Consider lighting retrofit for parking ramp project

In 2005, Improvement Project 02-34 consisted of 590 stalls of structured parking within the COR. The decision was made at the time to install 100 watt metal halide light fixtures.

In August of this year, a contract was awarded to Knutson Construction that would add an additional 200 stalls to the existing parking ramp. Improvement Project 10-22 included a design that perpetuated the existing light fixtures to give a consistent look throughout the entire parking structure. In light of the discussion last year about the retrofitting of the Public Works facility, Staff requested a change order for the change-out of the existing fixtures with LED and fluorescent lighting fixtures. As we saw in the Public Works retrofit case the cost to change to LED light fixtures came in extremely high and are expected to near $220,000.

In conversations with Connexus Energy, LED street lights are becoming more and more popular because costs continue to decline. This is typical in the lighting society. Costs decline in the street lighting fixtures and eventually that cost competitiveness is then passed on to the parking ramp and transit uses.

 N/A

It is evident from our discussions early on in this project that it would be very expensive to change the design of the parking structure to include LED light fixtures (~$220,000) and therefore Staff focused on a fluorescent option. Within a parking facility there are standards that need to be met to comply with building code. The Illuminating Engineering Society IES has a standard that is very well. Attached to this case is a page from the IES manual that identifies those standards. The original light fixture met that standard. Staff has had many conversations with the architect, Connexus, Knutson and the subcontractor, Mayer Electric to these standards and have concurred that it is critical to meet these standards as it is nationally accepted. Leo Offerman of Connexus Energy will be present at the meeting if there are any questions regarding these standards.

Whereas there are many options regarding fluorescent fixtures, the one chosen has been proven in other outdoor facilities (Maple Grove transit facility), performs well in cold weather environments and meets the IES standards.

Also attached to this case is an energy analysis that takes a look at the costs of operating the parking facility and specifically identifies the portion of the cost that is attributable to lighting. About 45 percent of the energy used is because of the lighting of the facility. The other 55% of the bill is attributable to the heating and cooling of the stair elevator tower. 

Since the purpose of this case is to consider each of three options that are available for lighting only, Staff has normalized this discussion by providing a cost to operate the lighting system at $26,412 annually. The following three options have been priced by Knutson Construction and are included for discussion.

1) Stay with the existing 100 w metal halide light fixture

Pros

Consistent light fixtures throughout the entire parking structure
No added cost to the project
Leave the ability to apply for future rebates if LED becomes competitive.

Cons

Highest electric costs of all options ($26,412) 


2) Change the design to include a fluorescent lighting fixture in the ramp expansion

Pros

Lower lighting costs ($1,393 savings per year)
Capital cost reduction in Contract ($2,749)

Cons

Inconsistency in light fixtures between old and new ramp


3) Install new fluorescents and retrofit the existing structure with fluorescent fixtures

Pros

Lowest lighting costs ($4,649 savings per year)
Consistency of light fixtures throughout the ramp

Cons

Higher capital costs ($44,349)

In conversations with LSA Design, who has been handling the change orders through MnDOT, it is highly unlikely that we will receive approval of the use of federal funds to retrofit the existing facility. There is approximately $900,000 that was budgeted for this improvement in TIF 1.

Staff recommends staying with the existing metal halide light fixture unless MnDOT approves the request to allow the use of federal funds toward the existing ramp lights.

Motion to approve Option 3 contingent upon MnDOT allowing the use of federal funds for the change-out of the lights in the existing parking facility. (If MnDOT denies the request, then approve Option 1)