Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout4/15/1994 - Regular~ pOAN ~, F ~ p 2 a= ~~~~~ ~~ ~~~~ ROANOKE COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ACTION AGENDA APRIL 15, 1994 Welcome to the Roanoke County Board of Supervisors meeting. Regular meetings are held on the second Tuesday and the fourth Tuesday at 3:00 p.m. Public hearings are held at 7:00 p.m on the fourth Tuesday of each month. Deviations from this schedule will be announced. THIS IS AN AD TOURNED MEETING FROM APRIL 12. 1994 FOR THE PURPOSE OF DISCUSSING AND TAII~NNG ACTION ON AN ITEM THAT WAS COriTINUED FROM THAT MEETING. Individuals with disabilities who require assistance or special arrangement in order to participate in or offend Board of Supervisors meetings or other programs and activities sponsored by Roanoke County, please contact the Clerk to the Board at (703) 772-2005 We request that you provide at least 48- hours notice so that proper arrangements may be made. A. OPENING CEREMONIES (8:00 A.M.) 1. Roll Call. ALL PRESENT AT 8:07 A.M. B. OLD BUSINESS 1. Request for Approval Management Program for the County Schools. Duff, School Director of Facilities and Operations) CONTINUED FROM APRIL 12 1994 (Homer LBE ANNOUNCED BOARD WOULD BE IN WORK SESSION FOR THIS ITEM EGK MOTION TO APPROVE PREPARED RESO of Lease Purchase of Energy ® Recycled Paper LBE RULED OUT OF ORDER BECAUSE BOARD IN WORK SESSION HCN MOVED TO COME OUT OF WORK SESSION INTO REGULAR SESSION - UW EGK MOVED TO APPROVE PREPARED RESOLUTION HCN MOVED TO AMEND MOTION TO INCLUDE REPORTING BACK TO BOARD DETAILS OF EXPENDITURES ON EACH PROTECT TO DATE AND PROPOSED PROTECTS WITH EXPECTATION TO REPAY THE BOND PRO. ECT FOR ANY IDENTIFIED INAPPROPRIATE EXPENDITURES AND DISCONTINUE OR REMOVE FROM THE AGENDA ITEM ANY ITEM NOT CONSISTENT WITH BOND PROTECT AYES: FM, HCN NAYS: BLJ, EGK, LBE BLJ MOVED TO POSTPONE EGK MOTION UNTIL MAY 24, 1994, AT WHICH TIME B .-T WILL ASK FOR ITEM TO BE REMOVED FROM TABLE. AND DURING THIS TIME, DIRECTED THAT: (1) COUNTY AUTHORIZE CONSULTANT TO BE EMPLOYED TO STUDY BIDDING PRACTICES AND PROCEDURES IN PLACE, (2) COUNSEL LOOK AT PROPRIETY OF UTILIZATION OF THESE FUNDS, AND (3) COUNTY ADM. TO PREPARE A REPORT AYES: BL,J, FM, HCN NAYS: EGK, LBE BIT MOVED TO AUTHORIZE COUN'T'Y ADM. TO CONTRACT IN SOME FASHION WITH AN APPROPRIATE CONSULTANT TO STUDY PROCEDURES THAT WE HAVE IN PLACE WITH SCHOOL BOARD NOW MOVING FORWARD WITH THIS PROTECT AND THAT A REPORT BE PREPARED AND READY FOR MAY 24 1994 AND TO HAVE LEGAL OPINIONS ON WITHER EXPENDITURES ARE APPROPRIATE WITH FUNDS FOR CONSULTANT FROM BOARD CONTINGENCY FUND AYES: BI;T, FM, LBE NAYS: EGK, HCN C. ADJOti~RNMENT AT 9:45 A.M.. BL.T MOTION TO AD TOURN TO 1:00 P.M., TUESDAY, APRIL 26, 1994 - UW ROANOKE COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGENDA APRIL 15, 1994 Welcome to the Roanoke County Board of Supervisors meeting. Regular meetings are held on the second Tuesday and the fourth Tuesday at 3:00 p.m. Public hearings are held at 7:00 p.m on the fourth Tuesday of each month. Deviations from this schedule will be announced. THIS IS AN ADTOURNED MEETING FROM APRIL 12, 1994 FOR THE PURPOSE OF DISCUSSING AND TAKING ACTION ON AN ITEM THAT WAS COriTINUED FROM THAT MEETING. Individuals with disabilities who require assistance or special arrangement in order to participate in or attend Board of Supervisors meetings or other programs and activities sponsored by Roanoke County, please contact the Clerk to the Board at (703) 772 200 We request that you provide at least 48- hours notice so that proper arrangements may be made. A. OPENING CEREMONIES (5:00 A.M.) 1. Roll Call. B. OLD BUSINESS 1. Request for Approval of Lease Purchase of Energy Management Program for the County Schools. (Homer Duff, School Director of Facilities and Operations) CONTINUED FROM APRIL 12 1994 C. ADJOLfRNMENT g_i MEMORANDUM TO: Members of the Board of Supervis rs ,4 ~`~ FROM: Elmer C. Hodge ~' County Administrator DATE: April 14, 1994 SUBJECT: Request to Lease-Purchase Johnson Control Energy Management Program I have reviewed the school administration's request for extension of the Johnson Control Energy Management System, and I recommend approval of this request. Under other circumstances it would be preferable to deal with individual components separately. For example, it would be preferable to receive competitive bids from window replacement companies, or individual heating and air conditioning vendors. However, we have not been able to allocate funds to do this over the years. A disadvantage to this approach is that we would have no guaranty on whether the work will be successful. It is difficult to prove or disprove the calculations made by Johnson Control, but at least they have some responsibility to prove themselves or face the possibility of legal action. If I thought we could provide additional funding in the future to deal with the individual components, I might feel differently. This project was bid several years ago and all vendors had an opportunity to participate. However, when we contacted the lending institutions there were only two vendors that have been successful enough to be recognized and accepted by these institutions -Honeywell and Johnson Control. At that time, Johnson Control was chosen by the schools and Board of Supervisors. These improvements were coordinated with the school construction schedules. When we began the process I was skeptical, but their energy savings track record for the three months reported to the Board is acceptable to me. While i recommend approval of the request, the Board may wish to set criteria which limits the work to the schools for which there will be a payback of no longer than 10 years. In conclusion, I recommend approval of the school administration's request for a lease-purchase agreement with Johnson Control for an energy management system. ~~ 1 AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER ON 'PUS', APRIL.i~ 1994 ~R~v~y , IS The Board of Supervisors of the County of Roanoke, Virginia ("County") has determined that it is necessary or desirable to advance money to pay the costs of acquiring certain equipment for the County consisting of an Energy Management System to be installed at various County School buildings ("Equipment") and to reimburse such advances with proceeds of one or more financings. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF THE COUNTY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA: 1. The Board of Supervisors adopts this declaration of official intent under Treasury Regulations Section 1.150-2. 2. The Board of Supervisors reasonably expects to reimburse advances made or to be made by the County to pay the costs of acquiring the Equipment from the proceeds of its debt or other financings. The maximum amount of debt or other financing expected to be issued for the Equipment is $1,130,000. 3 The Board of Supervisors determines that the financing of the acquisition of the Equipment pursuant to one or more agreements providing for the leasing of the Equipment by the County from one or more lessors (collectively, the "Lease") is in the best interest of the County and the lease financing of the Equipment is authorized. The maximum aggregate amount of the principal components of the Lease shall be $1,130,000 plus an amount sufficient to pay the costs incurred by the County in connection with the financing or financings and to fund any required reserves. The Director of Finance and the County Administrator are authorized to select a lessor or lessors and to execute and deliver on behalf of the County an appropriate Lease or Leases and such other documents, agreements and certificates as may be necessary to complete the lease financing. 4 The County Administrator, the Director of Finance and such officers, agents and employees of the County as either of them may direct are authorized and directed to prepare any and all instruments, opinions, certificates and other documents necessary to carry out the purposes of this Equipment and all such action previously taken is ratified and confirmed. 5. This resolution shall take effect immediately upon its adoption. ROANOKE COUNTY SCHOOLS OA F ~F ~, , A L ~ ~ z ~. J = a` 3 TO: FROM: SUBJECT: DATE: FACILITIES AND OPERATIONS 526 College Avenue Salem, VA 24153 703-387-6501 Mr. Bob L. Johnson TDD 703-387-6283 Fax 703-387-6402 Homer D. Duff, Director of Facilities and Operations~~ Facility Management System April 14, 1994 The following is provided in response to the questions/comments included in your correspondence which I received April 6, 1994 and April 13, 1994: APRIL 6, 1994 1. As you will recall these projects are funded from the 1992 Bond referendum and limitations were placed upon the total amount of each project. Our goal has been to get the best system at each school within available monies: 2. We discussed this idea with each firm. They even consulted with each other as to what could be done to achieve this goal. However, due to the differences in buildings and monies, they were forced to make adjustments. 3. The budgets were derived from joint efforts of several Architectural/Engineering firms in the valley, the Construction Committee, and the School Board. Again, we were directed to reduce the total amount of our package within the Bond Issue. 4. The ASHRAE 62-1989 standard was considered in all of the projects. Humidity can be a problem on certain days. Many of the units have evaporator coils in the drain pans. 5. Johnson Controls has provided the software and engineering to implement our Central Facility Management System. In 1993 we made the decision to use Johnson's services in an effort to include each of our buildings into the one FMS (Facility Management System). In Phase I we only included selected buildings and controls. To be assured of consistency and to retain Johnson's guarantee of performance in Phase II, we propose to use their control system. ~-i Mr . Bob L . Johnson 2 April 14, 1994 The HVAC equipment was quoted from several vendors. Some of the projects have expanded in scope since the original budget was established-- Mt. View for example, was budgeted to be air conditioned only. When the actual planning for this project began this spring, there were failures in the original heating system. The underfloor condensate lines are rusting out. To correct the problem would require cutting up the floor to replace the lines or abandoning them and going to another heating system. It was decided to combine the heating and cooling systems into one project, thus increasing the costs. It was agreed that the combined effort (heating and cooling) would be cheaper that two separate projects. At Burlington, the original project was air conditioning. This year when the final planning was begun, it was necessary to include ADA requirements. The architect advised that the air conditioning project and the elevator would exceed the set budget. The decision was made to break out the windows. The bid did exceed budget. It was necessary to delete the windows to be able to include the elevator. At Glenvar Elementary, it was necessary to include part of the heating system into the air conditioning project. This resulted in increased costs. Window reduction has always been one of our goals to reduce energy costs. To this end, Johnson Controls was requested to explore this option in designated buildings. For example, Mt. View was included in the Johnson Controls project since they were not funded within the construction project. At this time, the Burlington and Ft. Lewis windows have not been upgraded. The School Board decided to make limited improvements to all schools within the system since sufficient funds were not available to complete a comprehensive upgrade. Even with this commitment, some of the Mt. View patrons were most disturbed that they were not on the first list . We were able to assure them, however, that they were on the list for next year. To fund a complete renovation such as Roanoke City and Salem have done would be ideal. This would cost much more than was allocated. APRIL 13, 1994 1. A copy of the energy bills is sent to Johnson Controls. They key the amounts into the spreadsheet and run the report for our review. 2. Please see the Johnson Control's memo for an explanation of the base line. ~-i Mr . Bob L . Johnson 3 April 14 , 1994 3. These costs are mutually agreed. Each building is available for review. 4. Please see the Johnson Control's memo. BIDDING PRACTICES 1. Projects of this nature have expenses for A&E, printing, bidding, markup, construction supervision and profit. Due to the specialization and complexity of these projects we feel that Johnson Controls was a reasonable option. 2. The only sourced items are the controls and related wiring. This does not restrict other vendors from bidding provided their equipment will communicate with Johnson. The Johnson software system (METASYS) is proprietary as is the Trane (TRACER) and Honeywell (Delta 2000 ?) Communications can be a problem when mixing equipment/controls. Johnson is using the baseline for their guaranteed savings. The other vendors would not guarantee energy costs. 3. Only necessary controls and equipment for Phase I and the central FMS were purchased last year. Phase II controls and equipment are in this package. 4. Restricted funding in the Bond Monies restricted the things we could include in the construction projects. Johnson is complementing the construction work to enable us to achieve greater efficiency and comfort. Ex. The Mt. View windows through the Johnson project provides a more complete job as referenced in your April 6 Memo. Johnson Controls is the same as a General Contractor - they are securing bids to perform a pre-determined job for which they have given a bid price. The $680,000 of window treatment provides for A&E, bidding, Dryvit, Overglazing, labor, construction management, and guarantees for twelve schools. RCOS This equipment is over 22 years of age. Please see the Johnson Control's memo for additional information. Your April 6 Memo was shared with three of our A&E providers and Johnson Controls with a request for their comment. Copies of their response are attached. Roanoke County Schools would welcome the opportunity to secure state of the art buildings, and support systems; instructional programs; and equipment. To provide opportunities for all students to realize their maximum potential in the least restrictive, safe and comfortable environment is a constant challenge. Each year staff compensation and fringe benefits receives priority attention in the budget process (800+ g~~ Mr . Bob L . Johnson 4 April 14 , 1994 of the Budget). Every avenue, therefore, must be explored to provide for school building needs. The proposal from Johnson Control's will be a major enhancement of buildings and equipment. Please call 387-6500 if you need additional information. c: Mr. Elmer Hodge Members of Board of Supervisors Dr. Wilson School Board Members ~~~ D APR ~ 199 ~-~ ~ 1. Why aro we chooslag poor iifo cyclo cost systems far most of the schools? Most of the air conditioning syetcrns sclcctod are split systems or small paclcaga units. While thoso may bo low flr'st cost byetcma, they have higher operating costs, higher maintenance costa, and Shorter lives than most eomtnuclal systems soleciad for schools. (Exanaple9 of equipment: split system unit ventilators, ductless spilt systnma, paek~-ge terminal air conditioners, package unit ventilators.} 2. Wo have spread the architectluaUonQ{noering work around to several firms, Why didn't wo got them to design around similar systems? It will be vary difficult for a maintenance department to handle all of the different systems. 3. Who set the budgets on these projeots? Many have run over the budget, As a rosuit, questionable ancri~icea are 6cing made. Examples; A. Burlington runs over the budyat so the new rnergy o~icicut windows era dalctCd. B. Mountain Vicw runs over the budget se a commercial chilled water system is replaccci with split system unite. Ara the new systuns considering the AST~~E 62-1989 ventilation standards and their imp€at on indoor air quality? The new sta~?dtuds require higher ventilation rates than uaCii itt the past. While most of the systotna being used are capable of introducing the Mesh air, few will be able to handle the humidity prablcrxt they are ~Otilg to l:rCatC. Cool, iuiny days will pump the building foil of humidity, and cooling will not be rryuired to pull the moisture out of the air. To coinplicucc rnatt~, most of the room9 all have their own unit with its own drain par- (a place for ba~ctczia and algae to grow). What ]s Johnson Control providing of value? Thoy are spocitiod as the sole source of control work oa the echaols. Why is their quota "sacred" when all the projects era running over the budget? Why are pneumatic controls still going used when they are high ma{ntottxuco items? If Johnson controls was paid for a head end controller to a prtvious "energy audit" contract, what are they quoting now? Is it true--Johnson Controls is eavering windows in schools to Savo energy? My fueling is the process or" rcttovating these schools is backward. We arc trying io do "half a job" in all of the schools. We should be addressing fewer buildings and cnnccutrating on doing a cotnpiote job. Long term decisions should ba made In choosing muhanleal systems. Other u~cfiitcctural lmprovementg and energy saving ideas should ba made at the same titno. .~-- ~ MEMORANDUM TO: Homer Duff i~~ FROM: Bob L. Johnson ,~, ~;'~ y: 4/~ ii: DATE: April 13, 1994 SUBJECT: Johnson Control Energy Management Program I would appreciate first of all your responding in writing to the original list of questions that I submitted to you several weeks ago. Since I have not heard from you, I assume you have compiled said list, and will provide same to me as soon as possible. In regards to the most recent meeting held yesterday afternoon, I would appreciate the answers to the following: 1. In regards to the Johnson Control System, who is administering the actual savings? 2. What is the base line energy use? 3. Who confirms the new operating cost and savings? Are the estimates used for this decision process accurate? In other words, do you have input into that process? I would like to look in particular at Oak Grove. They suggest that the proposed savings are half of the operating cost and I truly question that. 4. How can you administer a program like this when every project that we've had recently has added air conditioning? It would seem to me that the base line energy consumption would be out the window with something like that. ,$_ t Bidding Practices: 1. During the meeting I suggested some proprietary reasons for Johnson Control actually bidding out window construction with dryvit and things of this nature. Is it true that they put a '17% profit and overhead plus 10% operating on top of that? If so, could we not administer that cheaper in-house. 2. It would seem to me that every job that we have bid has a preset control interface set aside with Johnson Control mechanisms. With this as a standard, how can anybody else bid on the project without using first using Johnson's baseline cost? In other words, they seem to set their own standard that everybody else bids on. Is this proper? 3. The schools were part of the RFP which has already been awarded. Why are these being paid for again? I think the RFP was 92-16, appendix 2. 4. Why didn't these improvements bid with the school projects as they did. In other words, is Johnson Control now the purchasing agent for the improvements? For example, the windows I referenced earlier at Mount Pleasant Elementary School; if there is $680,000 of dryvit, how much of the $680,000 are actual windows and window construction versus 17% overhead and 10% operating. Improvements at RCOS 1. I have yet to receive an exact number of through-the-roof units, and don't believe I understand exactly how that project was bid in regards to the energy efficiency of the building. It has no baseline at present. I would be most pleased to sit down and talk to you and/or the Johnson Control people, but very much expect something in writing so I can review it prior to the meeting on Friday. JOMNSOt~I CONTROLS TO: Homer Duff FROM: Kurt Johnson DATE: 4-13-94 SUBJECT: Response to Bob Johnson's questions Homer, 1 would like to respond to Mr. Johnson's questions. 1. Who is administering the actual savings? Johnson Controls is administering the savings report, with the assistance of Roanoke County Schools and Government, who are furnishing copies of the actual bills to Johnson Controls on a monthly bests. The school principals, county and school facility personnel and building engineers have been interviewed numerous times to made sure that our reports of actual savings and predicted savings are accurate and agreeable. Johnson Controls monitors the energy usage on a monthly basis and provides quarterly reports to the county, facilities departments, school facilities departments, and county finance/procurement for review and approval. 2. What Is the baseline energy usel The baseline energy use is a consecutive 12 month window that is chosen from the previous 26 months prior to the beginning of the project that represents the most average usage of energy. 3. The projected operating cost and savings are standard ©ngineerinp calculations that are reviewed by Johnson Controls Corporate Performance Contracting Department. These calculations are also reviewed by the school facilities department. These calculations are also underwritten by a guarantee that the savings will be met. The savings estimates have proven to be reliable in the first phase of this project. Also Johnson Controls has in excess of 3100,000,000 under energy guarantee across the country. If the estimates were not correct we could not continue to do this business. Your concern is understandable. We have completed a quick review of the estimated savinfls at Oak Grove and stand by the estimated savings. This facility is approximately 70`36 single pane pleas with an R-Valve of less than (1 ). These retrofits will raise the R- Valve of the windows to between 5 and 20, thus providing the calculated savings. ~-1 In the schools that have had air conditioning added, we would adjust the base year energy consumption by the electrical load of the air conditioning system adds. This load is calculated per accepted design engineering practices, and we will compare it to the current cooling degree days to arrive at an accurate adjustment. ~~, • (misstated the answer to Mr. Johnson's question concerning our profit level on these projects. On the air conditioning projects that are now being bid, our profit is 10°,h above cost. On a project the size of this Energy Management Project our profit is 8% above cost. Our overhead Is 17°~ which is comparable to other businesses to operate. Included in this are all of the architechial design, engineering design, general contracting, and other levels of cost that would traditionally appear on a typical i n ~ type project. One of the reasons for executing a project through an Energy Management Process is to alleviate the multiple levels of cost. If the multiple layers of cost for the traditional design and bid method are added together, in most cases if would be greater that the cost of this project, thus saving the county money. It Is true that each of the jobs that have bid have had a price set aside for JCI's interface and controls. This is a standard practice In any large facility, hospital, university, or school system in order to keep the systems tied together by one energy management system. The practice of open book pricing with negotiated profit levels have been In place with Radford University for over 12 years with an installed system that would be valued at over $1.6 million dollars. Virginia Tech practices this philosophy using one of Johnson Controls competitors. There are many other examples of where this Is acceptable practice as well. The only item that the schools have asked to be proprietary are an extension of the existing energy management system. Johnson Controls is the recognized leader in the controls business and provides an integration product that allows a significant list of suppliers (see attached) to tie into their energy management system. This allows the countylschoois many options for competitively bidding equipment that has a direct tie- in. The HVAC equipment suppliers have the option of furnishing their own controls if they have this standard proven, tried and tested interface to Johnson Controls energy management system. It they cannot provide an interface for their controls, they can provide Johnson Control parts on their equipment so that all of the schools controls will tie together. Again, this does not limit competitive bidding on the HVAC equipment or any other part of the project. The original RFP included X11 of the schools. At the request of the facilities department 7 schools were pulled from phase #1 because of committed construction projects. These are the schools that are now being added to the program as phase #2. Also as a part of phase #2 Johnson Controls was asked to look at any other possible means of saving energy that would #it into a project that would pay for it self over 10 years. This is why the window retrofits were added to this project. Johnson Controls is typically known for its temperature control background. This Energy Management Program is a business that Johnson Controls has been in for almost 20 years. As a part of this program Johnson Controls bundles together the short and long term retrofits, of any kind, that will pay for themselves bundled together of a 10 year period. The school board decided that because Johnson Controls would underwrite the savings for any energy retrofit and because there was not enough money in the capital budgets for these projects, that using Johnson Controls to do this work was a very solid and cost effective way of completing this work. In addition, the schools have looked at ~~, doing this work in the past and have chosen not to do it because it was too costly with long paybacks. Now that this can be bundled with other shorter term payback items it makes sense to do this work as part of a complete Energy Management Project. flC4~ • There will be a total of 14 rooftop air conditioning units that will be replaced. There will be 2 heating and ventilating units that will be replaced with the rooftop units and for the new board room there will be a new air conditioning unit added. This project does not include raplacing the units for the gym. • We solicited prices from three vendors for equipment for RCOS. • The baseline for this building will be calculated frpm the last 2fi months that the building was occupied. The savings were modeled on an industry accepted englneering modeling program that Is used by many engineering firms for design Ipad calculations. Thig program also provides a savings estimate. These savings are achieved from the new reduced loads that result from a change in building use, from improved efficiency of the new air conditioning units and from the use of natural gas for heat verses electricity. C.t~NTR D (~ J ,(~ l ~,ur~i pwt 1. 0 ;i . ~. S What is Johnson Controls providing of value? Johnson has provided the Roanoke Co~rnty school system with a county wide Energy Management System that allows tl~e RCS maintenance department to adjust temperatures, diagnose problems, and make scheduling adjustments all from one central location. We have found this to be a~~ invaluable asset in saving many man hours of diagnosing time in the field. The only place that Joluison Controls is specified as sole source is on the Energy Management System side of these schools so that the school system can have one system that can be monitored and operated from one central location. The system also has tl~e capability of being dialed into so that on snow days the schedules can be adjusted, thus energy can be saved by placing the schools in t}te unoccupied mode remotely. Why is there quote sacred when all of the projects arc running over budget? Johnson Controls and RCS have worked very closely together to device the most cost effective control schemes for these schools. The key is that the two parties have discussed this so that this is the most cost effective way of controlling these schools. Why are pnewnatic controls still being used when they are high maintenance items ? Pneumatic controls are only used in minimal circumstal~ces when cost savings are required. Its has been the experience of RCS that pneumatic controls are not necessarily a high maintenal~ce item. If Johnson Controls was paid for a head end controller in a previous "energy audit" contract what are they quoting now '? Johnson Controls is only quoting the minimal additional items required for each of the schools that are being bid. Is it true that Johnson Controls is covering windows to save energy? It is true that RCS is looking into covering windows as vi avenue for reducing AC and heating load into classrooms, glare, and exterior distractions. Anytime a school is air conditioned it is necessary to look at the building envelope if ,Honey allows as a means of reducing that cooling load. As a part of all of that Johnson Controls is looking covering windows as a part of saving energy, but also to help with the other items listed that RCS is Looking for. _ _ ~ G'~-`~i_~~ . it I ~`II]h.IHi=~:~ I _i~ BRYANT ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS ~~, 147 MIII Ridge Road (804) 582-6760 Lyncfiburg, Virginia 24502 Fax (804) 582-6158 April 11, 1994 lktr. Homer D. Duff Roanoke County Schools 526 South College Ave. Salem, VA 24153 Dear Homer: The following are our comments in response to a list of statements that you faxed to us last week aS they apply to the HVAC systems that we designed for Roland E. Cook and Mountain View Elementary Schools: ~.. It is our opinion that the best life cycle cost system far the majority of school renovations is a two or three pipe fan coil system served by a fossil fuel fired boiler and a central chilled water system. The system that will be installed to air condition Roland E. Cook is such s system. We also designed such a system for Mountain View Elementary. However, after the bids were received for the two pipe fan coil cooling system it was determined that the building HVAC system must be renovated to provide heating as well as cooling due to major problems with the existing heating system. We knew that we could not successfully obtain bid prices within the budget allowed for the building Ming a four pipe fan coil system, therefore, we had to redesign the HVAC system using a less costly type of system (split heat pumps). The only justifiable reason for designing other than the best life cycle cost system for any school renovation is insufficient funds or e.~rtenuating circumstances. Such was the case for .Mountain View Elementary School. 2. The designs for the various buildings were spread around to various firms. While it is true that the selection of one Cu-m to perform all of the work would have maintained a continuity of design, there would be no guaranty that the systems would be identical. Each project would have been a competitively bid type of procurement. The low bid contractor would have the ability to select the manufacturer of the equipment to be used for each project (i.e. Carz-ier, Trane, etc.). Therefore, the equipment would not have been identical even if the bid documents were the same. In addition, the same type of system is not always the best system for every application. There may be architectural considerations that would hamper the installation of one type of system over another. Therefore, it may not be correct to use the same type of system in every building. ~. The budgets for the buildings were established by others. It is our understanding, however, that the budget for Mountain View did not include renovation to the e.~ting heating system which became a major issue during the design phase. The orily way that the building heating system could have been included in the HVAC renovation was to design a less costly type of HVAC system than the original design, Post-It"" brand fax transmittal memo 7671 No~pages TO ~ From Co. ~ ~ h co. Dept. Phone &1 4• The systems that we have designed for each of the two schoolr3 is in compliance with ASHRaF g~. 1989 ventilation standards. We do not agree that a humidity problem will east in either of the schools. The systems designed for each of our buildings are capable of conditioni ~ the space to 50 to 60% relative hu.m.idity on the design day, When the outdoor air is other tha1~ at design conditions (e.g, cool and damp) the indoor condition9 wil.I vary accordingly. However, we do not agree that unacceptable humidity levels will be observed. Johnson Controls was used for the controls in our buildings due to apre-negotiated contract that the School Board has with them to provide energy conservation services over a period of time. It is our understanding that Johnson was selected using a competitive process and, therefore, there is no violation of procurement standards in this case. Also, since we are expanding an exi3ting EMS with a central controller, it should be allowed to use the same manufacturer. I hope that these comments are helpful to you_ If' we can be of further assistance, please let me low, We ask that our comments be kept confidential for your use only. Sincerely, BRYANT ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS, INC. /~ ~ ~~ ~~ Tandy R. Bryant, PE HF'F'-1 ~-:('~y4 1.= : 1._ _~F'Ei= TF't_IY'1 Eh•!~ ~ I t IEEE' _ , F' . i= . F'. tJ April 12, 1994 Mr. Alan Rhodes Construction Coordinator Roanoke County Schools 526 South College Ave. Salem, Virginia 2415.3 RE: Design Questions and Comments Dear Alan: Pursuant to your request to respond to questions and comments from the concerned parent/taxpayer we have reviewed the items with our engineers and offer the following comments numbered to correspond with the items in the letter: 1. Typically these projects involved adding air conditioning which increases energy consumption which does not directly correlate to life cycle cost analysis. The unit ventilators we have used in ,our designs are classified as commercial equipment and offer individual. control with a thermostat in each room. In addition these units provide new controls and hot water heating coils at little added cost. These units are one of the best selections in terms of long life with minimum maintenance and provide much better life cycle cost when compared to ductless split systems and through the wall "motel type~~ units. In addition we were not requested to provide life cycle cost analysis and this is :not typically included as a part of our "Basic Services'_ 2• We have been consistent with our designs for the projects we have recently bid as well as projects which were designed last year in that the same equipment was selected for all projects where applicable_ we also raised this same question at our interview and fee negotiation meeting once we learned that several different engineering firms were involved in these projects. 3- This is an excellent question. As it relates to item 1, above a chiller would have been more efficient for Mountain View but not affordable within the budget constraints. we have experienced similar concerns in the ?S?U Franklin Road, 5~1 Fln3niil~C. ~~ir~ulia ?~fUlt~ lcicphunc 7Q3-34.5-tsyQ3 HF'F'-1~-1'?94 1 ~ 14 ~=~F'Ei_TF't If~l EPJCiIhIEEF"=;. F'. i F'. t]' Mr. Alan Rhodes Design Questions April 12, 1994 Page 2 inconsistencies of the project budgets {i.e. a school with fewer students and reduced scope of work has a higher budget than one caith a much larger student enrollment and consequently greater scope of work. Tt has been publicized that Roanoke County Schools have "saved money" by having architects "donate services" to help establish initial construction budgets_ The fallacy in this theory is that you get exactly what you pay for. In our opinion the County would be better served by soliciting the services of qualified professionals and paying for meaningful cost studies and therefore have someone who by nature of their work is responsible for the information which they provide_ 4. The new standards were not in effect at the time of the design of these projects. Perhaps a more appropriate question would be - Do some of the existing designs that utilize ductless split systems, etc. meet even the current standards? ~. This too is a valid concern. This raises the question of how is the work of Johnson Controls monitored and evaluated in terms of performance. We have used either electric or electronic controls for the designs of our projects. If Johnson Controls is doing work for "covering" windows, what qualifications do that have to make professional architectural design decisions? 6. Closing paragraph-our designs have been based on utilizing high quality commercial equipment typically used for schools both in renovation and new construction_ In addition our designs have incorporated future energy concerns such as reduction of window area. If public monies are allocated to provide additional funds for certain schools while delaying work at other schools, the school board is put in an uncomfortable position of making political decisions as to which schools get the money now and which schools get the money later_ we trust that we have adequately addressed the concerns presented to us. We would be willing to meet with you or the school administration to discuss this in more detail should you desire. ~~ t HF'F'-'1 ~-1'?'~4 13 ~ 14 '..F'E' TF'Uhi EI U=~ I FIEEF"=; . F' . i= . F' . t=iq ~,.1 Mr_ Alan Rhodes Design Questions April 12, 1994 Page 3 Sincerely, COX & ASSOCIATES, ARCHITECTS P.C. ~,~>'~/ Basil T. Cox, AIA President cc: Mr_ John Garland, Spectrum Engineers TpTHL F'. i=W r ^lI * - ~ j . :, ~ ~ ~ .~' .~- JONES ~. .JONES ASSOCIATES ~~° ~~°~ 7 April 1994 Mr. Homer D. Duff Roanoke County Schools 526 College Avenue Salem, Virginia, 24153 RE: School Renovations (Burlington Elementary) Dear Mr. Duff: I have received and reviewed the list of questions and comments regarding the renovations to several of the Roanoke County Schools. As per your request I would offer the following: Item 1 - As part of our design, we analyzed all costs for the HVAC System. The final design was deemed most appropriate based on the configuration of the existing facility and the established budget. Item 2 - The designs of the HVAC Systems vary because the facilities they serve have different design characteristics. Item 3 - The replacement of the windows in the Burlington Project was an option element. Certainly the replacement of these windows would enhance this project, but the task could not be accomplished because the money was not allocated. Item 4 - The design for Burlington Elementary School is based upon the Virginia Uniform Statewide Building Code (BOLA). The ventilation rates did have to be increased from the existing condition. Item 6 - The laws and regulations which required these building renovations did not require compliance in some schools, it requires compliance in all schools. In an ideal situation we would provide new schools for all of our children, however finances are not unlimited for these projects. It is my opinion that Roanoke County is getting an excellent return on the money invested into Burlington Elementary School. Very truly yours, JON & JONES ASSOCIATES, ARCHITECTS PC Richard L. J nes~ Jr. AIA Architect RLJJR/bj 6'12!:7 PETERS CREEK ROAi7 • I~OAiVOKE, VIRGINIA, 24019 TELEPHONE 703 366-3335 • FACSIMILE 703 366-3613 ~~ ~> CONFERRM.CAL Monday, May 09, 1994 2:30 PM Gang of 40 - Spencer Watts - 772-7507 3:00 hold 3:30 hold 4:00 Staff Meeting - Elmer Hodge - 772-2004 Tuesday, May 10, 1994 3:00 PM Board Work Session 3:30 hold 4:00 hold 4:30 hold 5:00 hold 5:30 hold 6:00 hold 6:30 hold 7:00 hold Wednesday, May 11, 1994 1:00 PM Supervisor Institute - Anita Hammerstrom - 772-2113 1:30 hold 2:00 hold 2:30 hold 3:00 hold 3:30 hold 4:00 hold Thursday, May 12, 1994 9:00 AM Diane Jernigan - 772-2080 9:30 hold 10:00 hold 10:30 hold 11:00 hold Monday, May 23, 1994 2:30 PM Gang of 40 - Spencer Watts - 772-7507 3:00 hold 3:30 hold 4:00 Staff Meeting - Elmer Hodge - 772-2004 Page 4 CONFERRM.CAL Friday, April 15, 1994 8:30 AM John Chambliss - 772-2002 9:00 hold 9:30 hold 10:00 hold 10:30 hold 11:00 hold Monday, April 18, 1994 3:30 PM Kathy Claytor - 772-2018 4:00 hold 4:30 hold 5:00 hold Tuesday, April 19, 1994 8:30 AM Anita Hammerstrom - 772-2113 9:00 hold 9:30 hold 10:00 hold 10:30 hold 11:00 hold 11:30 hold 12:00 PM hold 12:30 hold 3:00 Board Work Sessions 3:30 hold 4:00 hold 4:30 hold 5:00 hold 5:30 -hold 6:00 hold 6:30 hold 7:00 hold Page 1 CONFERRM.CAL Wednesday, April 20, 1994 8:30 AM Team Training - Anita Hammerstrom - 772-2113 9:00 hold 9:30 hold 10:00 hold 10:30 hold 11:00 hold 11:30 hold 12:00 PM hold 12:30 hold 7:30 Windsor Hills Advisory Committee - Lee Eddy 8:00 Same 8:30 Same 9:00 Same Thursday, April 21, 1994 8:30 AM Engineering & Inspections - Diane Jernigan - 772-2080 9:00 hold 9:30 hold 10:00 hold 10:30 hold 3:00 PM Brent Robertson - Gang of 40 Budget 3:30 hold 4:00 hold 4:30 hold 5:00 hold Friday, April 22, 1994 2:00 PM Convention Bureau Nominating Committee - Pat Walters 342-6025 2:30 hold 3:00 hold 3:30 hold 4:00 hold Monday, April 25, 1994 2:30 PM Gang of 40 - Spencer Watts - 772-7507 3:00 hold 3:30 hold 4:00 Staff Meeting - Elmer Hodge - 772-2004 Page 2 CONFERRM.CAL Tuesday, April 26, 1994 3:00 PM Board Work Session 3:30 hold 4:00 hold 4:30 hold 5:00 hold 5:30 hold 6:00 hold 6:30 hold 7:00 hold Wednesday, April 27, 1994 5:00 PM Janet Scheid - 772-2094 5:30 hold 6:00 hold 6:30 hold 7:00 hold 7:30 hold 8:00 hold 8:30 hold 9:00 hold Thursday, April 28, 1994 8:30 AM Team Training - Anita Hammerstrom - 772-2113 9:00 hold 9:30 hold 10:00 hold 10:30 hold 11:00 hold 11:30 hold 12:00 PM hold 12:30 hold Friday, April 29, 1994 7:00 PM Martha Gladden - Social Services - Volunteer Awards - 3 87-6034 Page 3 CONFERRM.CAL Tuesday, May 24, 1994 3:00 PM Board 3:30 hold 4:00 hold 4:30 hold 5:00 hold 5:30 hold 6:00 hold 6:30 hold 7:00 hold Work Session Page 5 MEMORANDUM TO: Homer Duff ,,..~ FROM: Bob L. Johnson ,~` 4~_ DATE: April 13, 1994 SUBJECT: Johnson Control Energy Management Program I would appreciate first of all your responding in writing to the original list of questions that I submitted to you several weeks ago. Since I have not heard from you, I assume you have compiled said list, and will provide same to me as soon as possible. In regards to the most recent meeting held yesterday afternoon, I would appreciate the answers to the following: 1. In regards to the Johnson Control System, who is administering the actual savings? 2. What is the base line energy use? 3. Who confirms the new operating cost and savings? Are the estimates used for this decision process accurate? In other words, do you have input into that process? I would like to look in particular at Oak Grove. They suggest that the proposed savings are half of the operating cost and I truly question that. 4. How can you administer a program like this when every project that we've had recently has added air conditioning? It would seem to me that the base line energy consumption would be out the window with something like that. Bidding Practices: 1. During the meeting I suggested some proprietary reasons for Johnson Control actually bidding out window construction with dryvit and things of this nature. Is it true that they put a 17% profit and overhead plus 10% operating on top of that? If so, could we not administer that cheaper in-house. 2. It would seem to me that every job that we have bid has a preset control interface set aside with Johnson Control mechanisms. With this as a standard, how can anybody else bid on the project without using first using Johnson's baseline cost? In other words, they seem to set their own standard that everybody else bids on. Is this proper? 3. The schools were part of the RFP which has already been awarded. Why are these being paid for again? I think the RFP was 92-16, appendix 2. 4. Why didn't these improvements bid with the school projects as they did. In other words, is Johnson Control now the purchasing agent for the improvements? For example, the windows I referenced earlier at Mount Pleasant Elementary School; if there is $680,000 of dryvit, how much of the $680,000 are actual windows and window construction versus 17% overhead and 10% operating. Improvements at RCOS 1. I have yet to receive an exact number of through-the-roof units, and don't believe I understand exactly how that project was bid in regards to the energy efficiency of the building. It has no baseline at present. I would be most pleased to sit down and talk to you and/or the Johnson Control people, but very much expect something in writing so I can review it prior to the meeting on Friday.