Laserfiche WebLink
Consistent light fixtures throughout the entire parking structure <br />No added cost to the project <br />Leave the ability to apply for future rebates if LED becomes competitive. <br />Cons <br />Highest electric costs of all options ($26,412) <br />2) Change the design to include a fluorescent lighting fixture in the ramp expansion <br />Pros <br />Lower lighting costs ($1,393 savings per year) <br />Capital cost reduction in Contract ($2,749) <br />Cons <br />Inconsistency in light fixtures between old and new ramp <br />3) Install new fluorescents and retrofit the existing structure with fluorescent fixtures <br />Pros <br />Lowest lighting costs ($4,649 savings per year) <br />Consistency of light fixtures throughout the ramp <br />Cons <br />Higher capital costs ($44,349) <br />Funding Source: <br />In conversations with LSA Design, who has been handling the change orders through MnDOT, it is highly unlikely <br />that we will receive approval of the use of federal funds to retrofit the existing facility. There is approximately <br />$900,000 that was budgeted for this improvement in TIF 1. <br />Staff Recommendation: <br />Staff recommends staying with the existing metal halide light fixture unless MnDOT approves the request to allow <br />the use of federal funds toward the existing ramp lights. <br />Committee Action: <br />Motion to approve Option 3 contingent upon MnDOT allowing the use of federal funds for the change -out of the <br />lights in the existing parking facility. (If MnDOT denies the request, then approve Option 1) <br />Pricing info for options 2 and 3 <br />Energy analysis <br />IE S standard <br />Attachments <br />Form Review <br />