The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My Public Portal About20150701 - Elementary School Building Committee - Meeting Minutes Town of HOPKINTON P:\44 HES\1 ADMIN\05 Meetings\2 Owner and Project Team\Working Group\WG Mtg 3 on 150701\Notes 3 ‐ HESBC Working Group Meeting ‐ 150701.docx 1 Meeting Notes Meeting: HESBC Working Group Meeting #3 Date & Time: July 1, 2015 at 7:00 – 10:00AM Location: Superintendent’s Conference Room, 89 Hayden Rowe Street Attendees: Town of Hopkinton Compass Project Management (CPM) √ John Mosher (JoM) √Tim Bonfatti (TB) –Project Executive √ Jon Graziano (JG) √Jeff D’Amico (JD) –Project Manager √ John Weaver (JW) √Laureen Westman (LW) – Asst Project Manager √ Joe Markey (JM) Drummey Rosane Anderson Inc. (DRA) √ Mike Shepard (MS) √James Barrett (JB) Principal √ Pam Waxlax (PM) via phone √Judd Christopher (JC)Project Manager √ Ralph Dumas (RD) √Calvin Olson √ Al Rogers (AR) Griffin & Vary (G&V) Kelly Knight (KK) √Wayne Matson √ Lauren DuBeau Guests √ Dr. Cathy MacLeod √Martin Orio –Water Energy NortheastGEO √ Rob Nickerson Distribution: Attendees (√); CPM File Item Topic/Discussion Action For:Due Date 1.1 HVAC: Wayne Matson of Griffin and Vary, the mechanical engineers presented the system that is the current Basis of Design (BOD). This design assumes the building will be available for year round usage. Highlights of the discussion include:  As a LEED project, there is a requirement for 20% better efficiency than code. Hopkinton is a Stretch Code community.  Semi‐custom roof top units (RTU) with energy/heat recovery, Gas fired boilers, 4 piped system, air cooled chiller, pumps for hot and cold water, backup systems, variable frequency drives on pumps to accommodate on demand control of ventilation at large gathering spaces., Sound attenuators @ RTU’s to meet acoustical standards, Merv 13 filters on RTU’s. Boiler and pumps tied to Emergency Power.  The Gym and Kitchen would not have AC except for their respective offices. The Cafetorium and all other spaces would have AC.  Each classroom would have 2‐4 ceiling diffusers and perimeter fin tube radiation or radiant panel in the ceiling for supplemental heat, Programmable thermostat tied to the building management system with a 2 degree +/‐ setting.  No unit ventilators in the classroom = less background noise.  A Building Management System (BMS) provides digital remote control access. This system will be specified as open protocol rather than a proprietary system. There is an option of adding 30% Glycol to the system to guard against freezing. NOTES Town of HOPKINTON P:\44 HES\1 ADMIN\05 Meetings\2 Owner and Project Team\Working Group\WG Mtg 3 on 150701\Notes 3 ‐ HESBC Working Group Meeting ‐ 150701.docx 2 1.2 GEOTHERMAL: Martin Orio of Water Systems presented on the advantages of incorporating the use of Geothermal into this project.  The 2 system options are deep wells or closed loop field. They provide an efficiency savings 30% ‐ 50% energy usage. The system has better longevity (Hastings School in Westborough, MA‐ 20yrs, Haverhill public library ‐10yrs old, Middlesex school in concord – private school).  New Law January – recognizes “solar” heat usage from ground new financial benefits under SREC program. SREC’s can be sold on the market.  His firm services include providing peer view, design, bid spec’s. To do an analysis the Engineer would need to provide the heating and cooling loads in writing. Set points Need energy costs for gas & electric.  Possible Cons: Energy rebates don’t apply to the public market. Cost prohibitive to have redundant boiler system. Affects the costs payback. Geothermal has compressors and pumps that require replacement.  Deep wells would be suggested for the system in Hopkinton, but that comes with a upfront costs.  MSBA hasn’t fully embraced Geothermal element and most likely will not reimburse those costs. HPS would a first adopters with MSBA to install Geothermal. There can be many unknowns with being a first adopter.  Concerns: longevity of systems, maintenance (especially as pumps and compressors fail.) G&V did an initial analysis of the traditional heating systems vs. geothermal based on past experience of similar type and size buildings, which resulting in them recommending the traditional heating system over the geothermal. Both systems should last 20 – 25 years. Project of this scale limits payback. Schools don’t have maintenance staff to keep up with a volume of maintenance required of geothermal pumps & compressors. G&V to conduct a payback analysis of the geothermal system and produce a report in a few weeks. They will be utilizing their energy consultant Andelman & Lelek. Motion made by John Mosher, Jon Graziano seconded. The OPM is to work with the design team to investigate the use of geothermal while continuing with the current system for the pricing set. Unanimous vote 7‐0‐0. Motion amended by John Mosher, Jon Weaver seconded. Authorize the design team to continue with the design direction of a traditional HVAC system for the pricing set while simultaneously investigating the possibility of incorporating Geothermal. The OPM is to verify the MSBA position on geothermal. Unanimous vote 7‐0‐0. Balance the potential risk of allowing Griffin to continue design with keeping the project on schedule. Risk = redesign costs if Geothermal investigations prove the best system. Ralph Dumas to forward Hopkinton Utility costs to DRA for distribution to G&V. NOTE G&V DRA CPM RD 7/22 7/15 7/8 7/2 Town of HOPKINTON P:\44 HES\1 ADMIN\05 Meetings\2 Owner and Project Team\Working Group\WG Mtg 3 on 150701\Notes 3 ‐ HESBC Working Group Meeting ‐ 150701.docx 3 1.3 EMERGENCY POWER: Boiler systems & pumps would be connected to emergency generator NOTE 1.4 BUILDING MASSING: Jim Barrett of DRA presented the Massing of the Building.  Shape of the Cafetorium cap creates visual interest for the building. The circular shape is not a high cost premium if segmented rather than truly curved. DRA envisions an inferred arch on the interior, not rounded walls. Soft acoustical materials inside cafeteria. The double height space affords a sense of importance and allows for hanging of art exhibits and for enrichment programs and special performances. It is anticipated the Community could access this space.  John Mosher made a suggestion that DRA continue with the design presentation and the ESBC accepts design shown unless otherwise noted or objected too. The ESBC acknowledge the suggestion.  Neighborhood classrooms are shaping the rectangular portions of the building. Classrooms are orientated with short wall as outside, better indoor quality lighting. Accent colors of green & red on the windows.  Pergola canopy at outdoor classroom to be further developed within the Design Development phase. Concern expressed: shading and leaf collections.  Photovoltaic (PV) panels on the roof of the clear atrium space is preferred by the ESBC vs. the option for skylight triangle roof with Kalwall panels. ESBC noted to DRA that demonstrating to the public that installing the PV panels will not damage the roof is very important in Hopkinton. PV array allows for a Learning experience. PV panels recommended over sheet products as these are self‐cleaning with rain and slope. Cost benefit analysis to be conducted.  Flat roof vs. pitched roof discussion: shoveling of snow vs additional structure and roof costs added to the project. A flat roof will be structurally designed to hold snow loads and roof drains must drain properly. A false 10’ hip roof would give the give a visual appearance of sloped roof but this would result in greater structural and roofing costs.  Investigate: Provide a reference to center school incorporated into the new school, creation of a depressed loading dock. Motion made by John Mosher, Jon Graziano seconded. Authorize the designers to maximize the educational program usage at the roof of the single story area. The Base design will incorporate a green roof and an alternate design of roofing patterning to maximize visual affect. Unanimous vote 7‐0‐0. Limit children’s ability to access the roof as safety is a priority, consider adding light wells into the pre‐school spaces below. NOTE DRA 7/22 1.5 INTERIOR DESIGN The Gym is a 6,000sf full size court, but there will not be bleachers. (dimensions 60ft x 100ft ) NOTE Next Meeting: Working Group Meeting –Next scheduled 7/8/18 at 7:00am These minutes are considered the record of the meeting and all decisions and actions reflected herein are deemed agreed by the participants unless notice of changes are provided to Compass Project Management within 48 hours of receipt.