COURT
FACILITIES AND
MARCH 18, 2009
** NOT APPROVED **
Members Present: D. Pullen, G. Benson, D. Fanton,
W. Hall, T. Hopkins, T. O’Grady,
C. Crandall
Others Present: W. Dibble, A. Finnemore, J. Foels, LaBella
Associates (M. Kukuvka, R. McClung, R. Stuckey), J. Margeson, T. Miner, K. Toot; Media: B. Quinn, Wellsville Daily Reporter
Call to Order: 3:10 p.m. by Committee Chairman David Pullen.
Court Facilities Project, HVAC Energy Efficient
Options Update, LaBella Associates:
Mark Kukuvka, Rick McClung, and Rachel Stuckey have
researched, on a macro level, available energy efficient options for heating,
cooling, and electrical, looking at a mechanical systems approach, photo
voltaics, and wind energy. They
presented information on the advantages and disadvantages; energy, maintenance,
and initial construction costs; and paybacks for five different HVAC building
systems. The information included
considerations for the need to backfeed to the existing Courthouse, depending
on the system chosen, but for financial reasons, do not include installation of
a new system in the current structure.
(Handouts attached to original minutes.)
HVAC System Comparisons:
1. Central
Air Handling Unit w/ Variable Air Volume (VAV) Reheat / Chiller / Boiler
Advantages
·
Maintenance
access
·
Acoustics
·
Occupant comfort
and controllability (humidity, temperature)
·
Straightforward
method to re-feed existing Courthouse fan coil system
·
Long system
service life (greater than 25 years)
Disadvantages
·
Slightly higher
first cost and annual energy cost
Indoor
unit; cooling accomplished through a cooled water chiller and heating through a
hot water boiler; supplies all airflow at a constant temperature; air is sent
out to boxes that control the flow of heated or cooled air back into the
building; flexible and adjustable for changes in load and occupancy needs; good
acoustics; good for energy efficiency.
This is the system that LaBella is recommending, and their previous cost
estimate is based on this. It is the
best system for our circumstances. The
system would be zoned, with some occupancy control for energy efficiency
reasons. Installation would be in the
mechanical area on the ground floor of the addition.
2. Water
Source Heat Pump
Advantages
·
Energy efficiency
(especially when building has interior spaces that require cooling all year)
Disadvantages
·
Acoustics
·
Maintenance
access
·
Shorter system
service life (typically less than 20 years)
3. Geothermal
Heat Pump
Advantages
·
Utilizes constant
ground temp as a heat source and heat sink for heating and cooling (renewable
resource)
·
Very efficient
Disadvantages
·
Limited space in
back parking lot for well field; may need to add well space under front parking
lot
·
Shorter system
service life (typically less than 20 years for heat pumps)
Heat
pump can be used with second option, but not the first option. Heat pump options typically include a cooling
tower which requires a lot of maintenance.
4. Rooftop
Units with VAV / DX Cooling / Boiler
Advantages
·
Lower first cost
·
Located outside
of occupied space
Disadvantages
·
Maintenance
access via roof
·
Shorter service
life (typically 15 years)
Similar
to the first option, but installed outdoors rather than indoors. Indoor units are easier to maintain. The unit is generally installed on rooftops
for aesthetic reasons, and it was questioned if the service life could be extended
with ground installation. It was noted
that ground installation may promote better maintenance making the unit last
longer, but the shorter life span attributed to exposure to the elements
wouldn’t change. Also, the outdoor units
are package units, whereas indoor units are generally more modular which would
reduce repair/replacement costs, and they last longer. The maintenance difference between the indoor
and outdoor units is partially the type of equipment – compressors for cooling
units versus chillers.
5. Fan
Coil Units
Advantages
·
Straightforward
method to re-feed existing Courthouse fan coil system
·
Potential for
high level of zone temperature control with four-pipe system
Disadvantages
·
Acoustics
·
Maintenance
access
·
Shorter service
life (typically 20 years)
·
No economizer
capability, resulting in higher energy consumption
The
four-pipe system offers the option of heating and cooling throughout the
building, whereas a two-pipe system only allows heating or cooling. There is no economizer capability because there
is no link to the outside air to take advantage of conditions.
A graph was used to compare the system energy costs,
system maintenance costs, and total annual HVAC costs for the five
systems. The geothermal option had the
lower annual cost at approximately $34,000 as compared to the other four
systems that all averaged around $48,000, but the drawback for the geothermal
unit is the installed cost at nearly $500,000 more than any of the other
four.
Total system costs are shown below and are project
specific for the addition to the Courthouse.
Some of the equipment in the existing building will be replaced, but
they are trying to maximize use of what’s there. These are not the same answers as you’d get for
a free-standing new building because they include a component for existing
building issues.
|
System Options |
System Energy Cost |
Annual Cost (Incl. Maint.) |
Base System Construction Cost |
Added Cost for Courthouse Boiler and Chiller |
Total System Cost |
NYSERDA Rebate |
Payback Over Baseline Years |
|
Chiller / Boiler |
$30,499 |
$48,800 |
$1,344,000 |
$180,000 |
$1,524,000 |
- |
Baseline |
|
Water Source Heat Pump |
$29,716 |
$47,837 |
$1,176,000 |
$330,000 |
$1,506,000 |
- |
0 |
|
Geothermal Source Heat Pump |
$26,680 |
$33,895 |
$1,680,000 |
$330,000 |
$2,010,000 |
$72,000 |
28 |
|
Rooftop Unit VAV / DX Cooling / Boiler |
$31,228 |
$51,326 |
$1,260,000 |
$250,000 |
$1,510,000 |
- |
0 |
|
Fan Coil Units / Chiller / Boiler |
$31,169 |
$45,932 |
$1,260,000 |
$180,000 |
$1,440,000 |
- |
0 |
The geothermal option includes a 28-year payback, and in
that time period we would also have to replace the heat pump. That option is similar to the water source
heat pump, but the big cost difference is the installation of 50-60 200-foot wells
under the parking lots. (If the
geothermal option is considered, test wells would be drilled to determine how
many were needed and how deep they had to be.)
LaBella’s conclusion was that although some of the systems
were less expensive to install and operate, the first option, the Central Air
Handling Unit w/ Variable Air Volume (VAV) Reheat / Chiller / Boiler, was the
system they would recommend, based on its suitability for our situation. It has the adaptability with the existing building,
low maintenance, energy efficient due to the economizer, flexible to allow for
load and occupancy changes, takes advantage of free cooling which some systems
don’t have, and air quality is very good.
It was also noted that for our type of application, the Central VAV system
is recommended by the American Heating and Refrigeration Association because of
the highly variable loads and the acoustics.
NYSERDA Program Incentives: Three levels
of participation: Pre-Qualified Measures,
Custom Measures, and Whole Building Design.
Whole building incentive examples based on total building annual
electric consumption of 300,000 kWh and 130,000 kW peak:
5 percent savings of both annual electric consumption
and peak demand results in approximate $5,000 rebate.
15 percent savings of both annual electric consumption
and peak demand results in approximate $20,000 rebate.
Geothermal heat pump system incentive ($600/ton)
assuming 120 tons capacity = $72,000.
Ms. Stuckey noted that the NYSERDA incentives available for
most of the options we’d be looking at would be in the $5,000 to $10,000 range,
possible as high as $20,000, depending on a lot of factors, including the
efficiency level of the equipment chosen.
The geothermal option offers the highest incentive, but also has the
$500,000 difference in cost.
Mr. Pullen questioned if there was anything in the
economic stimulus bill for energy conservation issues. Mr. McClung replied that application of stimulus
money in the energy area has not been defined, but LaBella has a task force
researching it.
Solar Energy Options: (Handout
attached to original minutes.)
1. Flat/Low
Angle Arrays
Advantages
·
Minimized shading
on adjacent collectors
·
Reduced snow and
wind loading on roof
·
Minimized
structural impact
·
Roof penetrations
for conduit only
·
Minimum
visibility
Disadvantages
·
Reduced
efficiency at capturing solar radiation – lower power per area
2. High
Angle Arrays
Advantages
·
Increased angle
increases power per unit area
Disadvantages
·
High platforms to
avoid snow drifting
·
Numerous roof
penetrations due to structural posts and conduit
·
Increased
visibility
·
Higher installed
cost
·
Shading
considerations require spacing between collectors
3. Ground
Mounted Arrays
Advantages
·
Increased angle
increases power per unit area
·
Large number of
arrays can be deployed if space is available
·
No structural
concerns
Disadvantages
·
Vandalism
concerns
·
Highly visible
·
Steel frames and
concrete footings required to elevate
A chart illustrated the installed cost range, NYSERDA
incentives and federal tax credits, annual electric production, annual cost
savings, and simple payback for 10 kW, 25 kW, and 50 kW solar power options, as
well as information for a solar hot water heater. Ms. Stuckey noted that relative to the flat
arrays, there is a limited amount of sunlight they can capture, while the high
angle units capture more sunlight but have structural issues and there are cost
implications. The best case scenario
would be ground installation because of the lower cost and shorter payback, but
even with those the payback is 28 years.
The 10, 25, and 50 kW options were offered depending on how big an
initial investment we wanted to make. Mr.
McClung pointed out that the 50 kW option would power about 500 fluorescent
lamps, or provide about one-third of the addition’s power needs on a sunny day,
so we would still need to buy power.
Power could be sold back to the grid on weekends rather than be stored. Mr. Kukuvka noted that the size of the system
doesn’t seem to change the payback, it’s still about 40 years. Ms. Stuckey commented that we are limited to
50 kW due to the size of the roof area and available ground space. The solar hot water unit would consist of a
vacuum tube system on the roof.
Installed cost is bearable at $6,000, but we wouldn’t be doing it for
payback reasons (92 years). We would also
want a back-up system.
Mr. Hopkins questioned the effect of snow on the solar units. Ms. Stuckey noted that would be typical for
this area, and it would have to be cleared off.
Annual cost savings included in the charts would be the offset energy
usage or what’s saved on the electric bill.
Chairman Crandall pointed out that the 40-year payback assumes the
equipment remains operable, and Mr. Fanton commented that panels have to be
replaced after a number of years (25 or less).
Mr. Hall noted that we can’t anticipate what energy will cost us down
the road, but we probably won’t see much benefit. Mr. Kukuvka pointed out that nothing
precludes us from doing a solar installation at a later date.
Wind Energy Options: (Handout attached to original
minutes.)
10 kW Wind Turbine (one windmill installed at a height of 200 feet)
Disadvantages
·
Wind Data (wind
speed variability)
o
www.windexplorer.com
– Mean wind speed from 30M to 100M is listed as less than 12.3 mph
o
navigator.awstruewind.com
– Mean wind speed at 60M is listed as 9.6 mph
o
Weather website
for Friendship NY indicates an average wind speed of 3.7 mph (likely ground
level)
·
No NYSERDA
incentives available if wind speed is less than 10 mph
·
Operation and
maintenance expenses
·
Permitting costs
·
Bird habitat
·
Zoning issues
(currently not permitted)
Advantages
·
Small turbines
are available which operate at wind speeds of 4 mph.
·
If 10 mph winds
are found to be available, then NYSERDA incentives are available.
o
Example: 10 kW wind turbine incentives are in the
range of $20,000 to $40,000.
o
Payback at
approximately $75,000 installed cost with NYSERDA incentive is 37 years.
Ms. Stuckey commented that initial research indicates the
wind energy option doesn’t seem viable for this location. If it was something the County wanted to
pursue further, the first step would be to measure wind speeds.
Mr. Benson questioned the feasibility of installing
windmills offsite and transmitting power via lines. Ms. Stuckey noted that the transmission could
be an issue. Mr. Kukuvka commented that
you’d have to find an optimal place, and he suggested that if the County wanted
to do this, to do it as an initiative for power to go back into the grid, but
not linked as part of this project. Mr.
Benson noted that the electric company could transmit the electric back to the
site, and Ms. Stuckey replied that the proximity to the grid is critical.
Mr. Hopkins asked about carbon credits. Mr. Kukuvka responded that it hasn’t been figured
yet. Research completed to date was on a
macro level to provide enough information for the committee to make a decision
and for LaBella to make their recommendations.
If there is something the County wants to pursue further in terms of
costs, capturing carbon impacts, and comparing equipment for energy efficiency,
we can give them direction. Ms. Stuckey
noted that so far they considered code compliance and kept a consistent base
between systems. They can look at more
or less efficient equipment in each category.
Mr. McClung commented that using
higher efficiency level equipment will qualify for more NYSERDA incentives. Efficiency varies by unit, and there is
usually more maintenance required with higher efficiency. Once the committee decides on a system,
LaBella can come back with options including payback numbers, installed costs, maintenance
costs, and the best efficiency levels for each piece of equipment.
The consensus of the committee was that although solar and
wind energy options were investigated, they will not be considered for this
project due to their lack of cost effectiveness.
A
motion was made by Legislator Fanton, seconded by Legislator Hopkins and
carried unanimously to select the Central Air Handling Unit w/ Variable Air
Volume (VAV) Reheat / Chiller / Boiler HVAC System for the Court Facilities
Addition Project. Mark Kukuvka noted that LaBella will prepare
information on efficiency options for the various components of the system and
report back to the committee at the May 6 meeting. The design process can still proceed at the
same time.
Mr. Kukuvka reported that LaBella will be holding a
design meeting with Court personnel on March 25 in the
Soil boring samples are being taken this week to
determine if the addition can be built on the proposed location behind the
Courthouse. Mr. Kukuvka noted that there
is no official read yet, but he heard they were hitting rock at a fairly
shallow depth (which is good). Mr.
Kukuvka didn’t know if the geologist would have a verbal answer for him in time
for his next visit to the County on March 25.
Mr. Pullen requested that Mr. Kukuvka report to John Margeson as soon as
he has an answer.
Project Labor Agreement (PLA) Progress Report:
Mr. Kukuvka has given Hodgson Russ the information they
need, but he has not heard back from them.
Mr. Pullen reported that he spoke with Peter Godfrey and was told they
were setting up a preliminary meeting with union reps. John Margeson has also had phone
conversations with Mr. Godfrey regarding strategy and contacts he had to make,
but no date was set yet. Mr. Pullen
noted the importance of these issues because they impact design and timing and
shift work. Mr. Kukuvka commented that
there will have to be some second shift work due to Court schedules and not
moving people out to a swing location.
Industrial Development Agency Director John Foels, County
Attorney Thomas Miner, and Office for the Aging Director Kimberley Toot were
present to discuss the proposed contract with IDA for the new facility adjacent
to the
Adjournment: The meeting was adjourned at 4:55 p.m.
following a motion made by Legislator O’Grady, seconded by Legislator Hall and
carried.
NEXT MEETING: Wednesday, April 1, 2009 at 3:00 p.m.
Respectfully submitted by
Adele Finnemore, Journal
Clerk