Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2025-05-08-PBC-min.pdfTOWN 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: 5-8-25 Meeting was held hybrid via Zoom Members Present: Jon Himmel, Chuck Favazzo, Celis Brisbin, Elizabeth Giersbach, Ian Adamson, Henrietta Mei, Fred Merrill, Wendy Krum SMMA: Lorraine Finnegan, Andy Oldeman, Dore & Whittier: Mike Burton, Jacob Greco, Cristina Dell Angelo, John Albright, Anthony Jiminez, Turner: Kate Cassen Staff and Others: Mark Barrett, Mike Cronin, Dan Voss, Cindy Arens, Tom Shiple, Todd Burger, Kavitha Venkatesan The PBC meeting was called to order at 6:00 pm. Discussion/Confirmations with LHS Project Team on: Target Value Design Update Kate Cassen with Turner Construction discussed how target value design (TVD) worked, explaining that it was an integrated design approach so that the Town of Lexington would know what would be delivered and what it would cost, SMMA would know what would be built and how to design it, and Turner Construction would know what was being designed and how to build it, all at the most cost effective budget possible. The next step was aligning the scope during the schematic estimate. Kate Cassen reviewed the expectations for the TVD process, highlighting that they would have meetings every few weeks and ensure continuous communication so that there were no surprises. There were seven proposed component teams included. The target value design that provided snapshots of the costs and the detailed list of items was reviewed. It was asked if the canopies were included. Kate explained that the PV portion would be in the electrical estimate. The canopy structures were within the PV cost, which would remain that way until the design progressed further. It was asked how the indirect costs were defined. Kate stated that they were insurance, construction contingencies, bonds, and more. They were all percentage-driven at the current time. Having a separate category for revenue-generating structures was suggested. The life-cycle analysis cost savings were discussed to try to capture how decisions would affect savings and costs. It was discussed to include that information as a comment. It was clarified that the capital costs could be broken down for solar, but the operational savings over the next 30 years could not be broken down. Lorriane Finnegan requested that all of the items that the PBC would like to see broken out be provided within the next two to three weeks. Discussed at this meeting: outlier costs (non-typical) to be called out (Jon Himmel); solar battery storage, identifiable for tracking (Cindy Arens); field house and ancillary structures; central office fit-out; sitework/fields (Jon Himmel). Including the field house within other components rather than having it as its own component was suggested. It was decided to do a first pass with Mike Burton’s team. Integrated Automation – BMS/Halo Andy Oldeman presented the approach for the integrated automation systems, which included seven components. The electrical loads and assumptions were discussed. Andy Oldeman stated that it was expected that the distributions would be separated to monitor the different systems. The metering, energy assumptions, and load were further discussed. There was some fluctuation expected day-to-day. Metering the heating usage in the HVAC system was also needed. Andy Oldeman stated that they could get metering on each of the systems. It was asked if hot water was separated anywhere, and it was noted that it would be possible for the kitchen. There would be detailed metering schedules. The data points that would be available were different and more comprehensive than in the past. It was asked if there were firewalls between the systems. It was reported that everything tied back to the building management system (BMS) that is located in the Facilities offices. It was discussed whether there was one way for one system to take down the rest. Lorraine Finnegan explained that the goal was that the systems would be able to work together so that there was interconnectivity. Electrical The town shelter requirements for the resilience levels were presented. The gymnasium and field house were at level two, and the rest of the building remained at level three. The microgrid would be able to support the building when power is lost. The different resiliency levels were reviewed. The equipment had not been fully selected, but the priorities were set. The 3500-kW solar system, 2000 kW/8000 kWh battery, and 900 kW diesel generator were determined to be sufficient. It was asked if there was some part of the building unoccupied during school hours.(?) It was stated that a discussion was held with the school administration, and if power was lost during the school day, bagged lunches could be served, and students could be diverted into other operational spaces. Jon Himmel discussed the expansion of the field house and whether the plan should be reexamined. Lorraine Finnegan stated that they examined and followed regulations and guidance. The police and fire chiefs were comfortable with the plan. It was confirmed that there would be pin and sleeve locations for connecting portable generators as needed. It was discussed how the use of HVAC systems affected the load. The current electrical design included the HVAC systems assumption, and no new services were needed. Renewable Energy The latest site planning and building development was presented to show the final PV size and location. There were four locations examined, with locations A (over main parking lot) and B(over Waltham Lot) being the recommendation. The aesthetics of location D (Worthen road lot) were not ideal. An analysis of the four options and how PV could be integrated was done. It was determined that it was not possible to install both PV and BIPV on options A, C (Park Dr. Lot) and D. Option B included a flat roof with PV. The discussion was held in March, and it had been decided not to move forward with the BIPV panels. The annual generation of kilowatt hours for each of the options was reviewed, along with the cost. The recommendation was to include Canopy A, Canopy B, and the roof to have a total of 4.5 million kilowatt hours annually, which was 7% above the net-zero site goal. A shading analysis was done to see if all panels shaded 10% or more were removed, which resulted in being 9% above the net zero building and slightly below the net zero site goal. In a standard project, the shaded panels of more than 10% would be removed, but the goal was a net-zero site. From an aesthetic and energy conscious approach, the final recommendation was Canopy A, Canopy B, and the roof. The net-zero target from a carbon standpoint was discussed. The supply cost was being offset by being precisely at the same level of consumption. The systems were often designed above the energy consumption. Lorraine Finnegan noted that the soils at canopy C were the worst, which resulted in higher costs. It was clarified that the recommendation was not to remove the shaded panels. If only canopy C were dropped, there would be an impact of a higher positive cash flow between $6 million and $17 million. There was a five-to-one positive cash flow benefit for every dollar the debt service was lowered. The 30-year positive cash flow for solar with hybrid, hybrid without Canopy C and D, and hybrid without C and D and the fieldhouse were presented. The LHS demand versus the solar production and the LHS solar considerations were presented and discussed. It was recommended to put enough margins in to hit the net-zero goals. The full solar option lowered the average annual operational cost by $560,000 to $650,000. It was discussed to maximize what could be done on the roof. Jon Himmel asked about placing solar at other locations due to the visual aspects. Maximization of solar was discussed. Henrietta Mei noted that the high school should be present visually, and she discussed that she did not like the location of canopy D. Henrietta Mei asked if a covered area could be added near the delivery area to house roughly the equivalent amount of canopy D had. The complications, such as access and sprinklers being present, were discussed. It was determined that another round of financial analysis was needed for the PV that was on canopies C and D. The original goals and policy were discussed. The original policy was to strive for net zero and maximize solar. The original goal was to maximize solar, even if net zero could not be met. The budget and the tradeoffs were discussed. It was discussed that the hybrid decision that was made was a net negative of approximately $3 million, and the taxpayers cared about how much their taxes would increase. It was suggested that the model be explained in such a way that showed that taxes would be lowered over time. Maximization of solar over parking lots was discussed. Discussion continued on the importance of solar, how to maximize the solar panels, and the community’s and students’ opinions. The current locations and pictures of all of the equipment were presented. The EV charging station quantities were presented, and it was noted that the dual chargers were being planned. The rate of charging was discussed, and it was decided to continue the discussion offline. Exterior Design The different material palette options were presented, which included the brick palette and stone palette and different alternatives. Brian preferred 2C with the lighter colored brick and metal panels. The School Building Committee would be asked for their opinion on Monday, May 12. There were different colored metal panels to review. Henrietta commented that 2C was more tied to the town. It was commented that there was not as much busyness with 2C and having warm and cool colors next to each other. The decision was needed by June to create the rendering. Jon Himmel discussed that they needed to come to an initial level of agreement, but he did not want to come to the final agreement. Lisa Giersbach commented that the A and C schemes felt less static, and the red brick also seemed similar to other Lexington buildings. She stated that she liked the brick palette. Having a warmer metal panel was discussed. The view of the elevations from the entrance being presented was discussed, and it was noted that it would be helpful to see the view from other perspectives. Public Comment Kavitha Venkatesan stated that she appreciated the financial point of solar and supported the idea of the additional financial analysis to find a separate location for the canopy D panels. She stated that she was also comfortable having the solar panels on canopy D. Jon Himmel discussed that on many of the projects, due to the way and time solar was being bought in, he was dissatisfied with the results. He discussed the need for a balance between solar and cost. Summary of any action items All items PBC would like to be broken out in costs, to be provided to SMMA in next 2-3 weeks. Another round of financial analysis will be done for alternative locations for the PV that was on canopies C and D. Urgent Business There was no further business. Motion to adjourn PBC, all approved.