Consultants recommend fuel‑switch HVAC and ventilation upgrades for Francis Anderson Center; price trimmed to about $8.5 million

Consultants working with the Washington State Department of Enterprise Services and Edmonds staff presented an investment‑grade audit of the Francis Anderson Center on Jan. 28, recommending a fuel‑switch to an electric variable‑refrigerant‑flow (VRF) heating and cooling system, installation of a dedicated outdoor air system (DOAS), refurbishment of gym air handling equipment and a hybrid electric domestic hot water plant.

The audit’s team said the recommended package would remove the building’s reliance on natural‑gas boilers that are at the end of their useful life, add mechanical ventilation and filtered outdoor air, and provide individual temperature control for different rooms. The presenters told the council the work would help the city comply with Washington State’s Clean Buildings Performance Standard (the Francis Anderson Center is categorized as a Tier 1C building) and support the city’s climate goals while improving occupant comfort and reliability.

The consultants said the facility’s current energy‑use intensity (EUI) is 45.5, below the Tier 1C target of 67.1, but that state benchmarking and future code changes mean the city must plan now. Preliminary turnkey project pricing collected from vendors and subcontractors ranged from about $9.1 million to $10.2 million; after value engineering the team reported a reduced estimate of roughly $8.5 million. The audit identified several major cost drivers, notably the DOAS and smoke/fire‑damper upgrades; the DOAS alone was called out as nearly $2 million of the estimate.

Presenters said the turnkey delivery model under the state’s energy‑savings performance contracting (ESPC) program would include engineering, procurement and construction under a guaranteed maximum price (GMP) contract. The team noted that the turnkey model is “open book” and that any unspent funds would return to the city under the ESPC structure; they also flagged that phasing work around occupied programs raises labor and schedule costs compared with a full shutdown. The consultants estimated a phased project could take roughly two years from equipment procurement to completion, while a project executed with the building vacated could be compressed to about eight months once equipment is onsite.

Council members asked about alternatives, operations and grant funding. Presenters said the audit did not fully explore high‑efficiency boilers as an alternative within the scope of this study, though staff noted that might carry a lower initial price but would maintain reliance on fossil fuel. The team said the city is tracking grant opportunities from the Washington State Department of Commerce, Association of Washington Cities and other programs but that the national pause on some federal grants has created uncertainty.

The consultants presented quantified benefits: estimated annual natural‑gas savings of about $17,000 and illustrative equivalences (for public context) such as the annual energy reduction equating to removing roughly 17 average homes from the grid or not driving about 675,000 vehicle miles. They also emphasized operational reliability and indoor‑air improvements for the center’s many tenants, programs and childcare spaces.

The presentation closed with staff and consultants offering to supply more detailed schedule and cost breakdowns on request; council members asked for follow‑up materials on phased vs. vacated schedules, maintenance expectations and grant opportunities.