COURT
FACILITIES AND
MAY 6, 2009
** NOT APPROVED
Others Present: R. Christman, W. Dibble, A. Finnemore, LaBella
Associates (M. Kukuvka,
P. Mashtare, C. Bernhard),
J. Luckey, J. Margeson, T. Miner, T. Parker, B. Riehle;
Media: B. Quinn, Wellsville
Daily Reporter
Call to Order: 3:00 p.m. by Committee Chairman David Pullen.
Approval of Minutes:
The minutes of the April 1, 2009 meeting were approved
following a motion made by Legislator Hopkins, seconded by Legislator Fanton
and carried.
Court Facilities Project, LaBella Associates:
HVAC System Energy Options Review:
At the March 18 meeting, the committee selected the Central
Air Handling Unit w/ Variable Air Volume (VAV) HVAC System for the Court
Facilities Project. LaBella prepared
information on energy efficiency options for the various components of the
system. Mark Kukuvka noted that they
were nearly halfway through the design phase, and once some decisions are made
on these component options, they will get the information to their estimators.
Casey Bernhard, Engineer, recapped the HVAC system
selected and distributed handouts (attached to original minutes). Mr. Bernhard explained that the system would
be located in the mechanical area of the building, and it includes a water-cooled
chiller for cooling, a gas-fired boiler, VAV boxes, zone controls and an energy
recovery mixing box where return air is mixed with the outside air (illustrated
in the handouts). Advantages are: acoustics, occupant comfort with precise
temperature and humidity control, maintenance access indoors, and a long system
service life of over 25 years. It was
noted that the new system will serve both the addition and the existing
Courthouse.
Chiller Option Review:
Three chiller options were presented (see charts next
page). Energy consumption was fairly
similar for the air-cooled high efficiency option and the water-cooled option,
and there also was not much difference in maintenance costs between those two
options. Current rates for this area
were used to figure energy costs and simple paybacks. LaBella’s recommendation for the chiller
component of the HVAC system was the high efficiency air-cooled chiller due
to the shorter (six year) payback and, although it costs a few thousand dollars
more, it has more capacity, if needed.
|
Chiller Options |
Chiller Full Load Efficiency (kW/ton) |
Chiller Efficiencies (COP) |
% Improvement Over Energy Code |
System Annual Energy Consumption (kWh) |
Annual Energy Cost |
Installed Chiller Cost |
Potential NYSERDA Rebate |
Net Chiller Cost |
Simple Payback Over Baseline With NYSERDA Rebate (Years) |
Simple Payback Over Baseline Without NYSERDA Rebate (Years) |
|
Air Cooled Chiller Standard Efficiency 170 ton |
1.239 |
2.84 |
1% |
55,992 |
$ 8,959 |
$108,000 |
NA |
$108,000 |
Baseline |
Baseline |
|
Air Cooled Chiller High Efficiency 170 ton |
1.148 |
3.06 |
9% |
52,156 |
$ 8,345 |
$115,000 |
$ 3,500 |
$111,500 |
6 |
11 |
|
Water Cooled Chiller 172 ton /
|
0.645 |
5.67 |
16% |
51,675 |
$ 8,268 |
$146,000 |
$19,000 |
$127,000 |
28 |
55 |
NOTES:
1. Energy Conservation Code NYS Air Cooled
Chiller > 150 ton required efficiency is Coefficient of Performance (COP) of
2.80
2. Energy Conservation Code NYS Water Cooled
Chiller > 150 ton required efficiency is COP of 4.90
3. High efficiency chillers can provide a first
cost advantage when selecting near the upper end of the equipment operating
capacities (Example: 185 ton standard
eff. chiller installed cost = $113,000)
NYSERDA Program Incentives
Incentive based on $0.16 kWh
savings and $540 per summer peak kW saved (capped at 50% of incremental cost)
Chiller must exceed NYS
Energy Code by 3% to qualify for incentive
|
Chiller Options |
Elect Savings Compared to Std Eff (kWh) |
Elect Savings NYSERDA Rebate |
Peak Demand Savings Compared to Std Eff (kW) |
Peak Demand Savings Rebate |
Gross NYSERDA Rebate |
NYSERDA Rebate Capped at 50% of Increment Cost |
|
Air Cooled Chiller High Efficiency |
3,836 |
$ 614 |
9.9 |
$ 5,346 |
$ 5,960 |
$ 3,500 |
|
Water Cooled Chiller |
4,317 |
$ 690 |
59.9 |
$ 32,346 |
$ 33,036 |
$19,000 |
|
Boiler Options |
Boiler Efficiencies (Thermal Efficiency) |
% Improvement over Energy Code |
Estimated Seasonal Efficiency |
System Annual Gas Consumption (therms) |
Annual Energy Cost |
Boiler Material Cost |
Potential NYSERDA Rebate |
Simple Payback Over Baseline (Years) |
Simple Payback Over
Baseline (Years) |
|
Standard Efficiency Non-Condensing Two Stage Copper Fin Boilers (Two
– 1500 mbh & One – 750 mbh) |
85% |
13% |
60% |
31,529 |
$38,781 |
$47,600 |
NA |
Baseline |
NA |
|
Standard Efficiency Non-Condensing Modulating 5:1 Turndown Copper Fin
Boilers (Two – 1500 mbh & One – 750 mbh) |
85% |
13% |
69% |
15,607 |
$19,197 |
$55,305 |
NA |
Less than 1 |
Baseline |
|
High Efficiency Condensing Boilers Modulating 5:1 Turndown (Two –
1500 mbh & One – 750 mbh) |
90% |
19% |
89% |
12,097 |
$14,879 |
$75,250 |
NA |
1 |
5 |
Boiler Selection Issues:
1. Keys to efficiency are return water temperature and avoiding
boiler short cycling.
2. Substantial amount of hourly dry bulb temperature throughout
year is moderate.
a. Number of
hours in
b. Number of
hours in
3. Boiler
plants typically operate at full load 2% of the year and operate below 15% of
full capacity more than 50% of the year.
4. Non-Condensing
vs Condensing Boilers: Return water
temps less than 135 deg F result in condensation in flue gases.
5. Seasonal Efficiency Estimate
a. Estimate
of 20% differential is due to non-condensing boiler short cycling during low
load periods of year.
Boiler Option Review:
Three boiler options were presented (see chart on
previous page). Boiler efficiencies
listed are catalog ratings. Keys to efficiency
are taking advantage of low return water temps and keeping the boiler from
cycling on and off. The condensing
boilers can take water back at higher temps, while the non-condensing boilers can’t. Another advantage of the condensing boiler is
that it can keep running at lightly loaded situations, which keeps it from
cycling on and off. There is more
cycling with the modulating boiler. The seasonal
efficiency puts it in a real-life efficiency mode; thermal efficiency is rated
in a lab where constant temperatures and load are maintained.
Condensation and possible corrosion were discussed. The boiler that LaBella is considering has an
aluminum cooler, and the pH level would have to be maintained through the use
of pH inhibitors to prevent corrosion.
Mr. Bernhard didn’t consider the maintenance issues with the condensing
boiler as more significant than the non-condensing boiler. The stainless condenser would cost a little
more than the aluminum one.
LaBella recommended the high efficiency
condensing boiler component for the HVAC system due to the short
payback period and the lower annual energy cost. Although the initial cost is $30,000 more,
the payback is tremendous. Stainless
steel will be looked at. Mr. Kukuvka
will assemble a list of pros and cons between stainless and aluminum, as well
as prices, to e-mail to Mr. Margeson.
Heat Recovery for Air Handling Units Option Review:
Heat recovery involves the transfer of heat and moisture
to the air being brought in from outside.
Information was presented for four options (see chart below).
|
Heat Recovery Options |
Effectiveness |
Annual Gas Energy Cost Savings |
Annual Electric Energy Cost Savings |
Total Energy Cost Savings |
Cost of Heat Recovery Option |
Simple Payback Over Baseline (Years) |
|
Heat Pipe |
43% |
$ 2,590 |
$ 351 |
$ 2,941 |
$107,000 |
36 |
|
Coil Run-Around |
55% |
$ 3,324 |
$ 448 |
$ 3,772 |
$ 49,500 |
13 |
|
Plate Heat Exchanger |
65% |
$ 3,926 |
$ 530 |
$ 4,456 |
$ 60,000 |
13 |
|
Total Energy Heat Wheel |
84% Summer / 61% Winter |
$ 5,144 |
$ 2,435 |
$ 7,579 |
$ 57,000 |
8 |
Heat Pipes
Advantages:
Easy to clean
Little
or no cross contamination of air stream
Some applications require no
electric power
Don’t
require many accessories
Disadvantages:
Only transfers sensible heat
High
frost threshold
Heavy
High first cost in large
applications
Coil Run-Around
Advantages:
Allows
transfer of energy between distant locations
No
cross contamination of air stream
Fits inside air handler
Disadvantages:
Only transfers sensible heat
Requires
additional equipment: pump, expansion tank, piping, etc.
Extra
equipment requires extra space
Pump requires maintenance
Plate Heat Exchanger
Advantages:
Higher
sensible effectiveness
Little
or no cross contamination of air stream
Can be packaged in air handler
Easy
to clean
Disadvantages:
Only transfers sensible heat
Requires
adjacent air streams
Creates
larger air handling equipment
High first cost
Total Energy Heat Wheel
Advantages:
Total
energy recovery allows sensible and latent heat transfer
High
effectiveness
Can be packaged in air handler
Disadvantages:
Allows small amount of cross
contamination of air stream
Belt
and motor can require maintenance
Large unit would require some
disassembly to bring in through elevator
The heat recovery chart doesn’t include a baseline because
the baseline would be not to install it.
This is an energy efficiency option that would be an additional
feature. Effectiveness is measured as
the percent of energy recovered compared to the total. Most of the savings would be on gas. Additional downsides included: the heat pipe would require the addition of a
pump to add refrigerant, the coil run-around would need additional equipment in
the mechanical room, the plate heat exchanger makes the air units longer than
some of the other options and probably won’t fit. LaBella’s recommendation for the heat
recovery feature for the HVAC system was the total energy heat wheel
because it recovers both sensible and latent heat and, instead of only taking
advantage of heat, it also recaptures humidity.
The payback period doesn’t figure in maintenance, but that would add
less than one year. Heat recovery
doesn’t add to comfort control, but is just an energy efficiency feature. Mr. Kukuvka commented that if the County
wants to pursue this, it could be handled as a bid alternate, or we could wait
to see how the bids come in and use some of the contingency money. Mr. Pullen suggested bidding it as an
alternate.
Other HVAC Energy Efficiency Items:
Mr. Bernhard highlighted some other energy features that
would be done automatically:
·
Low pressure duct
system due to low velocities required for acoustics.
·
Static pressure
reset control of air handling unit supply fans so that at least one Variable
Air Volume (VAV) box is close to full open.
·
Static pressure
reset control of pumps so that at least one control valve is close to full
open.
·
Utilize lighting
occupancy sensors to close down VAV boxes saving fan energy and allow the space
temperature set point to drift a few degrees.
NYSERDA Pre-Set Incentive Items: (Based
on the 2008 NYSERDA new construction program; values listed are intended to
provide an estimate of probable incentives only; incentives listed do not
include possible savings and incentives for lighting efficiencies.)
·
Differential
Enthalpy Economizer Controls @ $150/system:
Assuming 3 systems: Total Incentive = $450
·
Premium
Efficiency Motors: Assuming 8, ranging
from 5 hp to 10 hp: Total Incentive = $360
·
Variable
Frequency Drives for Controlled Motors:
Approximately 10, ranging from 5 hp to 10 hp: Total Incentive - $1,450
When these potential rebates are added to the $5,000 to $6,000
for the chiller, it’s reasonable to assume that we will achieve the $5,000 to
$25,000 from NYSERDA as mentioned at an earlier meeting. Some of the items, such as the variable frequency
drives installed on each unit, would probably be done anyway.
Existing Courthouse Ground Floor and Addition Ground
Floor Shell Space Plan Review:
Penny Mashtare reviewed revisions made on the Court
Facility Project plans for the ground floors in both the addition and the
existing Courthouse (handouts attached to original minutes). In a previous plan, some areas were being
moved out of these areas entirely, but LaBella has had to make some changes and
evaluate where everyone will fit while dealing with public traffic and risk
levels. They are proposing moving the
DSS Support Unit, including storage, to where Information Technology and Real
Property Tax are currently. Probation
will stay where it is. New walls and
half-wall partitions are indicated, and they have retained and re-used as much as
possible. The new proposal for the
ground floor of the addition still includes the Treasurer’s Offices, and now
will also include Information Technology and Real Property Tax where the shell
space was in the prior plan. The public coming
from the main corridor will have easy access to either the Treasurer’s Offices
or Real Property Tax, and beyond that will be just staff. They have also added a building break room,
building storage, IT storage, and a holding area for deliveries. LaBella is planning to submit this change for
design and estimating as a separate number to allow comparison with previous figures.
Mr. O’Grady suggested moving the Department of Motor
Vehicles to the Support Collection building once it’s vacated. Motor Vehicles has the largest volume of public
use, and the public wouldn’t have to be screened if the office was moved
there. Mr. Fanton noted that the Support
building is not handicapped accessible.
Chairman Crandall questioned if the Treasurer’s Office or
Real Property Tax would gain any square footage. Ms. Mashtare responded that the Treasurer’s
Offices, Real Property Tax, and Information Technology all have spaces that are
similar to what they have now, but all have a more efficient set up. The public traffic area is open and inviting,
and signage will be included in the elevator lobby areas and on doors.
Mr. Pullen expressed regret in the utilization of the
shell space so soon, wanting instead to keep some unallocated space for future
needs. Ms. Mashtare noted that they
tried several scenarios to keep RPT and IT where they were, but they would lose
a lot of space. It also makes sense to
move the Support Unit because the area gives them a similar space and security. IT has some plumbing line problems in the server
room, so putting them in the new building will be a plus. Ms. Mashtare pointed out that the empty shell
space on the second floor of the addition gives some flexibility for future
expansion. Mr. Fanton also noted that
for future storage space needs, we still have the third floor of the
Office of Court Administration Meeting Updates:
Mr. Kukuvka reported on recent project activity with the
OCA team. Their early involvement will
result in fewer design changes later on and will be advantageous as they work
through the estimates. OCA has requested
more security (more in the way of devices rather than personnel), and LaBella
is working on that. The team has worked
through a room-by-room checklist of the design including telecommunication/data
locations and security requirements.
There will be a meeting in June with the OCA architect to go over the changes
and the budget. Prior to that meeting,
LaBella will meet with this committee on the proposed budget.
Project Schedule:
LaBella submits design
development report to the estimators on May 14.
Report and estimates due back
to LaBella by June 4.
Special meeting with this
committee to review report and estimates scheduled June 10 at 1:30.
LaBella meeting with OCA
architect on June 16.
LaBella still anticipates
being able to go to bid at the end of September.
Executive Session:
A motion was made by Legislator Hopkins, seconded by
Legislator Fanton and carried to go into an executive session regarding contract
negotiations.
NEXT MEETING: Wednesday, June 10, 2009 at 1:30 p.m.
Respectfully submitted by
Adele Finnemore, Journal Clerk