At its next meeting, the School Committee is tasked with deciding the type of heating/cooling system that is necessary going forward as part of its long-range capital plan.
On Thursday, representatives from CMTA gave a presentation outlining energy options at the high school and middle school, keeping the town’s “net zero” resolution in mind.
They also reviewed audit results of utilities and conditions at those two buildings.
To convert the high school to a high-efficiency energy system would not be that major a task, according to CMTA. It would involve installation of piping to a heating/cooling system and to a water system on a separate loop.
The audit showed classrooms in early September with temperatures up to 83 degrees at the high school and 81 degrees at the middle school. The representatives explained the high school’s chiller is at 50% capacity; it is failing and not built to accommodate the entire building.
The middle school is in better shape, having replaced gas-fired boilers in 2023 and upgraded HVAC (heating, ventilation, air conditioning) controls that same year. To accomplish a conversion there would be more difficult because most of the existing ducts and pipes could not be reused, according to the representatives.
The options they outlined were traditional plus cooling, air source heat pump, geothermal water-to-water heat pump (similar to what the Charleswood and Hopkins projects have) or geothermal distributed heat pump. Costs would be $11.5 million, $13.7 million, $18.9 million and $22.9 million, respectively.
The consultants recommended the geothermal water-to-water heat pump, saying the “best” option could not be done in phases, as it was intrusive and not practical.
The geothermal water-to-water heat pump option would focus on adding cooling to classrooms, electrifying heat and leaving occupied space renovations to a later date. This system would have gas remaining only in the kitchen, they said.
Done in two phases, the recommended option would cost $10.7 million and then $8.2 million, they said.
With these options, the better the system, the more is spent on cooling but less on utilities.
Work would involve tearing up grass and putting pipes in the practice field between the middle school and high school. To do that would take 3-4 months and could be done any time of year, including winter.
The middle school could be done retaining the new boilers and incorporating them into the design of geothermal systems, a “hybrid” approach. But that work could be put off in light of the new boilers, according to the representatives.
The presentation also included an outline about possible rebates from MassSave (state) and Investment Tax Credit (federal) programs. Reimbursements likely would occur a year later for state and 2-3 years after the fact from federal money.
For the geothermal WWHP system, the estimates are $1.3 million and $6.4 million back, representatives said.
Committee must choose option
Assistant Superintendent of Finance and Operations Susan Rothermich noted the committee had to adopt which scenario it preferred or something different. She said the high school’s system needs to be addressed within the next five years.
Funding would be through a debt exclusion that Town Meeting would have to approve, she said.
“We’ve been spending money like there is no tomorrow,” said member Chris Masters. “We have huge debt piling up, and this is $10 million or more.”
Masters noted the schools are high performing in the state now. “I’m in the hockey business and ask, ‘Does this help with the win?’ Our schools are doing great, and you might be warm in class. … How do we pay for it with the debt we already have?”
Chair Kyla McSweeney noted the school projects underway are under budget, and holding off on this work is a possibility.
Rothermich spoke about the committee needing to decide on the direction it wanted to take — staying “in kind or moving to a greener air source or geothermal approach.”
Member Nancy Cavanaugh wanted to know more about urgency and timing.
Cavanaugh noted there is a lot of spending going on for the schools. In addition, she said the committee is looking at a very tight operational budget next year and is about to receive an “advisory” from the town on spending.
“A large segment of town is concerned about taxes and spending. [We] have to make sure we can afford a project and bring along the will of the voters,” Cavanaugh said.
The consultants advised not to take on a major project if the voters are not going to be on board with it.
Later, in a presentation about a 10-year capital plan, Rothermich noted the other fiscal year 2027 requests would be a handicapped accessible vehicle for the 18-22 special education program ($95,000); classroom desks and chairs at the middle school ($217,000); and technology including projectors, security upgrades, radio and camera replacements ($150,000).
A vote on the capital plan is expected at the next meeting on Oct. 9.
Question: “The geothermal water-to-water heat pump option would focus on adding cooling to classrooms, electrifying heat and leaving occupied space renovations to a later date. This system would have gas remaining only in the kitchen, they said.” Electrifying heat? Our electricity rates across the state are increasing dramatically as any homeowner knows. Does the school committee have realistic estimates on how this option would change the utilities bills. Electric heat in the Northeast is typically very costly.
Jim, yes, the School Committee was given relative estimates of the operating costs in the analysis from CMTA. All of the electric heat pump options had lower annual costs than remaining with gas. (I was at the meeting.)
“The representatives explained the high school’s chiller is at 50% capacity;” then why not utilize it at 80-85% capacity – problem solved, what are we saving the capacity for? Heck no, lets just do an override/exclusion for millions when we are looking at a town borrowing rate approaching 100% of capacity. “The middle school is in better shape, having replaced gas-fired boilers in 2023 and upgraded HVAC (heating, ventilation, air conditioning) controls that same year.” So we need to spend tens of millions more after just two years? Are we not capable of looking at capital expenditure time-lines of 10-20 years instead of less than 5 years down the road? Are we not properly designing buildings and systems if they are “failing” and/or insufficient after 2 years?
Sean, what they meant about the chiller is that it’s only capable of operating at about 50% of what it used to do. It’s nearly 30 years old and failing. The Middle School replaced boilers and controls two years ago, but all the other HVAC components in the building are from the 1990s and need to be upgraded.
You have got to be kidding me……a debt exclusion request means another tax on top of the upcoming tax inreases, and don’t forget the recent property tax evaluation adjustments. All properties are assessed at their full and fair cash value (market value).
I hope the committee takes a hard pass on these projects. We were told the 1965 Elmwood School was at “end of life” and was in dire need of being replaced but here we are discussing the possibility of investing $10MM+ in the MS which was built in 1954? Will that school even last another decade?
KT, I was at the meeting. The School Committee considered the age of the building and felt that there’s a lot of life left in the Middle School. What’s being considered here is upgrading HVAC. The decisions around Elmwood, Charleswood, and the Hopkins addition were about finding the most cost-effective way to have enough space for a growing student population.