Present: Cindy Arens, Lin Jensen, Celis Brisbin, Dan Voss, Kavita Ravi, Kavitha Venkatesan Others Present: SMMA Architects: Lorraine Finnegan Andy Oldeman Michael Dowhan Dore & Whittier: Mike Burton, Others: Mike Cronin, Mark Barrett, Mark Sandeen, Doug Lucentte, Deb Hankins Anthony Mabardy, Mrs. Kelly The PBC meeting was called to order at 6:01 p.m. The Sustainable Lexington Committee (SLC) meeting was called to order at 6:03 p.m. High School Project Discuss Lexington Youth Comm Feature Site Items: Michael Dowhan (SMMA) presented the memorial items' existing locations. The Youth Commission Stewardship project was within the limited work area of the first early release package (ERP), and the task involved relocating the memorial items as close as possible to their original locations. Five items on the island were identified for relocation. The items included the Nancy Barter bench, the Sean Maloney barrel, the L.Y.C. monument, the L.Y.C. bird bath, and the Beverly Kelley tree. It was anticipated that the tree could either be spaded and relocated or a new tree could be rededicated. The relocation options for the memorial items were presented. The preference was to relocate all elements within the ERP 1 limit to ensure nothing was damaged or lost. A brief background on the Youth Commission Stewardship was provided, and part of its activities involved maintaining the island. There were concerns voiced about the proposed location since it was near a utility yard and seemed to be "packed" into a smaller space. Deb Hankins agreed that she liked having the memorial items together but did not like the location. She asked what the utility yard was. Michael Dowhan explained that it was related to the building and would have an eight - foot -tall masonry wall and a planting buffer. There were no utilities within view. Lorraine Finnegan noted that the generators and transformers were within the utility yard. Deb Hankins asked about the species of trees and bushes. Michael Dowhan reported that they were all larger plants and that the area was where they planned to remove trees. He confirmed that they would be replaced in- kind. Deb Hankins asked where the items would be stored prior to relocation. Lorraine Finnegan explained that one benefit was that the items could be removed and relocated immediately, so there was no need to store them. It was asked whether above or below the walking path could be alternative locations for the items, so they would have more foot traffic than vehicle traffic. Michael Dowhan noted that they looked at those locations, but many utilities were running beneath the area. It was asked if the skate park was fenced in. It was confirmed that it was, except for the bottom edge, in which planting was used as a buffer. Concerns were raised about the fences near the memorial items. It was asked where the entrances to the skate park were. Michael Dowhan reported that there were two entrances, one on the north and one on the south side. It was asked if the other side of the path was outside the scope of the current project. It was confirmed that it was. Part of the walkway was being repaved as part of the project. It was commented that Parks and Recreation were redoing the playground during the summer. Concerns were raised that the memorial item area would feel too boxed in at the proposed location. It was asked if there were plans to add any additional items in the area. Deb Hankins stated that there was potential, and she noted that the high school students also added plantings in the spring and fall. The southwest side of the park and the north side of the trail by the skate park were requested to be looked into. Lorraine Finnegan confirmed that they would look into those locations Beverly Kelly raised concerns if it was any smaller than the existing area and SM MA stated they would investigate area calculations. Discuss 50% Design Development Estimate: Full-day cost reconciliations were conducted on March 24, March 25, and March 26. The estimators were doing a lot of cleanup, and some work remained. The target value design value was S1.6 million, and the current construction cost estimate was 5532,494,000. There were some minor cleanup items, and the goal was to complete the final reconciliation by April 3. The estimate did not include the field house bleachers and banked track, the increased roof height, or the skate park fit -out. These other items for skating were soft costs, totaling approximately 5740,000. During the DD process, the coaches and the Health and Education Department provided feedback that they would prefer the banked track over the bleachers. Since there would be a 1,000 -seat bleacher in the new gym, the bleachers were removed from the field house providing more program space. They were still looking to add the banked track, which was a four -lane track. The request to do the banked track was not received until the cost estimate was done. It was noted that the existing track was only three lanes. Lorraine Finnegan noted that they had worked to reduce the height of the roof but are having great difficulties fitting all the mechanicals in the ceilings and need to look at adding some height , at least to the top floor. The estimate currently included the dropped mechanical room in lieu of the exterior vaults for geothermal, offsite improvements, and the skate park slab. The slab for the skate park was valued at S317,000. Upon further review, it was determined that the dropped mechanical room was a necessity. Due to the current layout, more height was needed. It was noted that the cost was included in the estimate that was presented. Lorraine Finnegan explained that they were not doing vaults, but dropping the floor was necessary. Chuck Favazzo discussed the need to make it work rather than expanding the space. Lorraine Finnegan assured us that they had spent a lot of time trying to make the area work, but it was not possible. Lorraine Finnegan reported that they were working with the traffic safety group and that they would like to have six sets of flashing safety beacons around the project. The beacons were not originally in the design since they were not required. It was asked whether there was an agreement with the town to cover the costs. It was explained that this was typically the case. Lorraine Finnegan reported that they priced it and included it in the estimate. The cost was S689,000, and the town had to decide whether to have it done by other parties. MSBA reimbursement ended at the property line, so it was ultimately up to the town to decide. The Little League field was a soft cost not included in the current construction estimate. The combined soft costs for the skate park and Little League field were S1.1 million. It was noted that the SBC needed to vote on April 13. It was suggested that the SBC meeting on April 6 be cancelled and that the final vote on all items be held on April 13. It was noted that the SBC meeting would still need to take place on April 6 to review the total project cost. It was noted that the full DD package would be submitted to the SBC during the week of March 30, with some items still in draft form. SLC and the PBC would also receive the full package. It was asked what the next VE date was. Mike Burton stated that the same VE list would be used unless anything was added or removed, and that it would carry over to the next phase. Jon Himmel asked if the Estimates would be in spreadsheets or PDFs. It was reported that they would be provided in PDFs, and Excel would be provided later. Jon Himmel asked if there would be SD versus DD reconciliation. It was stated that a high-level reconciliation would be provided. Jon Himmel asked if there would be a project cost review. It was confirmed that there would be. Project Dashboard Update: The project dashboard would provide high-level financial and schedule information once construction begins. Jacob reviewed the included items, such as the total project budget, a link to the live cam, the schedule and budget status, the current phase, the budget breakdown, the contingency and reserves, monthly highlights, and a section for links. Chuck Favazzo asked for change management to be added and for the amount of information to be reduced, i.e get everything onto 1 or 2 pages. Jacob noted that it would not appear more concise on regular computer screen. A clarification on change management was requested. Chuck Favazzo explained that it included design omissions, unforeseen conditions, and other reasons. Jon Himmel offered that perhaps some of the more detailed cost info like change managements might more appropriately be found in the OPM Monthly report and not the dashboard. Discuss Geothermal Vaults & Mechanical Space: The vault and the dropped mechanical room were further discussed. The original reason was for better access to the equipment from inside the building. Further research was conducted to determine how to use software to avoid having to visit the vaults themselves. Once the piping was in the mechanical room, along with all the other mechanical equipment, SM MA realized they had a space problem in the mechanical space even when not factoring in the geothermal piping. The geothermal site plans to show the option of circulating the various boreholes together through the vaults, there would be two main pipes going underground into the mechanical room. The vaults outside allowed going from 15 pipes to only two pipes into the mechanical room. Lorriane Finnegan explained that the mechanical room floor had to be dropped no matter what. Chuck Favazzo asked why the floor needed to be dropped if only two pipes were coming through it. It was explained that it was not just the pipes coming in; it was a result of all the utilities that had to be within the room. It was asked what the additional cost would be if there were no vaults. It was clarified that the S 1.5 million was the estimate for dropping the slab by 14 feet to create the space, and the S1.2 million was an additional cost for the vaults. The delta being approximately S300k. It was much less of an incremental credit to drop the slab less than 14 feet. A diagram of a geothermal vault was presented. It was noted that ERP 1 included the purchase of the piles, which were necessary for dropping the mechanical room floor. Andy Oldeman stated that their recommendation was to drop the mechanical room floor. It was decided to hold a working group meeting on March 30 at 11:30 a.m. It was asked what the design team would like the result to be. Lorraine Finnegan stated that they would like the PBC to move forward with the design team's recommendation to drop the mechanical form. It was explained that this was due to the ERP. DD Elevation Discussion: The different exterior design options were presented. The first option had a base story that looked like stone, with brick stacked on the higher stories. The second option was similar to the first, but it added banding of lighter brick to enhance warmth. It was noted that it was the most contemporary option. It was noted that there was no cost difference between the first two options. It was noted that coursing could be created with more textured brick, but it would reduce the warmth. The third option included a gradient. The dark reveal resulted from the setback of the brick. Ian Adamson commented that it had gone pretty far without having an architectural review. He noted that there had not been an opportunity to review everything since they had not seen all of the elevations. He stated that he and Jon Himmel worked with some architect professionals and had some notes, but they were limited due to only having partial elevations. Wendy Krum commented that when they were looking at alternatives, different perspectives looked better than others. She provided the example that looking at the building from the gym's perspective gives a very different experience of the materials selection than the main entrance elevations. Discussion occurred about meeting with other committees. Mike Burton noted that there were many committees, and they had invited them to attend. He noted that they could not hold separate meetings with each committee. Lorraine Finnegan noted that they would be happy to meet and discuss the full elevations. It was discussed that if windows were moved, it would cause further impacts, as it would affect the budget. Mike Burton recommended holding the conversations sooner rather than later. It was agreed that a meeting would be held to discuss all the elevations. Lorraine Finnegan noted that she would help coordinate a design Review session on the elevations after the 4/16 submission package was finalized. MOTION: Chuck Favazzo moved to approve the prior meeting minutes as submitted. The motion was seconded. and passed unanimously. Public Comment There was no public comment. Urgent Business There was no further business. Motion to adjourn PBC, all approved. Motion to adjourn Sustainable Lexington Committee, all approved.