Agenda - Public Works Committee - 03/15/2011

Home

Public Works Committee Date: 03/15/2011 By: Brian Olson Engineering/Public Works Information Title: Upate on Retro Fitting of Public Works Lighting Item #: 5. 3. Background: At the January 18th Public Works Committee meeting, staff presented a proposal from AID Electric to retro fit the lighting at the Public Works campus (this was the apparent low quote from the three quotes we received before that meeting). This proposal calls for replacing the current fixtures (metal halide and T12 flourescents) with T-8 fluorescent bulbs and ballasts, with motion sensors attached to some of the fixtures. 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. LED option Advantages 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. Flourescents Option Advantages 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) Disadvantages 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 Do nothing option Advantages Lower upfront capital costs (—$2,000) Disadvantages Highest annual electric costs Highest maintenace and bulb replacement costs