Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2019-04-11-PBC-min � ' TOWN OF LEXINGTON 775W .. Permanent Building Committee Permanent Members v APS Y" Co-Chairman: Jon Himmel&Co-Chairman Dick Perry INC PhilipColeman Charles Favazzo Carl Oldenburg, Peter Johnson g� 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 April 11, 2019 Members Present: Jon Himmel, Phil Coleman, Carl Oldenburg, Dick Perry and Curt Barrentine (by phone) DPF Staff: Mike Cronin/Director of Public Facilities, Mark Barrett Guest in attendance who participated in the discussion Todd Rhodes and Dan Voss (sustainable Lexington) Jill Hai (BOS) Dave Kanter (CEC), Deepika Sawhney (SC) 6:00 - The meeting was called to order- 201 Bedford Street 1. Sustainability Policy discussion The most recent version of the policy and goals were reviewed along with an edited version of the LEED Lexington scoresheet (table)which included the 7 Lexington specific items. In general, there was much discussion over the purpose of the LEED Lexington scoresheet and its similarities to the policy goals and if it should substitute the goal sheet or be attached to the policy. The Policy itself was discussed as well and two edits were proposed. The first was to insert language into III Scope item 2, to put the Lexington issues foremost and lessen the LEED Silver requirement. See below. 2. To the extent possible, all renovations and new projects, undertaken by the Town should achieve a minimum, the LEED Silver standards inclusive of the attached LEED Lexington integrated building design goals and strive to achieve the LEED Silver standards at a minimum. The application for LEED certification can remain optional, subject to available funding and the discretion of the Elected Boards. The Elected Boards may choose to exempt certain building projects under their respective purview from these standards. The second item is an insertion in IV. Policy, items 4 and 5 to include 1) elected boards liaison responsibilities and 2) to stress the issue of cost and schedule with this process, see below. 5.At the end of every project phase (feasibility, schematic design, design development, construction documents, and construction), the project design team will prepare an end of Project Phase Report that addresses the design's adherence to or departure from approved scope, cost, schedule- and the Integrated Building Construction Goals as attached. - The Director of Public Facilities will submit this report for consideration to the Elected Board(s). 201 BEDFORD STREET• LEXINGTON, MASSACHUSETTS 02420 Representatives of the Elected Boards therefore need to keep themselves up to date on the progress of the project and appropriately inform the other members of their Elected Board so the end of project phase approval process is not the first time the elected board has heard the information. * 6. The Integrated Desim1 process is iterative: the decision of the prior phase is the foundation of the subsequent phase. The "Feasibility" establishes the targets for the subsequent phases of the project. The Schematic phase seeks designs that most optimally attains the approved Feasibility targets of scope (including: sustainability and resilience), cost and schedule. Project success requires that the design approved at the end of the Schematic Phase meets the approved scope. cost and schedule requirements; it is imprudent to proceed with Design Development if the project is not on scope or cost .at the end of schematics. For the Scorecard the comments were: • The "Indoor Environmental Quality" section should be linked to Goal 2.1. • The Energy Performance Goal 1.2 should be added to EAc2 of the Scorecard to identify that the energy use intensity goal for renovation projects is "20% less"- to go along with the "30% less" goal for new buildings (Goal 1.1). 2. Westview Cemetery DPF director advised that the continuance of the Westview cemetery project was not supported at town meeting therefore no discussion was needed on this item. 3. Visitors Center Update DPF director advised that the Visitors center general bids came in approximately $450,000 over budget. Town meeting approved the night before, to add $525,000 to the Visitors center budget to overcome the budget issue with regard to the bids and to provide support to the project contingency which was a touch low. The contract is recommended to award with Bid Alternate 1 and consistent with the Select Boards request at Town Meeting the staff team is seeking to request approval from the HDC to also take alternate 2 as a budget savings effort which changes the roofing from slate to asphalt shingles and reduces the amount of copper on the exterior. This would save the town a little over$150,000. Also, the open Masonry Filed sub bids came in significantly higher than the estimate and DPF is looking to re-bid the masonry and assuming a bid is received near estimate, the project could enjoy some cost savings. There was some discussion about the rebid strategy and the award of alternates however the recommended approach was supported by the PBC. Motion to adjourn was made and seconded: Meeting adjourned at 8:30 pm. PBC Meeting 04.11.19 2