Woodrow Wilson Building Committee

WWMS Building Committee Minutes November 29, 2018 Present: Mary Bartolotta, Kristy Byrd, Richard Pelletier, John Giuliano, Sheila Daniels, Chris Drake, Phil Pessina Absent: Ted Raczka, John Phillips, Gene Nocera, Ten Members of the public. TSKP, Engineering Firm and O & G also present, Marco Gaylord Meeting called to order The Chair calls the meeting to order at 6:10 p.m. Public Comment: Jennifer Kleindienst, Chair of Clean Energy Task Force and other members are present and they have been working with the building committee and architects to make it energy and energy forward and it doesn’t make sense for a long term investment that invests in an old technology like natural gas. We are advocating for geothermal as heating and cooling. Michael Harris has done a lot of research with other examples of schools using geothermal and gathered information on costs and they are not substantially higher up front and less expensive over the long run. They advocate for solar and they want a net zero ready school - having a building that generates as much energy as it uses. IF you can set the building up for solar in the future it becomes a net zero building in the future. She hopes they are considering it seriously. The experience with the Senior Center and the evaluations Michael Harris has done, it is not the geothermal system but the heating/cooling systems associated with it. The second concern is about space constraints and the builders would need staging area. YOu can build over the geothermal wells. John Hall represent Jonah Center for Earth and ARt and he testifies to the ground source heat pump concept. From the time I started on the clean energy task force and became the energy coordinator what the city was constantly hearing from electricity and gas brokers was that the low price of natural gas is a bizarre phenomenon and we can’t count on it being cheap for ever. The ground source heat pumps are more advantageous even if you don’t include the cost of electricity and gas going up. If it stays the same, the price is favorable and if the price of natural gas goes up, something has to give. It is cheaper in the long run. He hopes they can move forward and hopes they can work out the bond issue. Anna Salo Markowski Clean Energy Task Force as you read in the papers there are international and national reports on the future and it is not good. There is no reason to use fossil fuels and we need to look for other energy sources Resident looks at the safety perspective and looks at the houses that recently blew up and looking at natural emergencies and geothermal can cool and warm and in a natural disaster continues to work. Jeff Hush on the Clean Energy Task Force and Jon Hall and I have been involved in energy projects. We are talking about the children and their future and it would be a terrible disservice for the kids going through the school if we put in place technology that will not serve them or the future. We have to think about the community and the generations after us. We realize the geothermal system in Senior Center has issues and they are HVAC problems. There was not a well designed geothermal system at the Senior Center. In The brochure a lot of effort was created about geothermal. The work of Michael Harris and Jen have made us aware of geothermal. We need to look at life cycle pricing. We have to recognize we have a big choice and take it seriously and the way to go is geothermally. Michael Thomas converted to geothermal and this building is going to last so long and to invest in fossil fuels, a conversion would cost more. Carolyn Shaw, Middletown Resident and proud of Middletown. Middletown can be an example for the State and the Country. We don’t need fossil fuels but we need renewable energy. Patrick McKenna reiterate everything that has been said and appreciates efforts to look into geothermal and interested in hearing the discussion and wants to hear about the commissioning agent and about a charette to see if the building will be one we are proud of. Tisha Zawisky lives in the neighborhood. She states we should use 21st technology to power and heat the building and hopes it will be considered. The Chair closes public comment at 6:23 p.m. Richard Pelletier moves that the committee move item C to the top of the agenda. John Giuliano seconds the motion. The vote is called and it is unanimous. Chair states this is a discussion on the closing of the Street during School hours and school events. Marco Gaylord states the more we discuss it, the better the idea becomes for the safety of the school during school hours and events. He had conversations with the school committees and they believe it makes sense and using the field for outdoor activities and not deal with traffic is a good one. They have ideas from the Fire Department and Police about safety and as far as the road closure, everyone seems in favor of it. Chair states the second part of the discussion Safety and Security is correspondence Marco Gaylord presents correspondence from Sgt. Porter, MPD and Chief Howley South Fire which takes care of the school. Ms Daniels thanks Marco for his coordination on this matter and getting the letters and we are including access for emergency purposes on the road and the Main Entrance and as a group we are on the same page. Chair is happy to hear it and addressing the safety issue in this way. Marco Gaylord states they have started drafting their safety plan and what we do when there is an emergency situation when busses are lined up at dismissal and discussing this makes the decision to close the road even more essential. Separating type 2 and 1 busses is also an additional safety WWMS Building Committee Nov. 29, 2018 1 issue and it will be easier for type 2 students get into the school. Chair states she is happy the Police Department came back in this issue. Mr. Pessina states safety and security is a goal for the school and we are in fact doing that. We are looking at it for the future. Mr. Gaylord he is proud of Middletown because we have a great relationship with all emergency personnel in the town. Motion to close Hunting Hill Avenue per the recommendation of the Safety Subcommittee. Ms. Daniels states the recommendation from the subcommittee is to bring it here to close Hunting Hill Avenue during school hours and during special events. Ms. Daniels moves to accept the recommendation to close Hunting Hill Avenue during school hours and during special events; Mr. Pessina seconds the motion. The vote is unanimous. Minutes approval: Mr. Pelletier moves to approve the minutes of the October meeting; Ms. Byrd seconds. Mr. Pessina abstains from the vote. The Chair calls for the vote and it is unanimous to approve with the one abstention by Mr. Pessina. Motion to approve the O & G Contract. The Chair asks if there are any questions. Mr. Drake moves the contract for approval and is seconded by Mr. Pelletier. The Chair calls for the vote and it is unanimous to approve with seven aye votes. The Chair states the Contract is approved. Mr. Drake moves to approve Preconstruction for $139,000 billed monthly at $10,692 Mr. Pelletier seconds the motion. The Chair calls for the vote and it is unanimous to approve with seven aye votes. The Chair states this motion is approved. Mr. Drake moves to approve the Construction Manager Staffing/General Conditions reimbursable of $1,772,400 billed monthly as $68,170 for 26 months; Mr. Pessina seconds the motion. There is some discussion on if the project runs over 26 months. The understanding is this amount is the guaranteed max price for the project no matter the number of months. Mr. Pessina seconds the motion. The Chair calls for the vote and it is unanimous to approve with seven aye votes. Mr. Drake Moves to approve Construction Fee of $1,241,000 ( with the understanding this amount may change based on the final school cost. Mr. Pelletier seconds the motion. The Chair, hearing no discussion calls for the vote. It is unanimous to approve with seven aye votes. TSKP Bill, Invoice #6 The Chair asks motion to approve the TSKP Bill, Invoice #6. WWMS Building Committee Nov. 29, 2018 2 Mr. Pessina asks if this bill has been vetted. Has the company bill been checked and all the work done appropriately. Mr. Luther responds we sent you the geotechnical report. Mr. Drake comments this was the cheapest of the three estimates and it was a local vendor. Mr. Drake moves to approve a new line item for TSKP for geotechnical services in the amount of $10,105.36. His motion is seconded by Councilman Pessina. The vote is called and it is unanimous to approve with seven aye votes. Mr. Drake moves to approve payment to TSKP for Invoice #6 for geotechnical services from Geoinsight in the amount of $10,105.36. Mr. Pessina seconds the motion. The vote is called and it is unanimous to approve with seven aye votes. Discussion Review of Pool and Gym. Randall Luther and Christine O’Hare state they discussed this with the safety and security committee meeting. Originally the whole building would come down, but John Giuliano discussed saving the pool and small gym. As we have moved along and had conversations there have been some discussions having a place to serve in case of emergency for this end of town and what we want to do to allow that to work best. There was some conversation that the community center could be that space; we have the new school that could serve as that facility and during the discussion as we looked at the bussing and parking. We reached out to Cathy Lechowicz and if it is a shelter there would be kitchen facilities and there is a need for large spaces in town for meals and functions we should keep the cafeteria. They were also talking to Marco Gaylord and Dr. Conner to save space for BOE Offices. We don't have the room. The site is very tight and a lot is going on and the dollars allocated for turning it over we are spending over $750,000 and if we were to add the cafeteria, that number would go up dramatically. The building is served by 8 different boilers and we are fortunate that there is a boiler room for the gym and pool and the boiler for the cafe is separate and we would have to add another boiler and there are hazardous materials in that area. The Security Committee if we are thinking about putting a shelter, their position is no we wouldn’t we would just use the new school and it has everything that we need. It has a kitchen and large spaces. We need to make sure the generator is large enough to keep it open. If you needed the shelter during school, you can move them to the gym and use the cafeteria in the school to feed people. Saving the cafeteria would through a wrench in the site plan. We are talking about accommodating additional meeting spaces in the school. Mr. Pelletier states if we were to put in a generator large enough to keep it going, we ended up with a special switch. Engineer wouldn’t come from Germany, but you would still need a switch. Chair states we had this discussion way back when we started and the conversation would be the school would have to be increased because there are guidelines. Chair the High School had problems with people roaming when it was used as a shelter. Ms. Daniels states that it will not be designated as a shelter because that opens a whole can of worms. Chair states she is for a larger generator, but she doesn’t want to open a can of worms and how do we block off the school so people don’t wander. Mr. Luther states if after a big storm and you have people still here, then you take advantage of the community center and use the gym there so you wouldn’t have to keep them separated from the students. Chair but when there are no students, how do you keep them from roaming into areas they shouldn’t be in; it is a huge security factor. Mr. Luther states they will do that; it is the same when you run program on the weekends and we have to close off parts WWMS Building Committee Nov. 29, 2018 3 of the building that will not be used. Chair asks about the generator and how does it fit into reimbursement. Mr. Luther it is not a huge jump and DAS will not ask us what and how the generator size and it is reasonable to have a school you want to heat and cool and the refrigerators stay working. It is not a big departure from what you are doing. Mr. Pessina states the Fire Chiefs were adamant to have the right size generator for the school. He has a generator and he has no switches, it automatically goes on. Engineer states it is an automatic switching panel. Ms. Lechowicz it is day time use and they have outgrown that space at the Senior Center and the gym and pool is not bigger so they wouldn’t move there. There is a community need for space during the day. Chair asks about Mile Lane; Ms. Lechowicz it is not accessible for the senior population. Mr. Giuliano asks if the small gym could be retrofitted to meet their needs for meetings or office space. It could be two levels. Chair states that is a Middletown discussion. Mr. Pessina states the locker rooms over there now can be retrofitted to joffices. Chair states she understands the additional needs. We have done everything we can to keep the space and make it available to the community. Everything we do above and beyond, we have to be careful. Mr. Giuliano states the size of the generator, the size we are looking at we will have school whenever we need to. It can power the whole building. Mr. Luther states it is not set up like that. There is room for discussion. The only difference we would do for a school is general lighting. Normally you only need emergency lighting and all the spaces people would be during the weekend they would have lighting, but not in the classrooms because they are using natural lighting and you don’t want people in sleeping bags in the classrooms. CES Engineer, heating would work, but not cooling. If we don’t need to ventilate the whole building we weren't going to. Ms. Daniels states Fire Chief Kronenberger when you think about the city as a whole the high school and middle school would only serve a very small percentage of the town; it is not going to happen and we shouldn’t think of it as a shelter. To Cathy’s concern while ideally it would be great but what that space is needed and how it fits into the parking and playing field, there is so much to pack into it, how do we fit it all. Chair states there has to be a certain amount of parking to go with the school and then the building structure we are separating needs a certain amount of parking. It is much more parking than we anticipated. GeoThermal Update. She calls on Randall Luther, Ken Biega, and MIke CES Engineering. Mr. Luther states he will give some background on geothermal. We were initially engaged by the City to do a feasibility study for a new middle school. We worked together to come up with a new school at the existing school and then tear down the school and the second piece was an estimating exercise so we could tell the community the cost of the project. As part of that we identified all the goals and pieces of the program that need to be accommodated. We do lots of schools with different goals and aspirations. He discusses their work in Amherst to do a net zero building and the costs. Here the starting point was from our database and to come up with the cost of this particular project we looked at what this community wanted and we looked at sustainability; do we want to do PV’s, geothermal, and we go through a long list of things to budget into the project and their costs. We looked at geothermal early on for the reasons you have heard, but it is a study and the analysis was not extraordinary candidate for us. We did put $1 million in the budget for unspecified green technologies. Whether we use pv or earth ducts. Some pay for themselves quickly and some don’t. Until you have actual WWMS Building Committee Nov. 29, 2018 4 numbers, the data tells you what makes sense and what doesn’t. The referendum passes and we are starting the process of designing the building. We met with Clean Energy Task Force and there is now a lot of interest in geothermal so they went back to relook at geothermal and they reanalyzed this. Mike, CES Engineering will talk about some of the numbers in conjunction with O & G. Mike CES states they design about 20 schools a year and we have designed geothermal. We look at geothermal and install it when it makes sense. We are on a tight lot line and we don’t want a generator humming at night. If you have a chiller on the roof and want to pay the money, then geothermal is the way to go. Energy costs is usually a big driver. Geo saves half the cooling and the heating size that is run by electricity; we only would save 12%. We look at geothermal where there is no natural gas. We did a cost estimate of 140 bores Each bore is a well, 500 feet down so each bore has a certain capacity. That number is from historical data and if you pursue this, we have someone drill a bore and run water to see what the earth does with it. Based on that number an added first cost on top of the system we designed is $2; the equipment inside the building, the cost will not change with geothermal. The equipment on the roof stays similar because it is ventilation air and has nothing to do with geothermal. We look at the annual energy savings versus gas heating is $42,000 or $43,000 so payback is 43-48 years. And reimbursement rate, it is 43 years; for Middletown 21 years. We are looking at other systems, using PV, payback would be in 14 years and reimbursement rate is half that. Mr. Drake asks what the cost is; Mike responds 18 cents kilowatt and gas. He ran it at 14, 16 and 18 cents per kwatt hour and the savings is $60,000 a year. Mr. Pessina based on what we experienced at the senior center, how do you judge the size for the school. The Senior Center Committee were apprised of the system and it is much larger than what we would have needed which attributes to the problems they have. Mike states we use a computer program measuring wall, window, light, person, and every square foot and hours of over 8,000 and uses historical climate data, we calculate the worse day for cooling and the worse day for heating and run the whole year and run the worse case scenario and we know 1,000 in the school 500 for gym and 500 in auditorium, we take some off the peak load. Mr. Pessina states you are confident that the system would be the appropriate size and HVAC. Mike yes. Mr. Drake as far as the $2 million, is that the deltas between doing geothermal and more conventional systems you would design. Mike yes. It is an additional $2 million cost. Mr. Giuliano asks if there is a redundant system. Mike states geothermal is run by electricity and if the power goes down, you need something to run the system and to put a generator in to match geothermal it would be very large. Usually you put in one or two smaller boilers just to keep it from freezing. Mr. Giuliano you need boilers. Mike yes; you would still want the boilers. Mr. Luther states the $2 million number is estimated the same way the rest of the project is done. It includes escalating cost and materials and applied contingencies to this. It includes 18% as we carry for all construction costs. Chair the $1 million we added to make the building efficient, the $1 million would be applied to this and it would be $1 million in the whole and then a cost estimator about the type of window upgrades and what is the cost estimate to that. Mr. Luther states if we don’t do those other upgrades this would have to work harder. The data tells us what to do from a cost side. We are only talking about the numbers and if the goal is to provide the best economic benefit for operating costs WWMS Building Committee Nov. 29, 2018 5 then if you spent it here, you don’t get the biggest bang for your buck. PV’s are better. He explains PV as photovoltaic panels. Mr. Pelletier going back to electricity and the wells are run on electricity and aren’t they run on gas. Mike, CES Engineer states 58% of the electricity is done by gas; then next largest is nuclear. The argument of gas rising is a good one. Mr. Drake asks as an alternate looking at it monetarily can you estimate the carbon savings for different alternatives. Mike states it can be done. Mr. Giuliano states from a maintenance perspective if geothermal goes down, what is the cost to getting it backup compared to the gas. Are we hammering the concrete under the school to do a new well. Mr. Luther states the 140 wells we wanted to lay them and where they could go. We started with the parking lot which is easier to get at. We have gone to the property line and taking the buffer for the wells and maxed it out and we needed another 20 or 30 wells and looked under the foot print for a possible location and there are some restrictions. We don’t want to be under columns or footings and we were able to fit the number of required wells and if needed 150, we could fit the ten. The larger issue is concern when you have something under the building. Mike CES states they usually put them under a football field and they can dig them up and fix them. He explains what they put in the bores and there is a chance it could fail. We would group 5 wells together with central piping and if you lost 5 you could still run the building. Some states have a law not to put them under the building; you will not dig under the building, you would lose that well because you wouldn’t dig under the building. Equipment failure in the building is no different than a chiller. Mr. Giuliano asks if they can put the wells under the demolished building. MIke the wells have to be running when the school opens. You need it for cooling and the wells need to be working when the school opens. Chair asks if they tore down the pool. Mr. Luther states we asked O & G to look at phasing and constructibility under the parking lot and the building. Chair states they took money out and will the State be okay with them under the building. Mr. Luther they have no requirements other than statutes and building code and Connecticut doesn’t have any. Mr. Biega, Construction Manager, states when we looked at it the best spot , it would be the field. If we could have gotten this going earlier, putting it there would be great. We have done 7 schools and we have done them under parking lots and fields never under the building. I would not recommend that. To get someone to build the wells, it will affect the schedule and push out opening date. You can only get one rig at a time and by the time and drill and pipe it would be 3 months. Under the parking lot, you go in and dig it up. Another concern is the water table. There are serious issues dealing with that. We can’t pipe it into the system, we have to truck (what is dug up) it out. Is this the best project for geothermal; without the field across the street, there are other issues for the project. Mr. Pessina states you will get a lot of water looking at the topography. Mr. Drake states there are some decisions outside this project affected our decision making. The completion of the project across the street stopped us from using the space during construction. We had no say about that and the say about Hunting Hill Avenue and he is glad that is resolved. If we could turn the building around, it would be better oriented east/west and taking into account the angle of the sun it would be energy efficient but you can’t angle it when you have albuilding there. Many decisions were made for us before we got started and we are dealing with the puzzle now. Chair states that factors into the geothermal question. I asked that the project not be completed so we could use that space across the street and she is WWMS Building Committee Nov. 29, 2018 6 explaining that this occurred earlier in the project. We looked at taking the grades across the school and we could tear down the building and fit the kids in other schools and we could not do that so we could use the space more productively. As the building sits and where we ended is there any way to place the wells further along the property. Mr. Biega states the only spot you can run the wells where you were having actual parking. The auditorium comes down and the building goes there. You would have to lose all the parking and it would increase the number of wells because of the distance from the building. Mr. Giuliano asks if you can use a partial geothermal system. Mike, CES Engineer, states that is not a safe bet. Mr. Pessina states the topography is tremendous and you get all the water. Chair comments the State wanted to know what we were doing with the water because of the ponding. The new plans there are underground piping to grab the water and now it is paved there is not a lot of natural absorption. If we decide to put the wells there how does that work with all the piping we need. Mr. Biega states it shouldn’t affect that and parking would not exist anywhere near the school. Ms Daniels states at the last meeting John Phillips was involved and he mentioned his concerns under the building and what is the impact. What is the difference under the building or under a parking lot. Ms Daniels states no difference. The well is well below the building. Mike, CES, states 500 feet down, the building would not affect it. Ms. Daniels states when people come to the building and say it is feasible, but you are saying it is not. Mr. Biega states it is the final cost. Ms. Daniels states it is not groundwater or the water table. She wants to understand what the people are saying. Chair states this committee wanted to do it and everything we are highlighting and the political garbage we dealt with, we took out this item. I have strong concerns about them being under the building. She asks how many wells we can lose. If we lose all of them can it work. MIke no. If it is lost it is a serious problem. Mr. Pessina states is it predicated on the site and the testing. We don’t know if the site can support this. Mike it can, it has to do with the soil and the number of wells. Chair if we put the wells where the teachers park does that up the cost because of the distance. Mike yes; we will have to run pipes underground and the energy costs to pump it and we can lose efficiency. Chair asks if we tore down the pool area how would that reflect on the geothermal. Mr. Luther we can’t tear that down until the school is constructed. We couldn’t put wells in before the building is complete. Chair states we had open discussions with the public that is the reason we have the gym and pool standing still; they wanted a new pool in the school, but we couldn't do that because we had to assume all the costs for a pool. Chair how many wells can we lose without affecting the system. Mike we can’t lose many wells and if you lose it, you have to replace it. Mr. Giuliano the wells near the homes will that affect the foundations. Mr. Biega responds no. Chair asks about the VoAg building. Is it still used. Ms. Daniels states they remodeled it and are using it. Motion to Waive the Rules Mr. Drake move to waive the rules for public comment; Mr. Pessina seconds the motion. The vote is unanimous. The Chair opens the meeting to Public Comment. Mike Thomas states it would be instructive to bring in the sample of the tubing and piping. There is a possibility to lose the well and if you saw the material that the tubing was made out of you would see how limited the possibility of failure. They build geothermal under buildings in New York City and they must have that concern as well and say it is not a serious concern. Is it really an issue. Mike, CES WWMS Building Committee Nov. 29, 2018 7 Engineer responds the piping has a 100 year life. I can’t say it will last forever and be fair there is always a chance of failure and I would not like to see the wells under the building and it is my opinion. We like to access them and there is the scheduling issue. Mr. Biega states that changes the schedule and when you want the building and this will put a constraint on construction. Ms. Daniels asks if there are other passive ways to do the building. Mike, CES, states there is a whole list of things to explore. Mr. Luther states we will go through all the energy items and do the paybacks and then decide how to get the most bang for the buck and if you use the $1 million for geothermal then this list goes away and we still have to find an additional $1 million for the system. Chair states I would want to know what this looks like for cost because we can't have all these options. Mr. Luther explains earth ducts. The way earth ducts works is kind of the same way geothermal works. They use air instead of glycol. We talked about rooftop equipment providing ventilation. There is a lot of air that comes in at 5 degrees in the winter and we have to get the temp up and in the summer we need to cool from 95 degrees to 78 and it is a lot of energy. We take ductwork and bury it in the ground and as we draw air into the duct it goes into the rooftop at 50 degrees. It preheats and precools the air. Since we are tucking it into the hillside and areas that we are filling that we put the ducts in. There is costs associated with that and we will look at that and we will model it along with all these items and then you can decide how to spend the $1 million. Mr. Pessina states it almost we are forcing geothermal; with all that being said and you know the limitations and if you had your druthers, what system would you put in to be carbon neutral and sustainability without delaying the construction. What should we focus in on. Mr. Luther states what are you talking about carbon. Zero carbon is no fossil fuels - everything is run off electricity and off set that with PV’s to create electricity. Net zero, the building needs to generate as much energy as we use. In that scenario you want to drive energy usage down and then generate electricity to offset what we do use and typically it is PV’s. That is in play. Because the site is so small we looked at that, the roof has a lot of units on it and if you have hpv on roof there are OSHA requirements. We have different heights of roof and we have to make sure they are not shaded and the areas he shows viable for rooftop area. Average of school building is 110 btus and we are half that. We try to be below 50 and using 50, this area is how much you need to cover with PV’s. You get as many as you can to lower energy usage and that is our goal. Whether you can get to net zero at this sight, it would be tough. The Project in Amherst is next to a huge park so we can set up an enormous set of PV’s. We don’t have that luxury here. Justin (Last Name unclear) state's your earlier slide where it takes 48 years to recoup the added cost and when he talks to people they recoup the cost quickly. Why does it take so long and what is the average to recoup your cost. Mike, CES, states this is average when competing with gas. You don’t have fans pushing in air and you don’t have that in the homes. Justin states the recoup of costs is 48 years. Mike, CES, states we do this analysis on most projects and we only install geo in 5 systems because we are competing with gas. If you have a set budget, PV is a better investment. Justin states you use the current gas prices. MIke yes; if natural gas goes up, the cost of electricity goes up. Cathy Lechowicz asks if you built a building on top of wells. Mr. Luther and Mr. Biega says no. Cathy states that is an issue and she is looking at what can happen to the wells so she has concerns and there are States moving away from not having buildings over wells what are they. Mike, CES, states utilities don’t let water pipes under the building. He doesn’t know the number of states. There is a risk putting something under the building. Mr. McKenna acknowledges the thought and effort done and have a WWMS Building Committee Nov. 29, 2018 8 CM and geothermal have you worked on a project where a well has failed. Mike says personally no, but he didn’t design all the wells. Patrick states we can see natural gas drill sites that don’t look better. Mr. Biega states one project had a high water table and took a lot to truck out stuff and the cost goes up. Mike, CES, states we could go down deeper wells. Patrick by going deeper it is an option to go deeper for the forty wells and is that more cost prohibitive. Mr. Biega states the deeper it goes the greater the cost for the well. Patrick states if it is a $2 million and over 50% is reimbursed is the net cost $2. The bigger picture you discussed the Commissioning Agent and the charette for high efficiency standard for the State and asks about all of that to spend more money on this. What are the next steps. Chair states the bidding process closed yesterday and 8 companies came forward and they will go through them to see if the bid meets the requirements and we will look at the top 4. Mr. McKenna asks what are the costs and benefits of all the options. While PV”s are efficient to offset and the project may not have to pay for that if there is a power agreement. Chair states the city has done that in other areas. We have had these discussions before and we have come full circle and there is no change in it. The next part is what the costs are and the best options for the this project and what can we get the most for this project. Mr. Luther part of the reason we have not done that is that we don’t have the official approval of the design and then we would look at that and then touch base with the Clean Energy Task Force regarding these and come back to the committee and have the discussion and look for a decision. All of those things are layered onto the systems we have already talked about. The Geothermal is a bigger piece and it is important to have this conversation now in advance of the other decisions and want the committee to make a decision on this. That will not change this slide. The cost and the reimbursement years will not change. You have $1 million to work with and that option means we have to put a list together to take out of the project to get back on the budget to pay for geothermal. We can add more insulation and earth ducts, we have the place where they can go and PV”s we are thinking where they can go and all those things are moving along and we will bring them along with more analysis; we are not there yet because we have to agree as a group. Mr. Giuliano asks what issues if drilling the wells will take out the option. Mr. Biega responds there is no factor. The only effect is if the ledge is in the 4 feet then you have to blast. Ms O’Hare asks how disruptive and loud is drilling. Mr. Biega replies the neighbors will be calling. Anna Salo Markowski states you put chilled beam would you still need the chilled beam. Mike, CES, states it also does the heating and it would not affect the price. Anna Salo Markowski asks if it would be possible to do it in two phases. Could you open school 75% and certain areas closed off and demolish do a secondary phase. Mr. Biega could you do it but I don’t know the effect on heating and cooling. Mr. Drake states on this plan do we meet August 2021 opening. Mr. Biega states he can’t commit to that; he has to look at it because it is outside of the building. Mr. Drake one of the must haves is opening 2021; you don’t want to open the school midyear and our plan is to demo the school. My understanding if you were to push the opening to 2022 and push all the costs to escalation and we will have exhausted our budget. Mr. Luther states you would add 6.5% escalation and it would be our responsibility to come to you to take out the items to stay on budget. They would look at square footage. Mr. Drake states could you fit 140 wells on a soccer field. Mr. Luther said yes. Mr. Drake that is the best place to put it; will we dig it up. Mr. Pessina comments not going to happen. Mr. Drake can you put the 44 wells under the youth services building. Mr. Luther states the answer is the wells and some flexibility in the depth. If you look at the well field you would have enough to offset on the depth if we had the real estate to work with and WWMS Building Committee Nov. 29, 2018 9 go to 130 wells at 600 feet. Mr. Pessina asks about the building across the street and take the annex down and give you extra area. Could you do it there. Ms Daniels states where do you put the people and the cost of renovation. Mr. Luther states all are possible but do they add to the 48 years. Mr. Drake states if we can get the kids out after the first year and find alternate place and then demo early you could do wells. Chair states this goes back to our original problem. Chair states Vinal is not on the table. Mr. Drake states they tried the musical chairs and looked at 6th into elementary and move 7 and 8 to Keigwin. We didn’t have enough room. Ms. Daniels since we talked about that we have more support staff. Mr. Pelletier we do not have geothermal; Ms Daniels asks if there is additional information to make that decision. Mr. Luther states he doesn’t know what more to bring you. Chair asks for a sample well. It will not change the numbers. It is to fine tune the estimate. It is also the time. We would have to get proposals and it will be 3 months before you can take the information and we will be presenting the end of the design development. Mr. Pelletier states you were talking about moving the sludge and there is a lot of water in the area and I can’t imagine just the cost of drilling. Mr. Biega states w set up retention ponds, settle it and then get rid of the material and you only have so much room for retention ponds and that is the cost. One of the workers decided to open the value a little bit on his truck and he left a nice trail and he was fined. I wish we had more area for the sediment pond. Ms Daniels have you changed your mind on geothermal or do you want us to move forward with this after hearing the information that was presented. Mike Thomas is a geothermal owner and the town should look for the best bang for the buck. We don’t know what the cost of gas will be and fracking cause earthquakes. Where is it going to be 20 years from now. Glad you are over there. Mr. Giuliano asks if it is possible to design the building with dual fuel boilers. Mike, CES, states possible but a dual fuel is not efficient. Chair asks 6 years from now oil is less expensive; what if the tables turn can you switch it over. Mr. Luther states you raise an interesting point and asked him a similar question. Let's say gas is way too expensive and as he was explaining the system, the equipment inside the building doesn’t change; in theory we can go with this system and 20 years from now there is nothing to prevent putting in geothermal walls and abandoning the chiller. The system would operate the same way and you could do that 20 to 25 years out. Mr. Giuliano we will be repaving the driveway and we could do that. Ms. Daniels how much of the work we can do from the list to reduce our usage. Mr. Luther states everything on our list we will look at and whether we put PV’s or not we should put the infrastructure to take advantage of photovoltaic. The cost for setting infrastructure is negligible. There will be lots of green sustainable technology. The energy usage will be low. Ms. Daniels states it will be important to see that and doing other things to compensate for not using geothermal. Chair states the net zero is solar panels and we can try to get into a contract to purchase them and we are only powering a water plant. It kills me to consider natural gas. Mr. Pessina states you will do analysis with the rest of the options. He states to energy task force members you heard our frustration about geothermal. You should look at what we can do and before our next meeting, you can meet with them with for viable alternatives. Middletown Resident asks if electric heat pumps were considered. Mike, CES, states they did discuss that at a previous meeting. They did chilled beams and heat pumps and for efficiency reasons chose WWMS Building Committee Nov. 29, 2018 10 chilled beams. Chair states they visited a school with the system and they are pleased with the cost and efficiency. Anna Salo Markowski states she appreciates the fact the committee reviewed geothermal and she realizes it probably won’t work for this project at this site. Chair states we went through this at the beginning stages and going through with it again reaffirms the frustration. Mr. Pelletier moves not to move forward with geothermal; Mr. Pessina is not sure he wants to take it off the table but listening to what you said, he would consider it, and seconds the motion. Anna Salo Markowski states she would not be able to speak for the group and Michael Harris was really pushing it but she will do the best she can to explain to the Clean Energy Task Force as to the problems with geothermal. Chair states she trusts the opinion of Mr. McKenna because he does it for a living; she has a lot of respect for him from a community aspect. Ms. O’Hare asks if that impacts our design schedule and going to Planning and Zoning to start Phase I. Mr. Luther states it won’t impact P and Z but it will affect our schedule. We were supposed to meet two weeks ago and it was canceled and it put a crimp in our schedule. Chair states based on the conversation and questions, I would have liked to see geothermal work, but there is a motion by Mr. Pelletier and second by Mr. Pessina to remove geothermal as an option for this project. Mr. Drake states he will air his frustration. A lot of decisions were made for us and we had a public argument with the Mayor so it is not feasible given the constraints but it doesn’t mean I don’t believe what everyone is saying. I remain committed to squeezing as much energy efficiency as we can for this building. Whatever we can do to drive down energy costs. Mr. Giulino states we need to decide tonight to go through some of the options based on our decision tonight. Mr. Biega states the $2 million would probably go up and not down. Chair states she promised the community to stick to the budget and come under if possible; we promised to do it in a financially responsible way. She will request moving the question and calls for the vote. It is unanimous to not include geothermal in this project. The Chair states it is a reluctant aye to not have geothermal as part of this project. O & G Estimate of School Mark Jepko(?) states his focus is the operation size. He brought Dan Hetzler with them. What is handed out is a summary of their design estimate. He will go through it line by line so you understand what the numbers are and the bottom line. Good news they are under budget. On the second page is the project cost summary. The first is site work; second is abatement, phase I auditorium and phase II is the construction. Below that is demolition and item 4 is the building construction cost and temporary offices. It is next summer. They are looking at reducing that size but right now they are looking for portables for the School offices. 4C is alterations to gym and pool to make it a stand alone building. Below that it is CM staff and reimbursable. It says 22 months, but it is 26 months covered. Next are the contingencies that they are carrying. It is a percentage they carry of work that is not defined. There are assumptions the estimators make and monies from that line will be moved into construction costs. WWMS Building Committee Nov. 29, 2018 11 The second contingency is escalation. They are carrying 6.5% a year and they take it to the start of bidding. Once they bid it and get the final cost, the contingency gets moved into the trade costs. The last contingency is the CM which we carry in our contract. Whatever is not spent reverts back to the owner. Next is the phase fees. And then payment and performance bond. Our GMP would be the number in the corner. The second page is the owner’s soft cost that are outside our guaranteed pricing. These are amounts developed by the team and reflect what we see for schools this size and scope. LIne 22 is the other contingency we carry. We carry 5% and it is the owner’s contingency. If there is overages in the FF & E, you have monies to pull from. Ultimately our original project was $86,500,000. We are below budget by $346,717. Ms. Daniels the phone system will be used in the new building because it was purchased from a grant, so these numbers will be reduced. Mr. Jepko states yes. Mr. Pessina asks how often will we get an update. Mr. Jepko states we do it at different stages of the drawing. We want information to go to the design development phase. Once they develop those drawings, we put numbers on that. We owe you 2 or 3 more estimates. Everytime we do these estimates, typically we see we are over budget. We will sit down and reconcile with the architects estimators as well and if estimators can’t agree, we will come up with a list of items so that the school remains on budget. We will come back if the estimate is higher. We are carrying higher escalation because they are higher now. Mr. Biega item costs 17 and 18 on the estimate we need to confirm that We have a short term financing so as long as they understand it, it comes to borrowing and how they will pay it back. Staff provides O & G with budget which reflects bonding costs. TSKP states they are looking for permission to move forward with the schematic drawings. . Mr. Pessina moves to approve moving forward with the schematic design; Ms Daniels seconds the motion. There is no discussion. The Chair calls for the vote and it is unanimous. Chair declares the matter is approved. TSkP states they have nothing more. Mr. Drake states before we leave, we should go through the meeting cheat sheet. Staff raises the question as to whether the bus drop off changes should be voted on, but the Chair, confirmed by the architects, that voting to close Hunting Hill Avenue during school hours and events will cover that as it is a site change. Mr. Pessina moves to amend the agenda to add the committee meeting dates for 2019; Ms. Byrd seconds the motion. The vote is unanimous. The Chair asks for thoughts on meeting days and times for 2019 Ms. Byrd asks about the December meeting and if it will be held. Mr. Biega, O & G would have to take action on the commissioning agent. The Chair states let’s discuss meeting dates for 2019 and times; she states a couple of committee members having a hard time with Thursdays and I promised to look at changing the day. Members present reviewed their calendars and the last Thursday is still the best, with the least conflicts. There is a discussion of moving the time to 6:30; however some members have difficulty with that time while others do not. WWMS Building Committee Nov. 29, 2018 12 Mr. Pessina moves to keep the meeting day and time the same and is seconded by Mr.Pelletier. The vote is unanimous to leave 2019 meetings as the last Thursday at 6 p.m. Mr. Pessina moves to adjourn and is seconded by Mr. Pelletier. The Chair adjourns the meeting at 9:27 p.m. Submitted by: Marie O Norwood Staff WWMS Building Committee Nov. 29, 2018 13