COURT
FACILITIES AND
FEBRUARY 4, 2009
** NOT APPROVED
Members Present: D. Pullen, G. Benson, D. Fanton,
W. Hall, T. Hopkins, T. O’Grady, C. Crandall
Others Present: L. Ballengee, D. Burdick, W. Dibble, A.
Finnemore, J. Foels, B. Hetzel, W. Higgins, K. Kruger, LaBella Associates
Representatives (M. Kukuvka, R. McClung, Rachel Stuckey), J. Margeson, M.
McCormick, T. Parker, B. Riehle, S. Spillane, K. Toot; Media: J. Loyd, Olean Times
Herald, B. Quinn, Wellsville Daily Reporter
Call to Order: 3:00 p.m. by Committee Chairman David Pullen.
Approval of
Minutes:
The
minutes of the January
7, 2009 meeting
were approved following a motion made by Legislator Hopkins, seconded by
Legislator Fanton and carried.
The minutes
of the January 26, 2009 meeting were approved following a motion made by
Legislator Hopkins, seconded by Legislator Fanton and carried.
Barbara
Hetzel:
Barbara
Hetzel, Chairman of the Allegany County Democratic Party, approached the
committee about utilization of energy efficiency and enhancement practices in
the course of the court facilities project. Ms. Hetzel voiced her opinion against the bond
issue, but now that the bond resolution has been approved by the Board, she wants
to make sure that the County tries to make the project as energy efficient as
possible, particularly in considering solar power. She also noted that we have three colleges in
the area, and would like to see their expertise used on some of the construction,
especially in regards to the solar power.
The farm at Alfred
Mr.
Pullen pointed out that the committee has already brought up the energy
efficiency issue, and LaBella Associates has been looking into it and doing
some preliminary checking with NYSERDA (their update follows).
Chairman
Crandall noted that he spoke with Ms. Hetzel about her opinion on the bond
resolution on the day that resolution was considered, and he wanted to
reiterate that none of the legislators wanted to have to do this court project
either, but action had to be taken. Since
then, he and County Administrator John Margeson have discussed green energy and
reducing energy cost issues with Alfred State College staff. They are very knowledgeable in this area and
have offered their assistance.
Mr.
Pullen commented that there has been a lot of research in this area, and we
will want the building to be as energy efficient as possible. If we can put solar panels on the roof, it
will help to reduce energy costs. There
is still the initial cost to be considered, and we have to stay within the constraints
of the approved bonding.
Ms.
Hetzel noted that she was looking into whether the Office of Court
Administration really had the authority to sanction the County for
non-compliance with the court facilities issue.
Mr. Fanton offered to give her a copy of OCA’s sanction letter and
stated that they proved their authority by citing a couple of instances where
it was done. No one on the Board wanted
to do this project, but we are being forced to.
Energy Efficiency Update, LaBella Associates:
Mark Kukuvka introduced Rachel Stuckey and Richard
McClung, both LaBella Associates LEED Accredited Professional Engineers, to
speak about energy efficiency, their capabilities, and services they can
provide. They gave examples of other
projects around the state, an update on NYSERDA, and highlighted opportunities
available to
LaBella Associates has provided services related to
NYSERDA certification and funding for over ten years. They can go through the process with the
County to see if we want to go through with it and to what extent. Funding comes from the surcharges on electric
bills, so we’re already paying into it.
LaBella is a FlexTech provider, performing energy audits of existing
facilities, recommending change, estimating payback, and monitoring changes to
document actual costs and savings. They
have been involved in Industrial Process and Productivity Improvement through
lake water source cooling, alternative technology for VOC reduction, and
recuperative burner installation. Technical Review Services are offered in the
Enhanced Commercial/Industrial Performance Program, Peak-Load Reduction
Program, and Existing Facilities Program.
NYSERDA gives funding for energy improvements on the
electrical aspects of construction. For new
construction, funding would be based on the size and complexity of enhancements:
·
Prescriptive
Measures (maximum $30,000)
·
Custom Measure
Approach (maximum $200,000)
·
·
Green Building
Option for LEED Projects (maximum $900,000)
·
Applicant LEED
Incentives ($7,500)
·
Advanced Solar
and Daylighting Incentives (maximum $200,000)
·
Peak-Load
Reduction (maximum $2,000,000)
A fairly typical design would
fall under prescriptive measures, with a set amount of money for each item
being installed. This would be the
easiest, but least lucrative. As you
move down the first four items in the list, the options increase in difficulty
and expense in order to receive the larger paybacks. LaBella would guide the County through a cost
in/cost out analysis.
Mr. Pullen questioned if some of the listed options were
cumulative or a choice of either/or. Ms.
Stuckey replied that the first four items are on an either/or basis and the
last three are add-on items.
Mr. Kruger asked about the stability of the funding, and
Ms. Stuckey noted that the incentives are funded by electric bill surcharges,
so they should be stable. Also, there is
a focus right now on green energy options.
Mr. Pullen commented that peak load reduction wouldn’t be
applicable for our facility because of our hours of operation. Ms. Stuckey suggested that there are different
things that can be done to shift daytime usage to night, higher efficiency
measures can be used to reduce total usage, or in some facilities, some things
can be shut off. LaBella’s approach is
to reduce consumption to a minimum and then start looking at other options such
as solar panels.
Mr. Kukuvka explained that to qualify for the incentives,
you have to identify and install the more energy-efficient items. You have to spend more up front, but the idea
is that you will recoup some of that extra cost in energy bill reductions. The incentives would pay for a portion of the
incremental cost, usually about 50 percent.
Mr. Kukuvka pointed out that the total incentive
Chairman Crandall questioned the payback periods for the
higher cost, more efficient equipment, which would be reduced by a certain
amount of NYSERDA funding, and if there were fairly accurate estimates on those
and assumptions on funding so that we would know up front prior to commitment. Ms. Stuckey and Mr. Kukuvka both ensured that
LaBella would go through that process and provide enough information to allow the
County to make a decision.
Ms. Stuckey listed a few of the ideas they would suggest
for
·
Reductions in Energy Use
o
High Efficiency Equipment
o
Demand Control
Ventilation
o
Building Envelope
o
Building Commissioning
and Training Staff on the equipment that will require a higher level of
maintenance. Mr. Hopkins questioned if
the increased maintenance over the life of the equipment would be figured into
the cost savings. Mr. McClung noted that
it’s either a simple payback or a life cycle cost, which is more involved to
prepare, but we may want to do both on selected pieces of equipment.
o
Install
Sufficient Metering to Track Consumption, and to look at it weekly or daily to find
or solve problems. Mr. McClung added
that it’s fairly easy to do that now with computerized tracking to check
performance.
·
Geothermal (ground
source heat pumps)
o
Involves drilling
vertical wells outdoors, 150 to 200 foot bore depth per ton, spacing of
approximately 20 feet. Well installation
would be dependent on site; a test well would be done to check
performance. Cost for one well
$8-10,000.
o
Previous
study: 28-year simple payback, no
outside funding figured.
·
Photovoltaic (PV) or Solar Cells.
o
Previous
study: 26-year simple payback assuming
50 percent outside funding.
·
Wind Turbines
o
Evaluate local
wind properties, site suitability, cost.
o
Previous study:
approximate 68-year simple payback, no outside funding figured.
Possible uses for water from the
Chairman Crandall questioned how to know what investment
to make in order to get the answers we need to discover the break-even point,
while doing everything we can to make this project as green as possible. Ms. Stuckey replied that they would look at our
utility rates to see what range we’re in, apply their ideas to our building to
find the most favorable ones, and take a high level approach before getting too
far and prior to any output of money.
Mr. McClung noted that LaBella just finished a project for which they
provided all the information allowing the client to make a decision after
looking at several options.
Mr. Pullen asked if there were general projections for
cost for getting a building LEED certified.
Mr. Kukuvka noted it usually adds five to ten percent. There are four classifications:
certification, silver, gold, and platinum.
Each step up costs more and is more creative and innovative. It won’t be too difficult to get the court
facilities project certified, and may be only a little stretch to get to silver. The additional cost from a design and
construction standpoint would be two to three percent for certification and fifteen
to twenty percent for platinum. Mr.
Kukuvka understood from his past conversations with the committee that the
County wanted to do good energy efficient practices on the project but had no
time to enter into a formal LEED program.
At this time, LaBella’s estimate is based on that, and we will be
somewhere around a certified building.
The estimates do not include a higher-end, innovative, higher-cost
payback solution, but they can work up those options to allow a decision.
Mr. Kukuvka commented that our project has not been
registered with NYSERDA yet, but as we move forward, we will have to accelerate
the process with them. There would be discussion
with NYSERDA, and they would provide guidance through the process and
assistance on payback estimates.
Mr. Pullen asked if LaBella has had any contact with
Mr. Kukuvka commented that there are energy performance
contractors out there, but LaBella doesn’t do that. It’s a good idea to provide some initial
assessment, if a firm offers that service.
LaBella has done work for those contractors; they’ve assisted both
parties.
Chairman Crandall questioned what a basic evaluation
would do to our timing. He assumed we
would have to make some decisions fairly quickly. Mr. Kukuvka noted that enough time is built
into design for LaBella’s energy team to do that analysis, but it has to happen
within the next month or so. They can
come back with some preliminary assumptions, and it would take 30 days to
develop ideas and another 30 days for a deeper analysis.
An agreement with LaBella Associates for final design
services for the Allegany County Court Facility will be considered by the full
Board of Legislators on February 6, 2009.
IDA Lease Agreement Proposal for Crossroads Center
Addition:
IDA Director John Foels updated the committee on a lease
proposal for the
When questioned about the expansion from 6,500 to 8,000
square feet, Mr. Foels cited the need for additional storage, additional NY Connects
office space due to staff projections, the Veterans’ Offices were moved from
the previous plans, and a staff break area has been provided that was not
originally planned. For perspective, the
addition will be about the same size as the left wing of the existing
Chairman Crandall pointed out that it would cost a fair
amount if we were looking at a satellite-type facility without these
arrangements for plowing and outside maintenance, and it gets expensive to have
to send employees to do those tasks. This
type of arrangement makes sense.
Mr. Hopkins commented that having separate rooms for most
of Office for the Aging staff will be more efficient than being packed in as
they are now. Office for the Aging
Director Kimberly Toot noted that they currently pay for electric, heating, and
phone out of their budget, with some reimbursement by state and federal funds,
so they are used to paying these expenses and have budgeted for them. Veterans’ Service Agency Director Scott
Spillane commented that he and Ms. Toot have many of the same clients, so this
move makes sense.
Mr. O’Grady questioned if the County owns the current
Office for the Aging building. Mr.
Margeson responded in the affirmative.
Mr. O’Grady pointed out that with this proposed lease, we would be looking
at an additional $96,000 per year in the budget. Mr. Pullen replied that the cost is less than
the actual total costs associated with other facilities, and there were no
other suitable locations available. The
present OFA facility is a safety hazard.
Mr. Margeson has reviewed the lease and discussed it with
Mr. Foels. He will e-mail the
information to committee members tomorrow and have the
A
motion was made by Legislator Fanton, seconded by Legislator Hopkins and
carried unanimously to support the lease agreement with the IDA for the
proposed addition at the Crossroads Center for Office for the Aging, NY
Connects, and the Veterans’ Service Agency, with terms as described. Referred to Ways and Means Committee.
NEXT MEETING: Wednesday, March 4, 2009 at 3:00 p.m.
Adjournment: The meeting was adjourned at 4:15 p.m.
following a motion made by Legislator Fanton, seconded by Legislator Hopkins
and carried.
Respectfully submitted by
Adele Finnemore, Journal
Clerk