The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2024-12-10 Permanent Building Committee PacketTown of Reading Meeting Posting with Agenda tiQ 15391 INCflRpfl¢A� Board - Committee - Commission - Council: Date: 2024-12-10 Building: Reading Town Hall Address: 16 Lowell Street Permanent Building Committee Time: 6:00 PM Location: Conference Room Agenda: Purpose: Permanent Building Committee Meeting for ReCAL Meeting Called By: Genevieve Wood on Behalf of Patrick Tompkins Notices and agendas are to be posted 48 hours in advance of the meetings excluding Saturdays, Sundays and Legal Holidays. Please keep in mind the Town Clerk's hours of operation and make necessary arrangements to be sure your posting is made in an adequate amount of time. A listing of topics that the chair reasonably anticipates will be discussed at the meeting must be on the agenda. All Meeting Postings must be submitted in typed format; handwritten notices will not be accepted. Topics of Discussion: • Update from Select Board • Invoice Approvals —Vote if needed • Schedule Update • Communications Update • Sustainability Update • Stakeholder/Design Update • Approval of 11_13_24 meeting minutes Community Services Department is inviting you to a scheduled Zoom meeting. Join Zoom Meeting htt s://us06web.zoom.us/i/87494002524?pwd=c2 BlaRuPoL5ZNSg00DOi9Mr)iWOmB1 .1 Meeting ID: 874 9400 2524 Passcode: 349543 One tap mobile +16465189805„87494002524#,,,,*349543# US (New York) +16465588656„87494002524#,,,,*349543# US (New York) Dial by your location This Agenda has been prepared in advance and represents a listing of topics that the chair reasonably anticipates will be discussed at the meeting. However the agenda does not necessarily include all matters which may be taken up at this meeting. Page I 1 Jenna Fiorente Town of Reading 16 Lowell Street Reading, MA 01867 BARGMANN HENDRIE + ARCHETYPE, INC. 9 Channel Center Street, Suite 300 Boston, MA 02210 617-350-0450 www.bhplus.com This invoice has been approved by Turner & Townsend Heery and is recommended for payment. Date reviewed: 12/06/2024 Reviewed by: Brian Hromadka Amount approved: 8,000.00 Project 03513.00 Reading Center for Active Living Professional Servicies from July 1 Z024 to October -31. 202 Fee November 22, 2024 Project No: 03513.00 Invoice No: 27208 Billings to Date Current Prior Fee 8,000.00 90,000.00 Totals 8,000.00 90,000.00 If you have billing questions, please contact Fred Raffensperger (617-456-2242). Total 98,000.00 98,000.00 Percent Total Current Fee by Phase FEE Complete Earned Invoicing Phase I: Facilities Program Study 25,000.00 100.00 25,000.00 0.00 Phase II: Feasibility Study 65,000.00 100.00 65,000.00 0.00 Phase III: SD, Survey, Geotechnical 160,000.00 5.00 8,000.00 8,000.00 Total Fee 250,000.00 98,000.00 8,000.00 Previous 90,000.00 Fee Billing Total Fee Invoiced 8,000.00 Current Invoice Total $8,000.00 Billings to Date Current Prior Fee 8,000.00 90,000.00 Totals 8,000.00 90,000.00 If you have billing questions, please contact Fred Raffensperger (617-456-2242). Total 98,000.00 98,000.00 BARGMANN HENDRIE + ARCHETYPE, INC. 9 Channel Center Street, Suite 300 Boston, MA 02210 617-350-0450 www.bhplus.com This invoice rias been approved by Turner & Townsend Heery and is Jenna Fiorente recommended for payment. Town of Reading Date reviewed: 12/06/2024 December 6, 2024 16 Lowell Street Reviewed by: Brian Hromadka Project No: 03513.00 Reading, MA 01867 Amount approved: 20,000.00 Invoice No: 27214 Project 03513.00 Reading Center for Active Living Professional Services from November 1 2024 to November 30. 2024 Fee Percent Total Current Fee by Phase FEE Complete Earned Invoicing Phase I: Facilities Program Study 25,000.00 100.00 25,000.00 0.00 Phase II: Feasibility Study 65,000.00 100.00 65,000.00 0.00 Phase III: SD, Survey, Geotechnical 160,000.00 17.50 28,000.00 20,000.00 Total Fee 250,000.00 118,000.00 20,000.00 Previous 98,000.00 Fee Billing Total Fee Invoiced 20,000.00 Current Invoice Total $20,000.00 Billings to Date Current Prior Total Fee 20,000.00 98,000.00 118,000.00 Totals 20,000.00 98,000.00 118,000.00 Outstanding Invoices Number Date Balance 27208 11/22/2024 8,000.00 Total 8,000.00 If you have billing questions, please contact Fred Raffensperger (617-456-2242) Turner & Townsend Heery, LLC 3550 Lenox Road NE, Suite 2300 Atlanta, GA 30326 FEI: 58-0827945 WELLMAN, JAYNE TOWN OF READING 16 LOWELL STREET Reading, MA 01867 Project Name This invoice has been approved by Turner & Townsend Heery and is recommended for payment. Date reviewed: 12/06/2024 Reviewed by: Brian Hromadka Amount approved: 23,950.00 READING CENTER FOR ACTIVE LIVING Professional Services Rendered Invoice Invoice Number PJIN0042121 Date 12/5/2024 Project Number HII-2408100 October: Analysis of Previous Work/Site Selection/Start up $12,820.00 November: Schematic Design $11,130.00 % Complete Fee Earned 25.34 23,950.00 Previous Fee Billing 0.00 Current Fee Billing 23,950.00 23,950.00 Current Prior Periods To -Date 23,950.00 0.00 23,950.00 23,950.00 0.00 23,950.00 Contact: HROMADKA, BKIAN torian.nromaaKa(amrnwwn.wul) W.U. uivvwc yucoaw..a. Page: 1 of 1 OPM Budget Designer Budget OPM Budget $ 100,000.00 Unencumbered Designer Budget $250,000.00 OPM Funds Allocated $ 100,000.00 $ 28,000.00 Designer Funds Allocated $250,000.00 OPM Encumbered $ 94,500.00 Designer Encumbered $250,000.00 OPM Unencumbered $5,500.00 Designer Unencumbered $0.00 OPM Amendments $ - Designer Amendments $0.00 OPM Remaining to Bill $ 76,050.00 Designer Remaining to Bill $132,000.00 OPM Billed $ 23,950.00 Designer Billed 5114,[]00.00 Chart Legend 0 Encumbered Designer Unencumbered Unencumbered Designer Amendments Billed to Date Designer Remaining to Bill Remaining Contingency NReading Center H for Active Living 38- %YCDRpaR Designer Schematic Design Designer Budget $250,000.00 Designer Funds Allocated $160,000.00 Designer Encumbered $ 160,000.00 Designer Unencumbered $0.00 Designer Amendments $0.00 Designer Remaining to Bill $ 132,000.00 Designer Billed $ 28,000.00 Reading Center for Active Living Name ReCAL Master Project Schedule Date: Mon 12/2/24 DeIN lJ p'25 39 Public Outreach and Approval 126 days Public Newsletter #1 (Project Update. 15 days Public Newsletter #2 (Status 3 days Update/Forum Notice) Public Forum #1 (Site Selection 1 day Reasons, Conceptual Design) Public Newsletter #3 (Status 3 days Update/Forum Notice) Public Forum #2 (Design Update) 1 day Public Newsletter #4 (Status 3 days Update/Forum Notice) Public Forum #3 (Design +Cost UpdatI day Public Outreach Period 38 days Prepare Town Warrant 7 days Town Election 1 day April Town Meeting 1 day Special Election (estimated) 1 day Mon 11/4/24 Mon 11/4/24 Wed 11/27/24 Tue 12/17/24 Thu 1/9/25 Tue 1/28/25 Fri 2/14/25 Wed 3/5/25 Thu 3/6/25 Mon 2/24/25 Tue 4/8/25 Mon 4/28/25 Tue 6/17/25 Mon 4/28/25 Fri 11/22/24 Fri 11/29/24 Tue 12/17/24 Mon 1/13/25 Tue 1/28/25'1 Tue Wed 3/5/25 I Mon 4/28/25 Tue 3/4/25 Tue 4/8/25 Mon 4/28/25 Tue 6/17/25 40 41 4z 43 44 45 46 47 46 49 50 51 54 ( Pre Design Planning 393 days Tue 12/1/15 Thu 6/1/17 6o ReCALC Work 347 days Mon 11/1/21 Tue 2/28/23 -- Architect Selection 46 days Sun 10/1/23 Mon 12/4/23 61 Feasibility Study 140 days Tue 12/5/23 Mon 6/17/24 64 OPM Selection 90 days Mon 7/1/24 Fri 10/18/24 67 PBC Final Site Selection 34 days Thu 10/3/24 Tue 11/19/24 105 Schematic Design 116 days Wed 11/13/24 Wed 4/23/25 106 j Establish Stakeholder Working Groups days Wed 11/13/24 Tue 11/19/24 IV Establish Sustainability Working Grou5 days Wed 11/13/24 Tue 11/19/24 toe Draft Project Budget 40 days Tue 11/19/24 Man 1/13/25 tog Schematic Design 58 days Wed 11/20/24 Fri 2/7/25 110 Geotech Site Investigation 12 days Wed 11/20/24 Thu 12/5/24 111 Edge Sports Mtg 1 day Tue 11/26/24 Tue 11/26/24 1 II Ill 112 Sustainability WG 1 1 day Tue 12/3/24 Tue 12/3/24 113 Stakeholder WG 1 1 day Wed 12/4/24 Wed 12/4/24 ■ 114 Exec Comm Planning Mtg 03 1 day Thu 12/5/24 Thu 12/5/24 tl 115 PBC Mtg 03 1 day Tue 12/1D/24 Tue 12/10/24 1 ■ Page 1 of 3 ReCAL Master Project Schedule Reading Center for Active Living Date: Mon 12/2/24 ip Unk Name u�alon start r�6: �A1u'15 •^.r :'s �r.i Dec'l-l1 Il '25 to,, J l i 1S 1 2! 4 I I 116 Sustainability WG 2 Stakeholder WG 2 Sustainability WG 3 Exec Comm Planning Mtg 04 1 day 1 day 1 day 1 day Tue 12/17/24 Wed 12/18/24 Tue 1/7/25 Tue 1/7/25 Tue 12/.171.74 Wed 12/18/24 Tue 1/7/25 Tue 1/7/25 11 N N 117 118 119 120 Stakeholder WG 3 PBC Mtg 04 1 day 1 day Wed 1/8/25 Tue 1/14/25 Wed 1/8/25 Tue 1/14/25 ■ 8 121 122 Sustainability WG 4 1 day Tue 1/14/25 Tue 1/14/25 N t 9 Stakeholder WG 4 PBC Mtg 05? 1 day 1 day Wed 1/15/25 Tue 1/21/25 Wed 1/15/25 Tue 1/21/25 ■ ■ 124 125 Sustainability WG 5 1 day Tue 1/28/25 Tue 1/28/25 11 126 Stakeholder WG 5 SD Design Review SD Cost Estimate j Sustainability WG 6 1 day 9 days 12 days 1 day Wed 1/29/25 Mon 2/10/25 Mon 2/10/25 Tue 2/11/25 Wed 1/29/25 Thu 2/20/25 Tue 2/25/25 Tue 2/11/25 11 --A - ■ 127 12a 123 130 Stakeholder WG 6 PBC Mtg 06? Sustainability WG 7 1 day 1 day 1 day Wed 2/12/25 Tue 2/18/25 Tue 2/25/25 Wed 2/12/25 Tue 2/18/25 Tue 2/25/25 ■ ■ ■ 131 132 137 Stakeholder WG 7 1 day Wed 2/26/25 Wed 2/26/25 134 Estimate Review and Reconciliation PBC Mtg 07? Sustainability WG 8 Stakeholder WG 8 PBC Mtg 08? 3 days 1 day 1 day 1 day 1 day Wed 2/26/25 Tue 3/4/25 Tue 3/11/25 Wed 3/12/25 Tue 3/18/25 Fri 2/28/25 Tue 3/4/25 Tue 3/11/25 Wed 3/12/25 Tue 3/18/25 ■ II 11 ■ 135 136 137 1136 139 Sustainability WG 9 Stakeholder WG 9 1 day 1 day Tue 3/25/25 Wed 3/26/25 Tue 3/25/25 Wed 3/26/25 11 ■ 140 141 Sustainability WG 10 Stakeholder WG 10 PBC Mtg 09? 1 day 1 day 1 day Tue 4/8/25 Wed 4/9/25 Tue 4/15/25 Tue 4/8/25 Wed 4/9/25 Tue 4/15/25 ■ N 142 143 1d4 PBC Mtg 10? 1 day Tue 4/22/25 Tue 4/22/25 ■ 145 Sustainability WG 11 Stakeholder WG 11 PBC Community Outreach 1 day 1 day 119 days Tue 4/22/25 Wed 4/23/25 Wed 11/13/24 Tue 4/22/25 Wed 4/23/25 Mon 4/28/25 ■ N' 146 147 - 148 Establish Communication Working Communications WG 1 Prepare Press Release 42 (Project Gr5 days 1 day 5 days Wed 11/13/24 Wed 11/20/24 Wed 11/20/24 Tue 11/19/24 Wed 11/20/24 Tue 11/26/24 - 149 750 Update, Forum Notice) 151 Set Up Project Website Communications Video 10 days 1 day Wed 11/20/24 Mon 11/25/24 Tue 12/3/24 Mon 11/25/24 N 152 137 Create Video 01 for Website 15 days Wed 11/20/24 Tue 12/10/24 Page 2 of 3 Reading Center for Active Living ReCAL Master Project Schedule Date: Mon 12/2/24 10ak Name uran¢n )smn Ir—n tSA Communications WG 2 1 day Wed 13/Z7/24 Wed 11/27124 155 Communications Vision Mtg 1 day Wed 12/4/24 iWed 12/4/24 156 Communications WG 3 11 day Wed 12/4/24 Wed 12/4/24 157 Communications WG 4 ',1 day Wed 12/11/24 .Wed 12/11/24 156 Communications WG 5 1 day Wed 12/18/24 ',Wed 12/18/24 159 Prepare Press Release #3 (Project '16 days Wed 12/18/24 'Wed 1/8/25 Wetl 4/2/25 Update, Forum Notice) Communications WG 15 J3 day Wed 4/16125 160 Create Video 02 for Website 25 days Wed 12/16/24 Tue 1/21/25 161 Communications WG 6 11 day Wed 1/8/25 Wed 1/8/25 162 Communications WG 7 it day Wed 1/22/25 Wed 1/22/25 167 Communications WG 8 11 day Wed 1/29/25 iWed 1/29/25 164 Prepare Press Release #4 (Project 112 days Wed 1/29/25 Thu 2/13/25 Mon 313AS Wed 2/12/25 Hied 2119/25 Wed 2118/25 Wed 3/3/25 Mon 4/28125 Wed 3/19/25 Wed Al2/25 Wed 411r:12s Wed 9/10/25 Wed 7/30125 Wed 8/13125 Wed 9/10/25 Tue 8/5125 Wed 12/3125 Wed 2/4126 Wed 4/15/26 Wed 5/27726 Wed 12/8/77 Wed 1/5/28 Wed 1/19/28 Wed 1117/29 Page 3 of 3 Update, Forum Notice) 166 Create Video 03 for Webslte 23 days Thu 113DAS 166 Communications WG9 ;1 day Wed 1/12/25 167 Communications WG 10 1 day Wed 2/19/75 166 Communications WG 11 1 day Wed 2/26/23 169 Communications WG 12 1 day Wed 3/5/25 170 Engage in Public Outreach 38 days Thu 316175 171 Communications WG 13 1 day Wed 3/19/25 172 Communications WG 14 11 day Wetl 4/2/25 173 Communications WG 15 J3 day Wed 4/16125 174 Design Development ;96 days Wed 4/30/2S 175 Design Development 166 days Wed 4/30/25 176 DD Design Review 110 days Thu 7/31125 177 DD Cost Estimate 115 days Thu 8121/25 76 Site Plan Approvals 140 days Wed 5/11/25 179 Contractor 160 days Thu 9111/25 Solicitation/Prequa life cation 180 Construction Documents 1105 days Thu 9/11/25 tet Bid & Award 150 days Thu 2/5/26 162 Permitting 1130 days Thu 4/16/26 183 Construction 1400 days Thu 5/28/26 784 Commissioning ;20 days Thu 12/9/27 tes Owner Move In :10 days Thu 1/6/28 186 Close Out 270 days Thu 1/6/28 Mon 313AS Wed 2/12/25 Hied 2119/25 Wed 2118/25 Wed 3/3/25 Mon 4/28125 Wed 3/19/25 Wed Al2/25 Wed 411r:12s Wed 9/10/25 Wed 7/30125 Wed 8/13125 Wed 9/10/25 Tue 8/5125 Wed 12/3125 Wed 2/4126 Wed 4/15/26 Wed 5/27726 Wed 12/8/77 Wed 1/5/28 Wed 1/19/28 Wed 1117/29 Page 3 of 3 COMMUNICATIONS RECAE_Vis.ion Statement The Reading Center for Active Living (RECAL) will be a community asset, designed to support the Mission Statements of Elder & Human Services, Recreation, and Veterans Divisions. RECAL seeks to foster health and wellness by promoting social interaction, strengthening the community, and providing a point of access to programs and services for all ages. RECAL Mission Statement The Town of Reading created multiple guiding principles for the Center for Active Living in order to provide an inclusive, welcoming, and supportive space that meets the interests and needs of the growing 60+ population. The Reading Center for Active Living embraces a dynamic approach promoting growth and healthy aging by enhancing the social, cognitive, and physical lives of our senior population. RECAL will also provide additional indoor recreational space for all age groups. R...ECAL.G.ui_ding Prin_ciple.s. 1. RECAL will be age -friendly and welcoming to everyone. 2. The design will include a senior hub with designated spaces to support the full range of programs and services to meet the growing needs of Reading's age 60+ residents offering full day, weekend, and evening hours. 3. RECAL will include designated space for recreation and veterans' offices and shared spaces to provide recreational and/or community -building opportunities for all ages. 4. The Center will ensure safety and accessibility both inside and outside the facility through thoughtful design and operation. 5. The Center will promote social equality and maximize access to programs and services to all members of the community. 6. The facility will be environmentally conscious, strive to be carbon neutral, and will leave a legacy of responsible design and operation. FAX: (781) 942-9071 Email: iwellman w readinLlma.gov FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: NOVEMBER 26, 2024 Towii of Reading 16 Lowell Street Reading, MA 01867-2685 Administrative Services Department (781)942-6637 CONTACT: Jayne Wellman: 781-942-6637 Assistant Town Manager (READING, MA- NOVEMBER 26, 2024) —The Town of Reading took a big step on Wednesday, November 19 as the Select Board voted unanimously to select Symonds Way as the preferred site to construct a new Center for Active Living (ReCAL). ReCAL will address shortcomings of the current Pleasant Street Senior Center, while also providing additional resources that will serve the community at large. The program includes indoor and outdoor recreational spaces as well as meeting and group activity rooms and a cafe, with extended hours of operation to accommodate various parts of the community. "After nearly a decade of studying the changing community demographics and priorities, we are now at a stage where we can put it all together in the design of a new facility that will serve the community for years to come," said Town Manager Matt Kraunelis. "The building will provide improved resources for the growing number of age 60+ residents of our community, while also including resources and programs that serve all age groups." After completing an extensive feasibility study in the Spring of 2024, the Town hired Turner & Townsend Heery as the owner's project manager (OPM) last month to work with the Permanent Building Committee on the planning and design of this new public facility. Current timelines indicate Reading residents will have the opportunity to vote on both the new Center for Active Living and the new Killam Elementary School in 2025. A public forum will be held on Tuesday December 17 at the Pleasant Street Center that will introduce the initial ReCAL design concepts to the public and gather community feedback. The Permanent Building Committee is beginning work on a project website that will serve as a portal to the latest information and provide a communication feedback tool for residents. Assistant Town Manager Jayne Wellman welcomes project inquiries from the public at iwellman@readingma.gov. For background information on the project please visit the ReCALC Feasibility webpage at https://www.readingma.gov/900/ReCALC-FeasibilitV-Study. RECAL' V Reading Center for Active Living cc Community studies highlighted the urgent need for a new senior center over the past decade. Needs Assessment by UMass Gerontology confirmed: o The current building is too small and outdated. o Space constraints limit program variety and operational efficiency. o Overcrowding restricts service to the growing number of participants. o Demand for a larger, more functional space increases to meet community needs. shk ': 7' ■ On November 13, 2024, the Permanent Building Committee (PBC), in collaboration with the Reading Center for Active Living Committee (RECALC), the Council on Aging (COA), and the Select Board (SB), voted unanimously to select Symonds Way as the site for the RECAL Project. READING '.t;;S�;�C. H USET ri • • Actively engaged the community, gathering feedback through surveys and public meetings. • Community -driven studies laid the foundation for ReCalc's formation in 2021 to address the need for a new Senior/Community Center. • Collaborative environmental and feasibility studies evaluated site options and identified key challenges. • ReCalc built on this shared input, researching best practices and consulting experts to ensure a tailored solution. • Strong collaboration among all committees, boards, and the community resulted in the selection of the ideal site for the project. • Plenty of opportunities for community engagement are available in the coming months. • Monthly status updates shared through various newsletters. • The Permanent Building Committee plans to host 3 public outreach forums. • To stay engaged go to www. Read i ng ma.gov/RECAL RECAL' iA- Reading Center for Active Living Mission Statement www.Readingma.gov/RECAL The Reading Center for Active Living (RECAL) will be a community asset, designed to support the Mission Statements of Elder & Human Services, Recreation, and Veterans Divisions. RECAL seeks to foster health and wellness by promoting social interaction, strengthening the community, and providing a point of access to programs and services for all ages. Vision statement The Reading Center for Active Living (RECAL) will be a community asset, designed to support the Mission Statements of Elder & Human Services, Recreation, and Veterans Divisions. RECAL seeks to foster health and wellness by promoting social interaction, strengthening the community, and providing a point of access to programs and services for all ages. Current Timeline November 13 Site Selection January 28 Public Forum #2 Design Updates December 17 March 3 Public Public Forum #3 Forum 41 Cost, and Community Vote Site Selection Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) April Town Meeting 2025 Town Wide Vote How will the needs of seniors be prioritized in the planning_process? Feedback from seniors is integral in shaping the facility. We have conducted surveys, held community meetings, and invited seniors to participate in focus groups to make sure their voices are heard in every step of the process When will the town have the chance to vote on the new Center for Active Living? Citizens will have the opportunity to vote on the new Center for Active Living as part of the upcoming town meeting in April. This vote will determine the direction of the project and ensure that the community has a say in the next steps of the process. How can I get involved in the planning_process moving forward? The Town of Reading has created a website for the RECAL timeline, updates and meetings. Follow us on Facebook or scan the QR code to go to www.readingma.gov/RECAL m tip win f�' ... rn IP co ��. • �. BMW ti 0=4 b � t ..� 0 � rt C 00 K n "I C 3 2 s PON � r vn I SUSTAINABILITY Reading Center for Active Living ReCAL Su:;laii1A)ill ly [.1"�Ailiq No 1 Dccr:mbti:r :", 2024 Agenda • Review Code Requirements • Elective Options ■ Reducing Building Energy use ■ Reducing Embodied Carbon (CO2 emission) ■ Other community example —Newton Center for Active Living ■ Building Structural consideration ■ Mechanical system consideration ■ Onsite Energy Generation ■ Setting Goals ■ Passive House ■ Net Zero Code Requirement Compliance Pathways 1. Relative Performance—ASH RAE 90.1-2019 + Amended Appendix G • Description: Utilizes ASHRAE 90.1-2019 standards with adjustments outlined in Amended Appendix G. • Implementation: MEP Engineer can perform the ASH RAE energy modeling internally 2. Targeted Performance —Thermal Energy Demand Intensity (TED 1) • Description: Focuses on achieving targeted performance through reduced thermal energy demand intensity. • Implementation: MEP Engineer or a third -party consultant can perform TEDI modeling. 3. Certified Performance — Passive House • Description: Requires adherence to Passive House standards for certification. • Cost: $$$ • Implementation: Involves a third -party Passive House Verifier and Certified Passive House Consultant to ensure compliance and secure certification WOOD FRAMED BUILDING Envelop — Example of Prescriptive target STRUCTURE R -VALUE 1. ROOF 2. WALLS —ABOVE GRADE 3. WALLS — BELOW GRADE 4. FLOORS 5. FLOORS — SLAB ON GRADE FENESTRATION VERTICAL (0-40%) 1. OPAQUE 2. SKYLIGHT 3. WINDOWS 1. FIXED 2. OPERABLE R-30 c.i. - Continuous Insulation R-19 + R5 c.i. R-7.5 c.i. R-30 R-15 for 24" from perimeter U=0.3 (R=3.3); SHGC 0.38 (Solar Heat Gain Coefficient) U=0.5 (R=2); SHGC = 0.4 U=0.30 (R=3.3); SHGC = 0.38 U=0.32 (R=3.1); SHGC = 033 ROOF TOP SOLAR READINESS - MANDATORY Reducing Building Energy Use Reduce Carbon Footprint CChlc�a;v Guidance ENVELOPE BACKSTOP COMPLIANCE A+B+C+D+E Pas AGER Guidarloe ENVELOPE BACKSTOP COMPLIANCE A+B+C+D+E Parr Percent of Green (louse Gas Reduction (2,3% CAOB.B ENHANCED ENVELOPE COMPLIANCE A+B+C+D+E Pass CA021.5 ENVELOPE BACKSTOP COMPLIANCE AtB+CtQ* F.rl Percent of Green House Gas Reduction t4 vwU eU G � V Cl)v Cq ED Reduce Carbon Footprint CChlc�a;v Guidance ENVELOPE BACKSTOP COMPLIANCE A+B+C+D+E Pas AGER Guidarloe ENVELOPE BACKSTOP COMPLIANCE A+B+C+D+E Parr Percent of Green (louse Gas Reduction (2,3% CAOB.B ENHANCED ENVELOPE COMPLIANCE A+B+C+D+E Pass CA021.5 ENVELOPE BACKSTOP COMPLIANCE AtB+CtQ* F.rl Percent of Green House Gas Reduction Energy Usage Intensity - Target 35% to 50% Energy Use Reduction Case Study: NewCAL - Newton Center for Active Living ANW& EUI = 108 21% Glazing Existing Senior Center 11,000 SF Design Goal Considerations ■ High-performance building strategies with Energy Modeling throughout the design process Net Zero Equivalent strategies, with minimized operational costs ■ Onsite Energy Renewals (Solar, Geothermal) Embody Carbon Life Cycle Analysis early and often in Design phases Assist with Federal Funding Sources such as Inflation Reduction Act ■ Budget Controls EUI = 56 30% Glazing Stretch Code 32,000 SF EUI EUI 36.5 29 Design Case Highest Efficiency 32,000 SF Alternative 32,000 SF Energy Use Analysis in a Building Case Study: NewCAL - Newton Center for Active Living SITE ENERGY CONSUMPTION BY END-USE (REGULAR OCCUPANCY) CODE BASELINE 0% 13% 36.5 Btu/sf-Yr EUI nW ' 10% DESIGN CASE 'EUI includes energy use savings from On -Site PV as per 0406,5 Requirements Lights M Misc. Equip 13% 6 Space Heating 29 -Space Cooling tW/sf-Yr E Y HP Supplemental Heating I Pumps & Aux 11 ■Vent Fans ■ DHW Other Misc ZNE ALTERNATIVE Heat Rejection Embodied Carbon of a Building Ready -mix, foundations - 35.1% PVC windows - 17.0% Rebar - 2.8% Bricks - 1.8% Natural stone - 1.1 % Structural steel - 27.6% Other steel/iron - 6.9% Fibre cement - 2.4% Timber - 1.4% Other resource types - 3.9% Concrete 35% eel Embodied Carbon Breakdown r Construction Materials Transportation to Site Material Replacement and Refurbishment End Of Life Detail Energy Analysis and Cost comparison Site Energy Use Savings (MMBtu/Yr) - Enhanced Case TUI (kBtu/SF- Description Lights Mlsc. Space Space Pumps 8 Vent Fans DHW Other Misc Heat -action Total yr) 308.632 Total Site Energy use E ui Hog n CoolingAux Annual En y Cost R FieddCi VRF (Basis of Design) 125.5 194.3 203.0 184-3 0.0 234 35.2 39.6 0 996 81.3 Air -Water Heat Pump/ Chiller with ER 125.5 194.3 224.6 180.2 15.5 238 35.2 39.6 0 1,053 33.1 Backup 2 759 2 fia9. Green House an pHG) Total GHG Emissions MTCO29 Energy Use, GHG Reduction and Cost Summary - Enhanced Case Description VRF (Basis of Design) Air -Water Heat Pump/ Chillerwith ER Backup Annual Site Ena sect' ' (Natural Gas kWh MMBtu 291,810 308.632 Total Site Energy use MMBtu 9B8 1.653 Annual En y Cost FieddCi S(ear $46.6901 $49,381 Natural Gas Shear 30 $0 Total EnM Cost 51 r $49,381 Annual Source Eno Total S4urceEnSIVY use MMBtu 2 759 2 fia9. Green House an pHG) Total GHG Emissions MTCO29 65.3 69.1 SITE ENERGY CONSUMPTION BY END-USE % L3% r/k ].3 si-Yr EUI is; :ex VRF (Basis of Design) a% Lights n Mlsc Equip Space Heating 33.1 Space Cooling tFSfu�S'-Yr Fl: Pumps & AUK Vent Fans u DHW Air -Water Heat Pump/ Chiller Other Mac with ER Backup a Heat Rejection Building Structural Consideration All Wood Structure Gym and Building Pro: • Least Carbon Building Footprint B: • Faster time frame • Lighter structure requires less foundation loading and less concrete used • Exposed wood beam/trusses "- - could be a design feature • Better Thermal Performance 0 Con: • Shorter Span capability • Complication with Walking Track Support • Expensive Glu -lam Beams and Cross Laminated Timber (CLT) Decking for column free span • Larger column sizes and Deeper Beams/Trusses generally • Structure is less stiff • Closer coordination needed with infrastructure—HVAC, Sprinklers, Electrical, and Plumbing 65 a! �] • a ,0 AO a, C., E! Ea ET EB F PAOCRESS P1P�Nt 1 Ig1:00F FMIMOF4• S1.5 Wood CSteel Vertical t. r i Penetration 65 a! �] • a ,0 AO a, C., E! Ea ET EB F PAOCRESS P1P�Nt 1 Ig1:00F FMIMOF4• S1.5 Wood CSteel Vertical Penetration 65 a! �] • a ,0 AO a, C., E! Ea ET EB F PAOCRESS P1P�Nt 1 Ig1:00F FMIMOF4• S1.5 Mixed Steel and Wood Gym - Steel Structure or engineered building Building - Wood Pro: - - • Long Span Capability of Steel a Gym and Walking Track Support • Straightforward Structural systegn @ Gym • More Stiff framing at Gym " • Easier infrastructure coordination - - HVAC, Sprinkler, Electrical Wood— Con: • Complication of Expansion Joint ` Steel Ea between Steel and Wood Structure Vertical • Trade Complications in public Penetration E, ee bidding environment �" - •" JF • Increased concrete and steel use Expansion with Composite Deck with Steel Joint 63 te.i i]i 4 e k0 y -_ Structure LOW - $1,3 pnou�ssr+u�vr. Hybrid Steel and Wood Wood Structure with Steel for Long Span Spaces only Pro: ° • Steel only where needed for Long Span (span exceeding wood fra'fhe and joists) • No added Composite Deck and c Concrete • Minimize on Carbon Footprint o - Con: • Complication with Trades mixing St Structure within Wood Frame • Difficulty coordinating steel beam connection detail within wood loac bearing wall, shear wall, and wood framing members. The connection details are awkward and non - standardized. • Complication to maintain fire protection ratings as steel and wood framing require different level of protection Is bFda 1•/Igl°YMII SU Mechanical System Consideration VRF (Air) Lowest Good Simplest Simplest Low Least (ceiling space for BC controller) AWHP Higher Good VRF (Geo) Highest Best More More Higher More Complicated Complicated (pumps, elec. boiler) More More Higher Most (heat Complicated Complicated pumps, pumps) Relative First Costs VRF Heat Pump Lowest (Air Source) Less expensive equipment No pumps • 2 -pipe system (1 set pipes to do simultaneous heating or cooling) • Smaller, flexible copper piping with minimal joints • Simpler pipe insulation • Integral/ packaged control system Air -Source Heat Higher PumpPum Chiller More expensive equipment Requires pumps and control valves • Requires multiple/ redundant chillers to provide simultaneous heating and cooling. • Requires 4 -pipe distribution (2 sets of piping to do simultaneous heating and cooling) • Piping is larger with many more joints. • Insulation is thicker and more expensive • Requires a supplemental electric boiler for low outdoor temperature operation • Requires separate control system VRF Heat Pump Highest with Geothermal VRF water-cooled equipment slightly more expensive than air-cooled VRF system • The piping, insulation and controls are the same as the base VRF system • The main extra cost is the wells and pumps Geothermal Considerations Wells ► Approx 20 - 600 foot closed loop wells needed (preliminary, depend on several factors) P 40 foot spacing required ► space is an issue Cost ► $35/foot for borehole drill and pipe (ballpark) ► $35 x 600 ft = $21,000/well ► 20 wells = $420,000 ► Numbers are order- of-magnitud only and not a firm estimate Envelope & Structure (Insulation and Air Infiltration Matters) Case Study: NewCAL - Newton Center for Active Living Efficient Envelope Structure: Exterior Insulation — Thermal Bridge Free Air -tight Enclosure (< 0.08 Air Exchange Hour) High-performance windows with high SHGC (Triple Glazing) Wood framed construction reduces the carbon footprint of construction Minimize use of concrete and steel (over 50% of Embody Carboi in construction comes from concrete and steel alone ) Goal to decarbonize the structure using CLT / engineered lumber �I Root ,,-Value 35 Continuous Insulation (Cl) Assembly U -Value 0 028 Exterior Wall Inlerwr Finish 6" Light gage metal ft., 24' O.0 Batt ,nsulalion iR-211 1;2" Snealhing r AVB (2" to 3-) Continuous insulaaon 1,A, space Exterior Claddng Assembly U -Value 0.045 Window Fiberglass . Insulated Glazing Unit Assembly U -Value 036 Wall (IMaaonry) Inteeor Finish 6' Light gage Metal Irame, 24" O C Ball Insulation IR -21) 1.12^ Sheathing + AVB (2" to 3') Continuous insulation I" AJ, space Eslenor Cladding Assembly U -Value 0.045 Floor (Gym) InsuWlion @ Ceilmg tarty Assembly U•Value (Assumed} 0.05 S, Fadna� rr ti mr ac Space) s. Setting Goals Reduce Building Energy Demand How: Establish realistic Energy Usage Intensity (EUI) Targets early in Design and verify at Milestones (SD, DD, CD) Harvest Site Energy How: Explore PV Solar panels (Rooftop and Parking canopy), Evaluate Ground Source/Geo-Thermal Heat pump system early with cost benefit analysis Maximize Building Efficiency How: Maximize Building Insulation and Building Envelop Air Tightness Selection of Highest Efficiency HVAC system with cost benefit analysis Accurate Energy Modeling and verify at early key Milestones (Feasibility, SD, DD) Minimize Carbon Footprint and Reduce Green House Gas and Embody Carbon (CO2 emission) How: Reduce Concrete and Steel usage during building design and Construction. Wood Construction when applicable Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) to evaluate material Embody Carbon with up-to-date Environment Product Declarations (EPD) Minimize and/or Eliminate fossil fuel use (Natural Gas) Next Level Passive House Standards — Pros and Cons Net Zero — Pros and Cons Questions and Comments a � OF R 4r �k Town of Reading Meeting Minutes �a �e ,6�9'�:�roxQ°p1 Board - Committee - Commission - Council: Permanent Building Committee Meeting Date: 2024-11-13 Time: 7:30 PM Building: Reading Town Hall Location: Berger Room Address: 16 Lowell Street Session: Purpose: Permanent Building Committee Version: Draft Attendees: Members - Present: please see attached Members - Not Present: please see attached Others Present: please see attached Minutes Respectfully Submitted By: Brian Hromadka from Turner & Townsend Heery Topics of Discussion: Please see attached Page 1 1 L r+ Initials ,Present Title Role Email Chair, PBC, TOR ptompkins@ctaconstruction.com v Patrick Tompkins PT gas:1NCWRpo�` ..: (781) 942-9043 Project: Reading Center for Active Living Project No: TTH# HII-2408100 Meeting No: PBC — ReCAL 02 Location: Zoom/Town Hall (Hybrid) Date: 2024-11-13 @ 7:30PM Recorded By: B. Hromadka Purpose: Reading Center for Active Living File: 1809300 - A02-00 Attachments: Role Call Sheet. Meeting Packet Abbreviations: BH+A - Bargmann Hendrie + Archetype, Inc. N COA - Council on Aging kirk.mccormick@hotmail.com OPM - Owner's Project Manager IVancy Ziemlak PBC - Permanent Building Committee N ReCAL - Reading Center for Active Learning njziemlak@gmail.com RDTC - Reading Daily Times Chronicle Mark Dockser RCTV - Reading Community Television N SBC - Killam School Building Committee mark.dockser@ci.reading.ma.us SD - Schematic Design Michael Nazzaro TOR - Town of Reading N TTH - Turner & Townsend Heery MEETING MINUTES# 02 Attendees Initials ,Present Title Role Email Chair, PBC, TOR ptompkins@ctaconstruction.com Tel. Patrick Tompkins PT N (781) 942-9043 IVancy Twomey NT N Vice Chair, PBC, TOR nj2me@comcast.net (781) 942-9043 John Coote JC N Member, PBC, TOR jas.coote@verizon.net (781) 942-9043 Gregory Stepler ! GS ! N Member, PBC, TOR gregory_stepler@yahoo.com (781) 942-9043 Kirk McCormick KM N Member, PBC, TOR kirk.mccormick@hotmail.com (781) 942-9043 IVancy Ziemlak NZ N Member, PBC -ReCAL, COA, TOR njziemlak@gmail.com (781) 942-9043 Mark Dockser MD N Mmber, PBC -ReCAL, Select Board, TOR mark.dockser@ci.reading.ma.us (781) 942-9043 Michael Nazzaro MN N Associate, PBC, TOR mpnazzaro@verizon.net (781) 942-9043 Ari Greenberg AG ❑ Associate, PBC, TOR arisgreenberg@gmail.com (781) 942-9043 Add. Attendees Initials Present Company (Role) Email Tel. Matt Kraunelis MK ❑ Town Manager, TOR mkraunelis@readingma.gov (781) 942-9043 'Jayne Wellman JW N Asst. Town Manager, TOR jwellman@readingma.gov (781) 942-6637 'lenna Wood JWD N Community Services Director, TOR jwood@readingma.gov (781) 942-6672 'loe Huggins JH ❑ Director of Facilities, TOR jhuggins@readingma.gov (781) 670-2824 Add. Attendees Initials Present Company (Role) Email Tel. www.turnerandtownsend.com Page 11 of www.heery.com (Kevin Cabuzzi KC ❑ Assistant Director of Facilities, TOR kcabuzzi@ci.reading.ma.us (781) 942-5492 Katie Gabriello KG ❑ Director of Operations, TOR kgabriello@readingma.gov (781) 942-6696 Chris Kowaleski CK ❑ Elder and Human Services Administrator ckowaleski@readingma.gov (781) 942-6796 Marilyn Shapleigh MS M Reading Council on Aging shapleigh.marilyn@gmail.com (781) 942-6794 Brian Hromadka BH ❑x Turner & Townsend Heery (OPM) brian.hromadka@turntown.com (978) 572-6509 Chuck Adam CA ❑ Turner & Townsend Heery (OPM) chuck.adam@turntown.com (978) 500-5435 Peter Collins PC ❑ Turner & Townsend Heery (OPM) peter.collins@turntown.com (617) 823-3265 'Joel Bargmann JB ® Bargmann Hendrie + Archetype, Inc. jbargmann@bhplus.com (617) 350-0450 Jeremy Tobin JT ❑ Bargmann Hendrie + Archetype, Inc. jtobin@bhplus.com (617) 350-0450 Carla Nazzaro CN ❑x Chair, Killam School Building Committee carla.nazzaro@reading.k12.ma.us Bob Holmes BHM ® News Editor, RDTC, RCN 4dd. Distribution Initials Present Title Role Email Tel. Mtg - Item OLD BUSINESS TTH recommended using the same site evaluation tool that was put together by BH+A for ReCAL and provided an overview of how the tool works and how customized input can be provided in the final section of the tool. NT commented about weighting each site location within the evaluation tool. Site locations and past survey results related to location were discussed. MD & JWD provided insights from ReCAL's use of the tool, including consideration of location and community feedback. NZ provided feedback from COA noting that Symonds Way appeared to be the preferred site. PT solicited feedback on the weighting of each evaluation category. MD recommended looking closer at the operational costs in the future and perhaps bring on an outside consultant to assist. JC noted the importance of considering location relative to users and the pros and cons of the Pleasant Street site. Various categories were also discussed including the ability for each evaluator to use the 20 discretionary points to fine tune the survey to their individual values. The PBC agreed to increase the weighting of traffic (#3) and use categories (#9) by 0.5 points and lower the weighting of operational costs (#8) and sustainability (#11) by 0.5 points due to the known information on these categories at this time. It was agreed that the final selection would be made after input from the selection tool was reviewed by the PBC. A vote on the preferred site is planned for their next meeting. Meeting #2 update: Due Date I Status Open www. turnerandtownsend.com Page 12 of 5 www.heery.com Mtg - Item OLD BUSINESS ALL PBC members submitted written feedback on site evaluations. BH+A compiled and tabulated data. Data was evaluated with/without category weightings, with/without removal of individual categories, with/without high/low scores and with/without subjective weightings. The Symonds Way location scored highest in all categories, except for the subjective weightings in which Symonds and Oakland scores were nearly tied. After reviewing the data, the PBC discussed the merits of the sites: PT noted the abutter issue at Oakland Way. JC commented on how Symonds Way was the perfect site, though the longer travel distance to Symonds Way might have a negative impact on users. PT suggested the PBC refer to the data collected from the Town relative to location which pointed to the distance being less of a concern. NZ noted that many people initially preferred the Oakland Road location, but when looking at all the factors chose Symonds Way. GS noted that the longer distance would likely have a negligible impact on access as many people will drive to both sites. MD felt downtown would be preferable, but as there were no suitable sites in that area, Symonds Way was the best option. He also noted that many people travel to other communities to access similar facilities, and travel arrangements will need to be looked at going forward to support the community. JC and MD discussed the future use of the Pleasant Street Center facility. PT and JC discussed the higher costs for the Pleasant Street site and its lack of outdoor recreational space. NT said she initially preferred the Oakland site, but when reviewing the details found the Symonds Way location better including the notion that Symonds Way would be a recreational hub. JWD confirmed that Symonds Way is very actively used. JW and others agreed that users will go to the facilities that have the desired programs. KM noted that there would likely be abutter objection at Oakland Road which could derail the project. JWD' confirmed that there was significant objection from residents in that area including a petition by about 100 residents. Symonds Way abutters had no objections. GS noted that no site was perfect, all had merits, but Symonds Way was a good compromise which was confirmed by the data. MN felt that Oakland Road has good features, but Symonds Way can be a good location for a future community and recreation center and doesn't have some of the challenges that the Oakland Road location has. MS noted that North Andover relocated its Center from the downtown to the outskirts and without any loss of current users and an increase in additional users. Transportation methods were addressed as part of that change. NT made a motion to recommend the Symonds Way location as the preferred site for the ReCAL facility. KM Seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. The Select Board will review the site recommendation at their meeting on 11/19/24. www.turnerandtownsend.coni Page 13 of 5 www.heery.com I OLD BUSINESS Mtg - Item NEW BUSINESS CALL TO ORDER Assignment Due Date Status Mtg - Item Assignment Due Date Status 02-01 01-08 iWORKING GROUPS Closed Closed The PBC discussed setting up working groups to help support 02-02 the PBC and bring in other stakeholders to provide input on Role call was taken by PT. Refer to attached Role Call Sheet. NEXT STEPS — Schedule Undate the project. Three main groups were identified including 02-09 Closed communications, sustainability and overall design/use. PBC TTH outlined the updated project schedule and the tight time members will consider potential member selections in frame for the schematic design which is determined by the site preparation for PBC review. Recommendations can be sent to selection and the April town meeting. Three public forums will JWD or JW. Further discussion and participant selection will be scheduled during the schematic design stage for public be targeted for the next meeting. Input. While the schematic design timeframe is tight, the IMeeting #2 update: project team feels like it can be accomplished At the end of this The PBC reviewed a list of potential working group members phase the project will have a set cost and overall design. and discussed some revisions to the list. The Stakeholder and Additional design decisions and explorations can be made Sustainability groups will meet biweekly with the design team during the next design stage. The PBC will monitor the existing following the final site selection. The Communications group timeframe going forward and make adjustments if needed. will begin with weekly meetings. The PBC discussed the merits Refer to meeting packet for full schedule. of how the groups should best be staffed to ensure proper NEXT STEPS — Uncoming Meetings representation in each group. A decision was made to staff Closed the working groups as follows: • Communications: JW, KG, MD, NZ, CK, MK, Josh Delaune, TTH • Stakeholder: JWD, NT, MN, MK, MS, Jean Prato, Jim Sullivan, Anna Assini, BH+A, TTH ■ Sustainability: JH, KC, MK, AG, GS, BH+A, TTH wwwAur erandtownsenrl.com Page 14 of 5 www.heery.com NEW BUSINESS CALL TO ORDER Mtg - Item Assignment Due Date Status 02-01 Closed The meeting was called to order by PT at 7:30pm ROLE CALL 02-02 Closed Role call was taken by PT. Refer to attached Role Call Sheet. NEXT STEPS — Schedule Undate 02-09 Closed TTH outlined the updated project schedule and the tight time frame for the schematic design which is determined by the site selection and the April town meeting. Three public forums will be scheduled during the schematic design stage for public Input. While the schematic design timeframe is tight, the project team feels like it can be accomplished At the end of this phase the project will have a set cost and overall design. Additional design decisions and explorations can be made during the next design stage. The PBC will monitor the existing timeframe going forward and make adjustments if needed. Refer to meeting packet for full schedule. NEXT STEPS — Uncoming Meetings 02-09 Closed A meeting of the communications working group was scheduled for 11/20 @ ipm. wwwAur erandtownsenrl.com Page 14 of 5 www.heery.com _ NEW BUSINESS Mtg - Item Assignment Due Date Status The Select Board will review the site recommendation at their meeting on 11/19/24 and potentially vote on the site. TTH will prepare a presentation for this meeting. The next PBC meeting will be scheduled for 12/10 @ 6pm. 02-10 APPROVAL OF MINUTES. Closed A motion to approve the meeting minutes from 11/04/2024 was made by NT and seconded by MD. David Swyter will be removed from the PBC list. Schematic design will be completed in early 2025. A detailed list of activities is documented in the project schedule. A role call vote was taken. The motion passed unanimously. 02-11 90JOURNMENT Closed A motion to adjourn was made by NT and seconded by MD. A role call vote was taken. The meeting adjourned at 9:15 pm. FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS Vision Statement, Working Group Updates, Public Forum, Invoice Approvals Next Meeting: December loth, 6pm, Zoom/In person (Hybrid) END OF MINUTES. The above summarizes Turner & Townsend Heery's interpretation of items discussed, and decisions reached during this meeting. Additions or corrections must be submitted in writing to the author within three days ofreceipt; otherwise, the minutes will stand as written. www.turnera ddtownsend.com Page 15 of 5 www.heery.com Fn IF rs �. • l9e lgi6RPa�',. Project: Reading Center for Active Living Project No: TTH# HII-2408100 Meeting No: PBC — ReCAL 02 Location: Zoom/Town Hall (Hybrid) Date: 2024-11-13 @ 7:30PM Recorded By: B. Hromadka Purpose: Reading Center for Active Living File: 1809300 — A02-00 ROLE CALL VOTE SHEET PBC ATTENDEES Name Vole 1 Vote 2 Vote 3 Vote 4 Vote 5 Vote 6 Vote 7 Vote 6 Vole 9 Patrick Tompkins - Chair ,J 4 Nancy Twomey — Vice Chair 4 4 John Coote - Member 4 4 Gregory Stepler - Member 4 Kirk McCormick - Member 4 •I �l �l Nancy Ziemlak - Member •I �l �I Mark Dockser - Member Michael Nazzaro - Associate Ari Greenberg -Associate NPV Vote 1 Roll Call Vote 2 Vote to Recommend Symonds Way as the preferred site for the ReCAL facility Vote 3 Approval of meeting minutes from 1110412024. Vote 4 Adjournment 4 - is a YES vote NPV is Not Present for Vote AB is Abstained