Consultants present HVAC, piping and renovation options; committee hears $6.5M immediate estimate

Prairie Engineering told the school facilities committee that there are multiple ways to address the high schoolcooling and building systems and that the district can stage work to reduce immediate cost pressures. The consultants provided three chiller options, a suggested centralized controls package and phased piping and electrical replacements, and gave conservative, opinion-of-cost estimates rather than final bids.

The committee was shown three chiller strategies: replace the water-cooled chiller 1-for-1; install an air-cooled chiller to remove the tower; or a smaller chiller combined with distributed split units for classrooms. "For most schools, an air cooled chiller is probably the best option," Blake, a mechanical engineer with Prairie Engineering, told the committee, calling it easier to maintain and cheaper overall. Blake and Jeremy, the electrical engineer on the team, repeatedly emphasized that the numbers they presented are "probable opinions of cost" and not vendor bids.

Why it matters: the consultantshigh-level package sought to balance near-term functionality with long-term maintainability. The simplified budget figures are intended to let the committee decide which items to prioritize before estimating financing and public outreach. Committee members focused on which items must be included in an immediate referendum, which can be budgeted over three to 10 years, and how to avoid a rushed, inconsistent message to the public.

Key details and estimates: consultants offered a midline estimate for an air-cooled chiller of roughly $275,000$285,000 (Option 2) and noted a higher-cost configuration (Option 3) near $420,000 for a smaller chiller plus split systems. Piping replacement was presented as a major line item, with a full replacement described in the consultantsdiscussion as roughly $1.0 million to $1.5 million depending on scope; consultants recommended phasing that work by building section. Blake said a central automation/controls package to aggregate alarms and initial controls could be installed for about $25,000 as a foundation to expand in future years. The chair summarized immediate needs at "in my opinion, if you're looking at 6 and a half million bucks, you can probably do the immediate things" and stressed those totals were conservative budgeting placeholders.

On electrical and kitchens: Jeremy pointed to aging panels and switchgear on the oldest building sections and advised budgeting for panel or service upgrades; he suggested a planning allowance in the mid-hundred-thousands for switchgear work depending on mechanical load decisions. For kitchen work, the consultants recommended hiring a food-service design consultant to produce realistic quotes and layouts before locking a figure; the one-line budget allowance in the presentation used a high per-square-foot placeholder to avoid underestimating costs.

Dissent and caution: several committee members pushed back on rushing a referendum and warned against sharing inconsistent cost numbers publicly. One member observed that the consultant package appears to be roughly half the cost of a prior ICS proposal but cautioned the group to be explicit about what was omitted from that earlier, larger plan. The consultants agreed the prior plan had been a "nuclear option" that sought a multi‑decade, full-replacement approach; Prairie staff said their recommendations aim for repair-first, maintainable upgrades.

Next steps: the committee asked consultants to refine options and produce clearer comparisons with the prior referendum materials, secure electrical cost estimates tied to the chosen mechanical approach, and engage a food-service designer for kitchen-specific pricing. The committee set a follow-up meeting and will use the refined numbers to decide which items to include in any financing or referendum plan. The consultants and committee repeatedly noted that the figures are high-level opinions and will require design and bids for firm pricing.