Design team to present HVAC options for municipal project; ground‑source shows higher upfront cost but lower life‑cycle cost in slides

Members reviewed an upcoming presentation from the project design team that compares four HVAC system options: ground‑source (geothermal) heat pumps, a hybrid ground/air‑source approach, an air‑source/air‑to‑water option, and a fossil‑fuel baseline using condensing boilers and air‑cooled chillers.

The slides included estimated CO2 emissions, annual energy costs for HVAC systems only, capital and 25‑year life‑cycle cost comparisons, utility and federal investment tax‑credit assumptions, and a note that solar PV was not included in the blue bar comparisons for the HVAC energy graph. One slide cited roughly a $7 million capital difference between the ground‑source option and the fossil‑fuel baseline on the capital‑cost slide; members requested a clearer single‑slide summary of total capital and life‑cycle costs and asked the design team to clarify assumptions such as residual value at year 25 for the geothermal field and whether life‑cycle totals include rebates and tax benefits.

Committee members discussed how two‑lane design options could permit above‑surface green infrastructure (tree pits and rain gardens) whereas a four‑lane option tends toward closed, underground drainage; the group noted that precise stormwater and emission benefits would require full design work. The design team is scheduled to present the full slide deck downstairs in a public workshop format, after which the committee and public can ask questions; committee members asked that the presentation include a clear, consolidated cost comparison.