The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My Public Portal About20150715 - Elementary School Building Committee - Meeting Minutes Town of HOPKINTON Notes 5 ‐ HESBC Working Group Meeting ‐ 150715_amended+approved 1 Meeting Notes Meeting: HESBC Working Group Meeting #5 Date & Time: July 15, 2015 at 7:00 – 8:30AM Location: Superintendent’s Conference Room, 89 Hayden Rowe Street Attendees: Town of Hopkinton Town of Hopkinton Compass Project Management (CPM) John Mosher (JoM) Lauren DuBeau (LB)√Tim Bonfatti (TB) – Project Executive √ Jon Graziano (JG) √ Dr. Cathy MacLeod (CM)√Jeff D’Amico (JD) – Project Manager √ John Weaver (JW) via phone √ Al Rogers (AR) √Laureen Westman (LW) –Asst PM √ Joe Markey (JM) Norman Khumalo (NK)Drummey Rosane Anderson (DRA) √ Mike Shepard (MS) √ David Daltorio (DD)√James Barrett (JB) Principal √ Pam Waxlax (PW) √ Ralph Dumas (RD) 8:10am √Judd Christopher (JC) Project Manager √ Rob Nickerson (RN) Kelly Knight (KK)√Calvin Olson (CO) Griffin & Vary (G&V) √Wayne Matson Distribution: Attendees (√); CPM File Item Topic/Discussion Action For:Due Date 1.1 Intro:  Review of the desired outcomes for this meeting.  Agreement options after the Geothermal presentation include: o Proceed with the current design o Proceed with incorporating Geothermal energy into this project o Additional information is required for the committee to make a decision NOTE 1.2 Geothermal Feasibility Study: Wayne Matson of Griffin & Vary presented the Geothermal Feasibility Study to the committee.  G&V studied two (2) geothermal ground water (heat pump) systems: Vertical Closed Loop system (58 wells driven to a depth of 300 feet); and Open Standing Column Well system (8 wells driven to a depth of 1500 feet).  G&V used a 1 year weather model and an 83,500 sf building which resulted in a load estimated at 175 tons.  Hopkinton has a good Electric rate for MA but this northeast number is high compared to the national average. The Gas rate is also good and is more stable than the current electric rates. The geothermal system relies on the electrical power which hurts the payback.  The two geothermal systems were compared to the base line current design conventional system. The study determined either geothermal system heat pump system would have less operating costs in the winter while the conventional system less operating costs in the summer.  This study does not include the piping between the system and the building as it is not known where the wells would be located. Additional costs were estimated to range from $158,000 to $491,000. The boiler room would be required to increase NOTE Town of HOPKINTON Notes 5 ‐ HESBC Working Group Meeting ‐ 150715_amended+approved 2 approximately 12,000 sf to accommodate the geothermal pumps. Program would need to be eliminated to fit this increase within the building or an increase in the size of the building would be required and estimated up to $475,000. This cost increase was not included in the analysis.  Analysis results: o Payback on investment for the Vertical Closed Loop (VCL) system = 83.3 years o Payback on investment for the Open Standing Column Well (SCW) system = 57.3 years o The life of the equipment is much less than the payback. o TB spoke with the MSBA, They have not done a project with Geothermal and confirmed the MSBA will not reimburse this expense. Al Rogers and CPM reached out to schools that are currently using Geothermal. Al recapped the feedback received.  West Bristol PK‐8 Facility, Bristol, CT. Opened 3 years ago, 123,000sf, 900 students k‐8, 150 geothermal wells (to depths of 500 feet), In floor radiant heat at classrooms with Variable Refrigerant Volume (VRV) system, the wells are located underneath the playing fields and the well tops are about 5’ below grade. They struggled getting the system initially online until Enhanced Commissioning assisted, LG controls were difficult, and they prefer the Mitsubishi system at another school, low maintenance, no boiler backup because the 20 pumps provide redundancy, actual operating costs where higher than estimated operating costs due to the night and weekend use of the building. Their state reimbursement rate was 73% so their estimated payback for the systems are 10 years.  Hastings School, Westborough MA. 20 year old system, 1st school in MA to incorporate Geothermal, 6 wells. Issues: no filters on wells is allowing sediment to wear on the components. If temps are below 10‐20 degrees the heat is not sufficient, water temp cannot get above 110 degrees. This was an all‐electric building that was converted, it is a 2 pipe system and there is no boiler backup. Many of these issues are likely related to the age of the system. Motion made by Mike Shepard, Jon Graziano seconded. The design team is to move forward with the design of a conventional system as currently included within the project scope and budget. Unanimous vote 6‐0‐0. MOTION 1.3 LEED Checklist: JC reviewed the LEED Checklist. This project is currently tracking at 52 points in the expected column with 14 points in the potential column. To obtain LEED Silver, 50 points are required. MSBA will provide 2% additional reimbursement for attaining LEED Silver or higher. Submissions always want to include a handful of points over the minimum number to guarantee acceptance. DRA/CPM to quantify the premium costs for Enhanced Commissioning services which could net 2 more LEED points Optimize Energy Performance can be a total of 10 points, the team is estimating this project can achieve 6 points. Reduced Parking Footprint: DRA noted this is an analysis of the current zoning regulations vs the provided parking spaces. Typically schools have less parking DRA Town of HOPKINTON Notes 5 ‐ HESBC Working Group Meeting ‐ 150715_amended+approved 3 requirements than required by zoning and this may allow the project to achieve 1 point. Cathy raised a concern that there should be sufficient parking for regular school events. 1.4 Project Delivery: CPM presented the comparison of Construction Manager at Risk vs. General Contractor.  Construction Manager at Risk (CMatR) o Collaborative teamwork approach o Purchase of a professional service firm o Most private projects are CMatR o Greater degree of cost control: Negotiated fee, Guaranteed Maximum Price (GMP) with contingencies, holds and allowances o Perceived but not proven: Higher upfront costs end up about the same as change orders within DBB projects. o Benefits: MSBA reimburses an additional 1% for this type of project delivery, trade contractor procurement, Construction Manager Firms do not typically bid on DBB projects.  Design Bid Build (DBB) aka General Contractor o Purchasing what is shown within the design documents o Purchasing a commodity (building) o Perceived but not proven: Lower bids to obtain the project results in more cost in change orders. This school is a relatively easy project (new school on an open site) where one wouldn’t typically assume to be delivered by CMatR. Approval for CMatR is required by the Inspector General’s office and an application would need to justify the Town’s desire to go CMatR. Reasons include: o The current schedule (School to open September 2018) includes early trade packages which are better coordinated by a Construction Manager rather than as separate bid packages which could each have a separate General Contractor. Without early packages, the schedule would extend to at least December 2018. o Volatile construction market.  A GMP will not be achieved before the Town Meeting.  The SD estimate will include pricing of both project delivery methods.  ESBC would like to see a comparison of the risks associated with both delivery methods. DRA/CPM CPM 1.5 Flooring Materials: This discussion did not take place and will be added to the agenda for another meeting. DRA 1.6 Interior Spaces: This discussion did not take place and will be added to the agenda for another meeting. DRA Next Meeting: Working Group Meeting –Next scheduled 7/22 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.