Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2026-04-09-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 Police Station Members: Semoon Oh, Wendy Krum Associate Members: Curt Barrentine, Henrietta Mei PBC Minutes for the meeting held on: 4-09-2026 Meeting was held hybrid via Zoom PBC Members Present: Jon Himmel, Chuck Favazzo, Celis Brisbin, Peter Johnson, Fred Merrill, Lisa Giersbach, Ian Adamson, Wendy Krum, Henrietta Mei Others Present: SMMA: Brian Black, Andy Elliott, Anoush Krafian D&W: Mike Burton, Jacob Greco, Christina DellAngelo, Kyle Leone Turner: Kate Cassen, Jamie Meiser Other:, Mark Sandeen, Debra Hankins, Kathleen Lenihan, Robert Pressman, Manaj H. Cindy Arens, Tom Shiple The PBC meeting was called to order at 6:04 p.m. Approve Meeting Minutes Motion made by Chuck Fazzo and seconded by Fred Merrill to approve the March 26, 2026, meeting minutes, all approved. High School Project Update Discuss Lexington Youth Comm Feature Site Items: Andy Elliott (SMMA) provided updates on the Lexington Youth Commission Stewardship area. He presented a picture of the existing garden and reported that it was 4,000 square feet, with 460 square feet of planting. There were three options in total reviewed for relocation. Option A was the previous option presented and was adjacent to the skate park. It was slightly limited in size and would prevent a lot of future expansion. Option B was near the playground and required minor site modifications. Option C was near the path of travel and a little further from the skate park. Option C was the recommendation due to the existing surrounding trees and the room for growth. Debra Hankins agreed with the recommendation of Option C. There was a general consensus in support of Option C. Lisa Giersbach agreed that Option C was the best and asked whether there were plantings around the bird bath and tree. Andy Elliott reported that there were some plantings, and sometimes roots necessitated mounding plants. Lisa Giersbach asked if the hedge would need ongoing maintenance. Andy Elliott reported that it was not the intention to require extensive maintenance. The warranty and maintenance of the garden area was discussed. It was explained that the warranty was generally one year, and that watering and maintenance were covered during that time. Mike Cronin noted that DPW would handle maintenance of the island area. It was decided that it would be best to have the basic one-year maintenance and warranty plan and then hand it over to DPW. Discuss 50% Design Development Estimate & Recommendation: The Design Development (DD) timeline was reviewed. The variance between to estimates started at 1.05% and after the reconciliation stood at 0.5%. The target budget remained at S659.7 million. Based on the baseline scope, it was trending S3.7 million under budget. Some additional considerations came up throughout DD, including the lowered mechanical room floor, the building height issue, off-site improvements to traffic signals, and the optional banked track at the field house. To recover some savings, the light fixture allowance could be reduced; the second air handler was not needed for the field house; and the additional work would be done as the Target Value Design (TVD) process continued. The S3.7 million would return to contingency. The line items were reviewed, and the overage on interiors was asked about. Kate Cassen explained that the interior door costs and allowances held at SD for specialties were now quantified. Some of the acoustical and sound items, as well as the door items, would be reviewed further during TVD. Chuck Favazzo asked about the overage on stairs. Kate Cassen reported that the stairs had not yet been broken out. Chuck Favazzo asked about other overages. Plumbing at SD had no distribution piping drawn, which resulted in an increase. At SD, the fixture types had not yet been chosen, which also led to increases. Roughly half of the HVAC delta was due to an increase in pounds of ductwork. There were also changes in pump pricing. The lighting allowance would be worked through during TVD. There was a larger switchboard change, and there were some increases due to carrying the costs on a per -square -foot basis. The difference in hazardous abatement was due to the consultant's increased abatement allowance. It was asked if it would increase the unit cost. Katen Cassen stated that she would research to confirm whether it was just a change in unit cost. There were additional on-site costs due to a revision of the porous pavement, the terrace roof fit -out, and drainage and protection boards. In the electrical section, there was an increase in market costs for transformers and switchboards. There were also previous assumptions about pile locations and caps, and there were additional piles, increases in the caps, tonnage increases, and required galvanized framing. Chuck Favazzo discussed that direct costs were over by S23 million and corrected by using the design and pricing contingencies of S15, but there were opportunities in the overage in the direct lines to reduce the cost in the TVD process. He also raised concerns about using the S9.6 million escalation contingency line item to zero out the overage. Kate Cassen explained that she used the same method she used during SD for escalation. Chuck Favazzo asked that the escalation remain separate and not serve as a mechanism to zero out the overage. It was explained why the escalation should remain as it was, and the intention to protect the final bid. The work would continue throughout TVD. Jon Himmel asked for clarification on the furnishing line item. Jon Himmel commented on the need for more line items to break down the skate park. It was discussed that the MSBA likely would not have an opinion on the source of funds for the skate park, but SMMA was looking into the requirements for using CPA funds. It was noted that the skate park pad was part of the early release package one (ERP 1). Chuck Favazzo recommended keeping the escalation contingency as is and explained that it was due to uncertainty about the state of the world, but the next round would show decreased direct and increased contingency. Mark Sandeen asked when the escalation contingency was set. It was reported to be six to nine months ago. Mark Sandeen asked if they were in an environment that needed more or less of a contingency. Kate Cassen noted that the environment was similar and that tariff conversations had decreased, except for steel, aluminum, and copper. Mark Sandeen discussed that it seemed that more contingency would be needed given the current environment. He asked what the recommended metric for triggering digging into a line item was, asked how much of the courtyard was part of the site work, and asked where the Eversource line was. Kate Cassen reported that the courtyard was S700,000. The team would review all the deltas to determine the impact and then bring them back to the PBC. The Eversource fee was included in the utility company fees. Chuck Favazzo commented that they would review all items during the TVD. Brian Black stated that they would look into all items during TVD, which would start next week. The CD 60% estimate date was August 10, 2026. The field house's size, the roof load and the need to go through the building inspectors were asked about. Brian Black reported that their structural engineer created a model and was testing it, along with getting a handle on the weights added to the roof. There may need to be reinforcement, but not a full overhaul. Dashboard Recommendation to SBCFC: The dashboard for the Lexington High School project was presented. DD will be submitted on April 13, and then the dashboard will go live. It was commented that the high-level information was helpful. Having a hierarchy with multiple levels of information was discussed. It was asked if it was only a financial dashboard or provided other information. It was discussed that the dashboard was primarily for financials, with other information on the website, and that announcements could be included in the monthly highlights. Jacob Greco noted that he was looking into adding a watermark or stamp indicating that the dashboard was under development or a draft. Chuck Favazzo asked if change management was included in the dashboard. It was reported that information would be added to the contingency and reserves section. The amount of detail to provide on the dashboard was discussed. There was a desire to be transparent, but every detail could not be provided. It was noted that they were also working to avoid any phishing scams. Mark Sandeen recommended adding spending broken down by category and the amount completed for each category. It was explained that the progress bar would indicate both the amount completed and the amount of money spent. Change Order Processing: The step-by-step process for owner -directed changes over S500,000 was presented. Before all of the steps were worked through, there would also be initial conversations to determine if the change was necessary. Having different contingency levels for each group was discussed. It was suggested that Facilities handle up to S250,000 and that the PBC handle up to S500,000. The construction manager -driven change order process was very similar, except that contingency relied on DPF approval. The construction invoice review process was presented. Ultimately, the goal was to pay invoices during the first week of each month. There were over 30 people engaged throughout the process. Jon Himmel commented that the detailed review seemed like when most of the work was done. It was noted that the MSBA had its own audit process. If the MSBA found anything wrong, they would make an adjustment as needed. Mike Burton discussed that the project team, including Dore & Whittier, SMMA, and Turner, the Department of Public Facilities, the PBC and SBC, and MSBA, all provided financial oversight. PBC Discussion on ATM Article 26 (Recommendation to ATM): Kathleen Lenihan requested to present the slide that showed the layers of financial oversight at the town meeting regarding Article 26. She reported that they had a written report and a video for the meeting. The moderator will play the video of the report, and then Articles 26 and 27 will be reviewed. She stated that she could present the slide during the discussion. It was commented that the oversight was time -sensitive each month. Kathleen Lenihan stated that she anticipated many questions from citizens, and various individuals would be available to respond. Mike Burton noted that he would send the updated slide about who was providing financial oversight. Mark Sandeen commented that most people had made up their minds on an issue before attending a town meeting and recommended responding in advance to the most commonly asked questions so that they could read them in advance. Kathleen Lenihan stated that only a vote from the PBC was needed on its position on Articles 26 and 27, and that it should then include a brief explanation of why. She offered to help with writing the explanation to go with the vote in opposition. Henrietta Mei recommended adding a note that 24 people were already involved in the review. Mark Sandeen recommended adding the cost and schedule risk. The PBC's recommendation and vote were discussed. The PBC has reviewed and approved OPM's presentation, created in conjunction with the architect, OPM, and DPF, on the requisition review process across multiple levels, including certifications. The process, as discussed, is carefully choreographed, and the review period is limited to five days. It was commented that the PBC does not recommend further consideration as presented in Articles 26 and 27. Mark Sandeen also recommended that Chairs be authorized to write statements for the town meeting. Jon Himmel said he was not sure they wanted a position on Article 27, since it seemed to relate to citizens being able to see how money was being spent, and there was general consensus with his comment. Motion by Jon Himmel to state that the PBC reviewed the information and recommended against Article 26, all approved. Mark Sandeen discussed why citizens were pushing for Articles 26 and 27. He stated that they were looking for tools that would issue warnings when anything needed to be addressed. He asked how people would know if there were any concerns by looking at the dashboard. He commented that if they could tell citizens that, they would likely address most of the concerns. Mike Burton stated that it was the intent of the dashboard. The dashboard would address financial and contingency problems. Mark Sandeen stated that they would need to help everyone understand how the dashboard would provide the necessary alerts. Mike Burton discussed that it was hard to see what it would do until they got into the construction, but they could do a simulation. Mark Sandeen requested a short explanation. Mike Burton confirmed that they could create a short explanation. Public Comment Robert Pressman stated that when he voted yes, he was under the assumption that the budget put forward included the cost of replacing the fields. He discussed concerns about using CPA funds. Manaj H. expressed surprise at the increase in costs for the structure and foundation. He proposed a simpler approach for the foundation and asked if the full document for DD would be available. Chuck Favazzo discussed that it would continue to be discussed during TVD. Manaj H. asked how the design was showing the most efficient system. It was confirmed that it was on the TVD list to look at. Manaj H. requested a set of drawings. Mike Burton stated that they would send some information. Urgent Business There was no further business. Motion to adjourn PBC, all approved.