HomeMy WebLinkAbout2019-01-10-PBC-min 1775R"otic TOWN OF LEXINGTON
Q
m Permanent Building Committee
i Q Permanent Members
APRIL19TM Co-Chairman: Jon Himmel & Co-Chairman Dick Perry
FxIN61-� Philip Coleman, Charles Favazzo, Carl Oldenburg, Peter Johnson, Howard Hobbs
Project Specific Members
Clarke&Diamond Schools Hastings Elementary Fire Station Visitors Center LCP LCC
Margaret Coppe Curt Barrentine Robert Cunha Joel Berman Teresa Hank
Edwin Goodell Andrew Clarke Joseph Sirkovich Peter Kelly Wilson Manz
January 10, 2019
Members Present: Jon Himmel, Dick Perry, Philip Coleman, Charles Favazzo, Carl Oldenburg, Curt
Barrentine, Joe Sirkovich
DPF Staff: Mike Cronin/Director of Public Facilities, Ann Marie Ponzini
Board of Selectman Representative (BOS): Jill Hai, Doug Lucente
School Committee (SC): Kate Colburn, Deepika Sawhney Capital Expenditures (CEC): David Kanter
6:10 PM- The meeting was called to order— 201 Bedford Street, Room 221
1. Discussion on High Performance Sustainable Building Policy— Jon Himmel(PBC)
This meeting was to continue ongoing discussions related to having a single Sustainable Design
Policy for the Town that should be adopted by both the Board of Selectman (BOS) and School
Committee (SC); thus ensuring consistency with the Town of Lexington's Project Designs.
The discussion focused on how to best achieve Sustainable Goals in a more balanced manner. In
order to achieve the Policy Goals, it was suggested that the early stages would require involvement
of the key engineering disciplines that are already part of the Architect/Engineer Team. It was noted
that the industry standard is to provide extremely little engineering input during the early phases.
THE DISCUSSION HIT A LOT OF TOPICS:
Capital Expenditure Concerns: David Kanter (CEC) discussed feasibility studies and how sometimes
the client needs to be interceded with to keep the "required" scope in check. With the growth in
Lexington's expectations the question is how best to better capture the evolution of LEED and
Town's Sustainable expectations. David K stated the town does not have unlimited resources. Cost,
Sustainability, Life Cycles, and Schedule include the reality of funding. Project expectations have to
be part of the initial scope; inclusive of sustainability, cost and schedule decisions. David K stated
discipline is needed, and asked what mechanism will be installed to instill discipline?
Process: Jon H suggested having work sessions with brainstorming very early on with the Design
Team, the Client organization, DPF, PBC and Sustainable Lexington,
• The early phase work sessions would as envisioned include the key engineering disciplines.
• The Policy and its attachments should be included with the Request for Proposal (RFP).
A LEED worksheet that includes unique Lexington requirements should be used as a phase by
phase scoresheet for the project. The estimate cost of the project and the schedule should be
reviewed phase by phase, and compared with approved project expectations.
201 BEDFORD STREET• LEXINGTON, MASSACHUSETTS 02420
There was concern that project costs could creep if there was not an appropriate mechanism. Chuck
F (PBC) stated the Sustainable Policy is a fundamental agreement. We should establish a LEED
process, set a budget and then design to a budget. Phil C suggested a possible way to manage
sustainable costs for a project could be to have a policy that commits a percentage of dollars upfront.
Phil C stated parameters need to be set or discipline is thrown out the window. Need the ability to
get decisions on a timely basis to predict the outcome of the project.
Deepika S (SC) suggested Front End is important so all parties know what the expectations are.
Policy for a school will look different than it will for municipal projects because the stakeholders
change.
Discussion on Fees: Mike C asked how the base fee would get adjusted, suggesting that the work
sessions with the architect and engineers might increase the design cost. Joseph Sirkovich stated it
would depend on how much involvement (meetings and preparations) with the town and design
team would be required.
LEED vs CHIPS: There was a discussion about the difference between LEED and CHIPS. It was
stated LEED and CHIPS are similar,just a different "governing" group. Typically, communities select
the least costly path, but Lexington's approach is to achieve the optimal path from a Life Cycle Cost
and Sustainability Cost basis, and not necessarily the least First Cost basis.
Doug L (BOS) Concerns: He commented that the work sessions need to be defined. It is helpful to
understand the feasibility piece and check points. Doug:
• Pondered whether setting a LEED percentage puts some constraints on spending.
• Asked who decides who is involved at the very early stage.
• Suggested that there be a policy that looks at operating.
Project Schedule Concerns: Jon H stated schedule duration needs to be properly set at the
beginning of the project. Historically, the town does not leave enough time to make decisions.
Motion to adjourn was made and seconded: Meeting adjourned at 8:30pm.
PBC Meeting 01.10.19 2