Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2026-01-29-PBC-minTOWN 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: 1-29-26 Meeting was held hybrid via Zoom PBC Members Present: Jon Himmel, Chuck Favazzo, Peter Johnson, Celis Brisbin, Fred Merrill, Ian Adamson, Wendy Krum Sustainable Lexington Members Present: Cindy Arens, Andy Join, Celis Brisbin, Dan Voss, Kavita Ravi, Kavitha Venkatesan, Maggie Peard Others Present: SM MA: Lorraine Finnegan Dore & Whittier: Mike Burton, Christina D, John A. Jacob G. Turner: Jamie M., Kate C. Other: Mark Barrett, Mark Sandeen, David Hsu The PBC meeting was called to order at 6:00 p.m. The Sustainable Lexington Committee meeting was called to order at 6:05 p.m. TVD Update: Upcoming PBC dates were shared. The goal for February 12 was to request the PBC's recommendation to the School Building Committee (SBC) on which TVD items should be estimated. The project budget would be confirmed on April 9, 2026. Jon Himmel asked about the breakout of prices for the estimate. It was reported that it would be broken out the same way as for the schematic design. In the summer, work on the design of early release packages (ERPs) would begin. The ERPs represented approximately 8% of the job. The timing of fabrication and various deadlines were discussed. The deadline for the 60% CD estimate was September 21, 2026, so the package would be available approximately five to six weeks prior to it. The 90% estimate would be done in January of 2027. Highlighting one TVD item, secondary overflow roof drain systems were deleted and plan to utilize scuppers (52 locations). It was reported that the net savings of the change was S574,000, and the structural engineer confirmed that the roof could accommodate the water load. For the second TVD item evaluation, there were three different study options: A. utilizing two exterior sub grade vaults and directing the geothermal piping thru them to reduce piping to the mechanical room. B. lowering the slab floor and having the well piping feeding directly into the mechanical room with galvanized grading to create an additional platform; and C. the third was having the vaults under the mechanical room. The first option was S222,000, the second was approximately S1 million, and the third was 5621,000. Jon Himmel asked what was driving the need for the changes. It was explained that there were piping changes, all of which were installed in the vaults. There were 65 wells and 13 taps. Controls to each well were being added to better identify leaks in the future. It was asked if direct immediate access would be needed within the building. It was explained that the pressure regulator would be in the building, allowing any issues to be detected. In the first option, the pressure regulator was in the vault. It was asked if the building management system (BMS) could be tied to the controls. Lorraine Finnegan said she was not sure it would be possible, but she would look into it. Jon Himmel asked about the drawbacks of adding a second vault. It was noted that staff would need to enter the manhole. Lorraine Finnegan stated that SM MA's recommendation was to continue advancing the design, having their estimator price it, and continue working through the value engineering (VE). She confirmed that she would look into the BMS system so that no one would have to go into the manhole. The scupper change was accepted, and the other options would continue to be explored. VE Update Questions about the VE were invited. No comments on the line items would indicate that the pricing estimate is complete. Wendy Krum asked if items could be priced as add -alternates. Lorraine Finnegan explained that there was a point in time when add -alternates had to be executed. General: The line items included: Not building out the central office and removing the disposal of loam in Lexington, since there was no place to dispose of it. Sitework, Foundations, & Structure: The line items included: Changing sod to seed for the athletic fields, deleting the skate park, reducing the planting allowance, reducing the site hardscape features, reducing the caliper of the trees selected, and removing the drainage scope on Park Drive and possibly the sidewalk. Lorraine Finnegan explained that they had to address some of the drainage, but due to the town's strict stormwater bylaws, they may not be able to address the portion on Park Drive. Envelope — Exterior Wall & Roofing: The line items included: Changing the porcelain panel rainscreen areas, reducing the loading dock canopy in size, changing the entry doors at the secondary egress points to aluminum/glass, reducing the skylights at the dining commons, changing the point -supported glass at the entrances to opaque canopies, removing fixed sun shades at the exterior windows, switch from brick gradient to banding, remove roof equipment screen sections that are not street facing, and changing the field storage building to a prefab storage structure. It was requested that the scope reduction for the Worthen Road canopy be added. A price to remove it was also requested to understand its value. Wendy Krum discussed roof drainage and the dining common skylights, and asked whether special attention was being paid to drainage in the upper courtyard, since skylights were known to leak. She asked if special attention would be paid to waterproofing the courtyard area. Lorriane Finnegan confirmed that they were considering the waterproofing on an ongoing basis. It was asked whether there were any items so low -dollar that they were not considered. It was reported that there was no self-imposed threshold. Interiors: The line items included changing linoleum flooring in lieu of polished concrete in corridors, changing the Terrazzo in the dining commons to polished concrete; reducing the height of wall tiles; removing hard ceilings from the locker rooms, fitness center, and music and theater rooms; remove all ceilings from electrical, MDF, and IDF rooms where possible, substitute wood ceiling in the serving area for the hard ceiling or ACT; removal of the elevator in the B Wing; removal of the orchestra pit; remove bleachers from the Field House; and provide a flat Field House track in lieu of banked. Chuck Favazzo commented that the linoleum flooring provided additional savings but would not offer long-term savings. He also noted that he did not think linoleum would be hard enough for the tables and chairs. Wendy Krum recommended terrazzo tile. It was stated that SMMA would look into it. Lorraine Finnegan stated that terrazzo was generally used in the common areas due to the high foot traffic. Kavitha Venkatesan asked whether the estimates would be up -front or lifecycle. She commented that some up -front costs might be lower, but the long-term costs would be higher. Lorriane Finnegan confirmed it was only the up -front costs. It was discussed that the life -cycle analysis could be incorporated into future decision-making. It was asked what the reduction in the wall tiles was. Lorraine Finnegan reported that it was between four and six feet. Lorraine Finnegan noted that they did not recommend removing the hard ceilings, but they understood that it would be expensive. It was asked how many elevators would remain if the one in the B Wing were removed. It was confirmed that there would be two for the high school and one for the central office. Lorraine Finnegan noted that the bleachers in the Field House may also be programmed to come out. Electrical: The line items included reducing the PV array to net zero; reducing the BESS container to 1.5MW/6MWH for net zero, deleting the lightning prevention system, deleting the rough -in for future rough -in of 200 spaces, charging hardwired card readers to battery, delete conduit to Crumb Football Field for future lighting, and reduction of lighting in the back - of -house, non -educational spaces. Lorraine Finnegan noted that there was an option for lightning prevention or lightning protection, and they had decided previously to move forward with the lightning prevention system. It was noted that they would review the list again in two weeks, so any suggestions until then were welcome. LHS VE Option — Energy Storage: It was noted that the VE numbers were outdated, but this would not significantly affect the outcome. The basic SD submittal included the ground -source and air -source heat pumps, and the energy system with a four-hour battery system. The original proposal was to reduce the energy storage system size to 2 MW/4 MWh, but it was recommended to stick with the larger 2 MW/8 MWh system. The reasons for continuing with the larger energy system included export limits under the Eversource Interconnection Service Agreement, rapidly falling energy storage pricing, the SMART 3.0 Energy Storage Adder, improved resilience, and lower peak demand. Eversource imposed solar export limits as a condition of large Interconnection Service Agreement (ISA) approvals, and forced other sites to reduce their sizes. The larger system would also help by reducing the "flicker" of going back and forth between exporting and not on a cloudy day. The rapidly declining energy storage pricing led to a higher return on investment. The impact of the falling storage prices was explained. The cost would be well below the 5450/kWh assumption. More money would be made from the SMART 3.0 Energy Storage Adder than it costs to buy the battery. If a battery could be purchased at S312/kWh, the result would be a cost breakeven. During power outages, 8 MWh provided an average of 14 hours of backup, with a maximum of 17 hours, while 4 MWh provided an average of 8 hours, with a maximum of 11 hours. In the summer, with enough sun, the 8 MWh could provide continuous backup from April through October, while the 4 MWh could only provide backup from May through August. The 8 MWh provided 26 years of expected life, while the 4 MWh provided only 20 years. The bigger battery would also lower the peak demand, resulting in greater savings. It was asked if the battery cost was significantly less, why significantly more was being carried. It was explained that the battery costs had decreased significantly in the past year, and the costs had been done a while ago. It was commented that the budget item could be reduced to the current anticipated cost. It was asked why the school would be running at full peak if there was a town -wide outage. It was explained that the intent at the time was to avoid having to send the students home in the event of a power outage at the school. Dan Voss expressed caution about a variety of changes related to technologies that were increasing costs. The solar options were reviewed. For the 4,806 -kW option, assuming the S6.9 million in capital costs and the savings of S17 million to S18 million from Eversource, the net operating expenses ranged from S13 million to S15 million. The delta at 100% and at 125% were compared. The pros and cons of the 4,806 kW option compared to the 3,495 kW solar option were reviewed. It was noted that the SMART incentives were 20 -year incentives, so they dropped off after the first 20 years. At the 100% LHS energy model, the 3,495 -kW system barely met net zero at the start and was not at the end. At the 125% LHS energy model, the 3,495 kW was well below zero at the start. Emissions were three times as high with the 3,495 -kW system. If there were no solar option, net operating expenses would be S85 million to S95 million lower. Jon Himmel, asked if charging would be an expense to customers and if there would be revenue associated with it. It was explained that the Select Board decided to charge for the use of the electrical chargers, but that the net would be zero due to Eversource expenses. It was noted that some exporting to the grid would help the high school and the community. Outside of fiscal responsibility, it was positive for the community. It was asked where the energy would go locally, and it was stated that it would help Eversource. On February 12, comments would be provided to SM MA to decide which items to send to the estimators. It was asked who else had the list. It was reported that the SBC also had the list. Celis Brisbin commented that many people did not see the value of sustainable items, and he suggested highlighting the life -cycle cost in the VE itself to convey the value of the higher -cost items. He asked whether the list could be shared more transparently. Lorraine Finnegan stated that they wanted to continue broadening the comments section for greater transparency. Celis Brisbin recommended avoiding the term "sustainable" and instead focusing on the intention, such as life -cycle cost or health outcomes. It was asked when the comments would be added. It was reported that they would be added at the end of March or the beginning of April, once the estimates were in. Lorraine Finnegan noted that they might change the language of sustainability to teed and design impact. It was recommended to conduct the life -cycle cost analyses later, in March or April. 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.