Upate on Retro Fitting of Public Works Lighting

The direction received at that January PW Committee meeting was to research LED lighting. Attached to this case is a graph that runs through the lifespan of LED versus fluorescents versus doing nothing.

 

 

Lower annual maintenance costs

Lower electric usage than flourescents or MH

Rebate is available ($4768)

Bulb lifespan ~100,000 hours

 

There really is only one disadvantage of an LED system and that is the upfront capital cost. Rob and Jonathan Rice of Titan LED came out and inspected the buildings and gathered information for the quote. The initial quote to retro fit with LED lighting is $47,316.32. Connexus energy would offer an estimated rebate of $4,768.40, bringing the total cost of the project to $42,547.92.

 

 

Lower annual electric costs than the "do nothing" option

Rebate is available (~$4060)

Upfront Cost is less than LED but more than "do nothing" option

Bulb lifespan (~20,000 hours)

 

Higher annual electric costs than the LED option

Higher Upfront costs than the "do nothing" option

Higher maintenance costs than LED option but lower than the "do nothing" option

 

 

Lower upfront capital costs (~$2,000)

 

Highest annual electric costs

Highest maintenace and bulb replacement costs

 

 

Due to fact that there are 6 existing metal halide light fixtures that are currently in need of replacement, it has become apparent that something needs to happen. In light of the fact that there is such a large upfront cost of the LED option, Staff is recommending that that option be eliminated from the discussion at this time. As the technology becomes more cost effective there may be a time that it makes sense but that is going to dictated by the market. We also appreciate going through the exercise that is depicted in the life cycle cost analysis spreadsheet. It has made it apparent that something should be done soon to control the annual electric costs.

 

That brings us to the two quotes for replacing the existing metal halide lighting fixtures with fluorescent light fixtures with motion sensors. There was two discrepancies that were mentioned during the February Public Works Committee. The first was the rebates. In discussions with Connexus (who will be available at the meeting to answer questions), there was one correction that needed to be made to the Aid quote. Any motion sensor that controls a bank of lights received a $40 rebate as the Aid proposal indicated but any motion sensor that controls a single light only receives a $5 rebate. That has been corrected in the attached revised proposal.

 

 

Public Facilities Fund (the projected balance at the end of 2011 is approximatley $128,000.00

Staff recommends that the Public Works Committee recommend to City Council approval of the project and approve contracting with AID Electric for the installation of the flourescent option and that the Aid proposal be further modified to require disposal of all fixtures as described in the Vehicle storage building.

Motion to recommend to the City Council approval of the project and approve contracting with AID Electric for installation of the flourescent option and that the Aid proposal be further modified to require disposal of all fixtures as described in the Vehicle storage building.