Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the School Facilities topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Consultants present options for elementary-school HVAC, windows, field lights and a possible bus‑garage rebuild
Summary
Energy Management Consultants told the RSU 20 board they can remediate leaking fittings, add VRF heat pumps for second-floor cooling, replace about 55 windows and pursue field lighting with a possible 50% federal grant; EMC presented budget scenarios ranging from a $2.3 million package to a $3.15 million full option.
Jeff Jagger of Energy Management Consultants presented the school board with a menu of repairs and upgrades aimed at improving comfort, reliability and energy performance at the district’s elementary school.
EMC proposed short-term fixes for leaking fittings, a longer-term option to install variable‑refrigerant‑flow (VRF) heat pumps to cool second‑floor classrooms, targeted window and door replacements, controls for entrance unit heaters, a standby generator option, elevator and walk‑in‑cooler refurbishments and new field lighting. The firm presented multiple price scenarios and said it had applied for a Land and Water Conservation Fund grant that, if awarded, could cover 50% of a field‑lighting project but would require the fields remain public in perpetuity.
The firm’s estimate for a broad package that included field lighting and multiple building upgrades was presented in the meeting materials as $3,147,000; earlier, the group and board staff had discussed a roughly $2.3 million scenario that omits selected items. Jeff Jagger described the “victic” (collar) repair for leaking fittings as a cheaper, safer alternative to welding in crowded ceiling space and said VRF heat pumps would address rooms that regularly reached the high 80s and low 90s. “It’s not a great learning environment,” he said of the upstairs classrooms, and recommended starting VRF work early because of long lead times.
On field lighting the presentation showed a wide cost range depending on scope and supplier: turnkey multi‑field packages had previously exceeded $1 million in some districts, EMC said, but they had modeled a competitive‑procurement approach that could reduce costs; with a 50% Land and Water Conservation Fund award EMC estimated a realistic net cost nearer $360,000 for the lighting portion rather than the higher turnkey estimate.
The consultants described other figures and tradeoffs: about 55 older windows would benefit from replacement to reduce heat loss; the mechanical air‑handler units were installed in 1991 and were beyond typical 25‑year service life, which makes replacement a significant, stand‑alone project; conceptual pricing for a replacement bus garage was presented as roughly $270 per square foot — about $1.94 million for the example footprint shown. EMC cautioned these were budget‑level estimates and said full engineering and competitive bids would be required to finalize numbers.
Board members asked about financing, contingency and timing. EMC explained a tax‑exempt purchasing mechanism that can delay the first payment for about a year and demonstrated a cash‑flow tool showing how selecting or deselecting measures changes annual debt service. The presenters urged the board to prioritize items with safety or severe reliability concerns and offered to return with multiple scenarios the board could adopt or pare back.
Next steps: EMC will send the board the scenario spreadsheets and can present those options at a follow‑up meeting; the board agreed to consider budget timing and grant outcomes before committing to a final package.
