Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2025-02-20-PBC-minTOWN OF LEXINGTON Permanent Building Committee Permanent Members Jon Himmel Co -Chairman Charles Favazzo Co -Chairman Peter Johnson, Cells Brisbin, Elizabeth Giersbach, Frederick Merrill, Ian Adamson Associate Members: Wendy Krum, Henrietta Mei PBC Minutes for the meeting held on: 2-20-25 Meeting was held via Zoom Members Present: Charles Favazzo, Fred Merrill, Henrietta Mei, Peter Johnson, Lisa Giersbach, Wendy Krum, Ian Adamson Others Present: Dr. Hackett, Mark Sandeen, Cindy Arens, Dan Voss, Kathleen Lenihan, Mike Cronin, Mark Barrett SMMA and D&W and Turner: Lorraine Finnegan, Anoush Krafian, Brian Black, John Albright, Jamie Mieser, Martine Dion, Andy Oldeman The PBC Meeting was called to order at 5:00 pm. Lexington High School Project The agenda included a discussion on the decision matrix, with Lorraine Finnegan leading the discussion. The team had also previously sent out to the PBC, a PowerPoint with 47 slides for review. Lorraine confirmed that the team had added the SLC in the decision matrix as per the feedback from the PBC. Cindy requested that the updated plan for covering topics on specific dates be sent to her. The team also discussed scheduling SLC meetings to align with PBC meetings, if necessary. Decision Matrix as updated to get copied PBC and SLC Food Service Equipment (no gas to bldg) and Science Lab (no gas to bldg): Brian Black reported that natural gas would not be piped to the new high school per the integrated design policy. He discussed how the building project would address the need for all -electric cooking equipment in food service areas, highlighting that the food service consultant was developing a full all -electric equipment list. The equipment list would be shown to the food service vendor and school leadership again. He discussed how the building project would address the need for heating and burner implements in lab equipment, which included a layered approach that targeted different equipment for uses and would cover all the needs. Brian Black reported that he spoke with members of the Science Department about the approach, and they were satisfied with the solution. Mark Sandeen asked about the impact on the indoor air quality. Brian Black stated that they would add that into their research as they went. Chuck Favazzo asked if there were exceptions to the no gas policy for science lab uses. Brian Black explained that there were a number of reasonable alternatives, including bottled gas if need be, also an exception was not needed. Ian Adamson asked if there were fume hoods required. Lorraine Finnegan reported that there were only fume hoods in chemistry labs. List of spaces for community access: Brian presented a list of program components in the building that are desired for community access. He explained that most community -accessed elements will be placed on levels one and two for ease of access and accessibility. The plan includes spaces like the dining commons, auditorium, music practice rooms, gymnasium, field house, innovation labs, admin area, and media center. Brian notes that levels 3 and higher are more challenging for community access due to security concerns. The team is considering moving some spaces, such as art rooms, to lower levels for better community access. Brian Black discussed that there were potential shifts in the size of the rooms and that they were trying to bring the black box theater to the same storage area. Chuck inquired about the roof garden's accessibility, and Henrietta provided suggestions for improving the layout of certain areas on the first level. Henrietta Mei commented on the size of the gymnasium and mentioned that increasing the size could lead to issues with the corridor. Brian Black noted that the plans were more detailed, and they were currently thinking that a corridor would be driven through the fitness center and PE office block. Henrietta Mei discussed the orientation of the serving area. She suggested flipping the storage to the outside for the art room. Identify 3 HVAC systems to be studied: Andy Oldeman presented on the HVAC system selection. The MSBA required studying at least three system types to understand reliability, serviceability, efficiency, the impact on the building, and the associated costs. The team is considering four different HVAC systems which are a combination of Air Source Heat pump (ASHP) Ground Source Heat Pump (GSHP), Variable Refrigerant Flow (VRF) and Fan coil units (FCU). VRF ASHP + FCU Central ASHP + 4 pipe FCU Central GSHP + 4 pipe FCU Hybrid DSHP/ASHP + 4 pipe FCU Andy Olderman presented the pros and cons of the four systems. They will study these systems through energy modeling, life cycle cost analysis, and qualitative analysis to determine the best value. The discussion also touched on the inflation reduction act (IRA) incentives and the change in refrigerant type used in the VRF (Variable Refrigerant Flow) system. The team is working towards a decision by the end of the schematic design phase. Those present were happy with the four systems being studied. Everyone supported the four system choices to be studied. Andy presented a preliminary list of pros and cons for four heating and cooling systems, which will be used to make a decision in the future. Cindy and Mark raised questions concerning the systems' compatibility with solar installations and the use of hot water for domestic purposes. Charles inquired about the quantity of boreholes required for ground source systems, with Andy providing an initial estimate of 225 to 226 holes. Borehole Depths and Heat Pump Discussion Andy confirmed the depth for boreholes has been confirmed at 800 feet, which is expected to result in decreased heating and cooling loads. The team discussed the potential advantages of using boreholes, including the ability to conduct 20 boreholes from a 6 -foot by 20 -foot area. They also discussed the potential for ground -mounted air source heat pumps and the impact on rooftop solar availability. The team will continue to refine heating and cooling loads through schematic design. Optimizing Air Quality and Ventilation Andy discussed the challenges of optimizing air quality, particularly in relation to ventilation. He explained that as the target for carbon dioxide levels gets closer to ambient levels, the amount of additional outside air needed to maintain a healthy environment increases exponentially. Mark Sandeen clarified that the Massachusetts Department of Public Health recommends 600 parts per million for schools, not 800 as previously stated. The team agreed to continue exploring ventilation options, with a focus on achieving 800 parts per million as was thought to be the target in the Hastings design. Dan asked for clarification on tradeoffs and the issue with the cost. He asked if fresh air could be brought in through windows during certain times of the year. Andy Oldeman discussed that natural ventilation was an option, but there were conditions in which people did not want to have windows open. He discussed that there tended to be more reliance on non -natural ventilation. The team also discussed domestic water options, including electric, air source heat pumps, ground source, and solar thermal systems. In the meeting, Andy and Charles discussed potential placement of solar thermal systems on the roof, which might displace people. Cindy emphasized the need for a life cycle cost analysis and understanding the real loads for hot water, as well as the possibility of incorporating solar thermal systems into vertical walls. Mark suggested consulting experts for potential solutions. However, Mike expressed concerns about the aesthetics of such systems on the building's side. Chuck Favazzo asked for the pros and cons to be tracked for all options. Using thermal storage was asked about. Andy Oldeman stated that it was decided not to be pursued due to complexity and not being a natural fit for the project. Andy Oldeman reported that 800 ppm was a viable target, and that was the final recommended target. Lorraine Finnegan clarified that if the recommendation were accepted, they would move forward with the 800 - ppm target. Elec Water Htr vs Heat pumps (w/ elec backup): Andy Oldeman discussed the different systems for hot water. The electric water heaters were the most accessible cost -wise, but it was the least efficient. The air source heat pumps were more expensive but were very efficient. The ground source heat pump could be combined with air source heat pumps. The solar hot water system would typically not completely support the hot water load but could provide supplemental support. Chuck Favazzo asked how many additional wells would be needed for the ground source. Andy Oldeman stated he was not yet sure, but additional boreholes would not likely be needed. Cindy Arens discussed that it was important to understand the life cycle cost analysis of each option. She discussed that sometimes estimates for the loads for hot water heaters were grossly overestimated, and she wanted to ensure that did not happen. The aesthetics of solar thermal were discussed. Lorraine Finnegan stated that they would study the four HVAC options and bring the results back. Cx for Demand Response: Martine Dion reported that the MSBA scope included the full commissioning for LEED v4 but did not include the demand response processes in the scope of work for the Commissioning Authority. Lorraine Finnegan stated that it needed to be included in the project cost if it was confirmed that the activity would occur during commissioning. Cindy Arens stated that it seemed that they should test the demand response. She asked how much value it would provide and what the additional cost was. Martine Dion stated that it was not a large cost. Martine Dion would return with additional information. Discuss Community Submissions Lorraine Finnegan discussed the SBC preferred option, which was the C.5 Bloom, which fully addressed the education program and adjacencies, had a low impact on staff and students, a site completion in 2030, and a total project cost of $562 million after the MSBA contribution. Lorraine Finnegan discussed the other proposed option that was not preferred, the D.2 Weave. Lorraine Finnegan then discussed the community submissions, one of which was a takeoff of the 2015 master plan. The proposed additions were a new STEM Academy and geothermal fields, which would still require an Article 97 land swap and have a high impact on staff and students due to the proximity of the work. The entire rest of the building would also require a full upgrade to be up to code. The field house would receive code upgrades. The full project would likely not be completed until 2035 and would cost $862,565,000 with no MSBA contribution, as it was proposed to be done in two phases. The next community submission, Thrive .1, included a loss of MSBA funding, a high impact on staff and students, a completion likely after 2035, and a cost of $850,673,000. Thrive .2 included a loss of MSBA funding, a high impact on staff and students, a completion likely after 2035, a gas and water main relocation, and a cost of $866,929,000. She discussed the importance of thinking of phase two and the associated costs when considering these options. Public Comment Chuck then opened the floor for public comment, but there were no public comments. Summary of any action items 1. Martine to provide more detailed cost information and potential benefits for including the demand response commissioning in the project scope. 2. Martine to inquire with MSBA about the possibility of adding the demand response commissioning to their standard RFP for commissioning agents. 3. Lorraine/SMMA to include the potential cost for demand response commissioning in the project budget. 4. Andy/SMMA to continue refining the HVAC system options and provide updated analysis, including lifecycle cost comparisons. 5. Andy/SMMA to investigate and quantify the indoor air quality impacts of different lab equipment options. 6. SMMA to provide an updated SD matrix showing when specific topics will be discussed at upcoming PBC meetings. 7. SMMA to further analyze and provide more details on domestic hot water system options, including lifecycle costs and actual hot water demand estimates. Urgent Business There was no further business. Motion to adjourn by Fred Merrill, seconded by Ian Adamson, all approved.