HomeMy WebLinkAbout10A - Report RE: City Energy Conservation
MEETING DATE:
AGENDA #:
PREPARED BY:
AGENDA ITEM:
DISCUSSION:
DECEMBER 17, 2007
10A
STEVE ALBRECHT, DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS
CONSIDER APPROVAL OF A REPORT REGARDING CITY OF PRIOR
LAKE PLAN FOR ENERGY CONSERVATION AND ENVIRONMENTAL
RESPONSIBIL TY PLAN
Introduction
The purpose of this agenda item is to update the City Council on the status of
energy and environmental efforts being implemented by the Staff and receive
approval for this report.
Historv
The 2030 Vision and Strategic Plan was updated and adopted on May 7, 2007.
Included in the 2030 Vision is an element for Community Capital Assets. Part
of that Vision Element is a Five-Year Goal to provide community leadership in
energy conservation. The two-year objectives associated with the five-year
goal are as follows:
· Develop a plan for implementation of energy conservation in City
fleet and facilities
. Recommend improvements to City building energy efficiency
including audits for each building
. Evaluate and implement environmentally-sound and cost-effective
means to power City rolling stock
. Implement a public awareness program regarding energy
conservation
On July 16, 2007 staff provided a report to the City Council on initiatives that
the City Staff recommended. The City Council directed staff to further
investigate several items and report its findings and recommendations back
later this year.
Current Circumstances
City Staff recommends we begin work on several initiatives:
I. City Fleet
A. The Fleet Department proposes to move from a B2 Bio-diesel to a B5
Bio-diesel next year.
B. All new vehicle purchases will include an analysis of alternative fuel
vehicles and conservation options.
C. Public works staff has also introduced an idling target for specific
vehicles. The City's large vehicles particularly the plow/dump trucks
and loaders often idle during construction or use. Historically the
idling of diesel engines was necessary especially in winter months to
keep them running. The new engines do not need to be idled similar
to the older diesel engines. The City has the ability to monitor specific
R\Council\Agenda Reports\2007\12 17 07\Vehicl\WJW.E~y->rlf6\'f!lIl>\t&B'i\lier/ation agenda. doc
Phone 952.447.9800 / Fax 952.447.4245
equipment idling and is proposing target goals based on our analysis
of fleet use and manufacturer recommendations that should be
attainable. Meeting this goal will reduce wear on vehicles, emissions
and energy consumption.
D. Used Patrol Car Program:
The City Police Patrol Cars are on a 2 year replacement cycle. These
vehicles have 100,000 to 115,000 miles on them when they are taken
out of police service. The City then rotates them through the Public
Works and Building/Planning Inspection fleet for a period of 3 years
prior to selling them at auction. The vehicles are used for field work
and inspections. These vehicles average 7,500 miles per year during
this period. Currently the City utilizes 4-5 squad cars for this purpose.
The current program has pros and cons:
Pros:
o Utilizes existing squad cars
o Allows flexibility in adjusting the number of vehicles needed
Cons:
o Vehicles are very inefficient 12 mpg
o Vehicles do not have flex fuel capabilities
o The City on average spends $1,500 to $2,000 per vehicle to
maintain them during the reuse cycle
o The vehicles have typically been used very hard during squad use
and are therefore subject to breakdown
o The City only receives $1,500 at auction for the vehicles
o These vehicles perform poorly in the winter and in construction
areas
Based on the above, staff is recommending the City Council direct staff to
auction the squad cars immediately and use the proceeds to replace the
Public Works and Building/Planning inspection fleet with small pick-ups (
i.e. Chevy Colorado) or small cars (i.e. Ford Focus) over a 7-8 year
period. The squad cars would bring the City an estimated $4,500 per
vehicle if they were auctioned immediately. These funds could be used to
replace the inspection fleet with more appropriate vehicles. Staff believes
this presents the following advantages:
o Fuel & maintenance savings of $0.14 per mile or $1,050 per year
o 15-20 year vehicle life
o More appropriate vehicles including a mix of 2 wd pickups and fwd
cars to match use. State bid vehicle costs range from $12,000 to
$17,000 for these options. Each department currently has a 4 wd
vehicle and does not require additional ones.
o Flex-fuel capability
o After 7-8 years the City would be able to utilize the squad car auction
sales which would generate an extra $9,000 to $10,000 per year to
reduce tax payer costs related to the fleet department. Over a 10
year period this would generate an extra $80,000 to $90,000.
At this time staff does not believe hybrid vehicles are appropriate for the
inspection fleet use as these are more costly initially and the City does not
R\Council\Agenda Reports\2007\12 17 07\Vehicle and
Energy Conser/ation agenda.doc
have the staff to maintain them. As these vehicles become more prevalent
Staff will evaluate the appropriate timing for their inclusion.
II. Street Lights
Currently the City utilizes 150 Watt High Pressure Sodium (HPS) fixtures for
parking lots and collector streets. Light Emitting Diode (LED) Street lights are
now available for these types of lights. Our current HPS fixtures need to be
replaced every 4-5 years. The equivalent LED fixtures have a life expectancy
of more than 20 years and use 50-70% less energy. The 2008 Street Budget
includes nearly $160,000 in annual electrical costs. These lights do have a
higher initial cost of $1,000 to $1,500 per light but the replacement costs will
save the City an estimated $500 per light over the 20 year period. Energy
cost savings per light are estimated to be $50 per year. With and estimated
250 to 300 of these type of lights in the City the annual energy savings is
$12,500 to $15,000. The City has another 1,000 street lights that currently no
LED option exists for. With technological advances these lights could also be
retrofitted in the future offering substantial energy savings to the City.
At this time staff is recommending that the new parking lot lights at the Water
Treatment Facility be installed with LED technology so the City can evaluate
the illumination and cost savings. City Staff also recommends the City discuss
the potential for use of LED's on new street lights with Xcel Energy, SPUC and
MVEC.
III. Refuse Collection:
Currently the City has several refuse haulers who provide garbage collection
and recycling services. The primary issue for the City is that on any given
residential street there may be as many as 4-8 collection vehicles per week all
on as many as 4 different days. The current system results in additional
safety, pollution and street wear issues. Neighborhood aesthetics are also
affected by have garbage cans present up to 4 days a week.
Staff has investigated two options to deal with some or all of these issues.
A. Oraanized Collection
Cities are given the authority to provide organized collection by MN
State Statutes 2007, Chapter 115A. For example the City of Shakopee
has organized pick up that provides for a 5 year contract that locks in
rates and provides a single Sanitation Company as the provider for all
residents. There are several community and environmental benefits to
having organized collection, including but not limited to:
1) lower resident cost
2) reduction of noise
3) improved neighborhood aesthetics
4) better neighborhood safety
5) reduction of wear and tear on streets
6) increase in recycling
7) lower fuel consumption
R :\Council\Agenda Reports\2007\12 17 07\Vehicle and i=aciiily
Conser/alion agenda. doc
8) reduction of pOllution
The disadvantages relayed to Staff by other Cities include lack of
choice, less responsive service on occasion and increased City
Administration of the contract.
There are several steps required to proceed with organized collection in
the City. The Council must hold a public hearing and then work with
local haulers to create a plan. An ordinance will also need to be
implemented covering organized collection. Further investigation of the
state statutes will be required to ensure that proper protocol is followed,
should the Council choose to proceed with organizing collection in the
City. The City of Shakopee utilizes organized collection and will be a
good resource for information. In addition, Scott County's
Environmental Health Division can provide guidance on the issue.
Included for the Council's review is a copy of the 5 year contract prices
the City of Shakopee currently utilizes. Based on a Staff comparison of
rates it appears that residents in Prior Lake could see savings of
$4/month under a similar contract.
A variation on this option would be to quadrant the City to allow for
opportunities for additional sanitation companies. Instead of one
contractor the City might have 1-4 contractors each serving quadrants.
B. Scheduled Refuse Collection
A less controversial option that achieves the safety and aesthetic goals
would be to impose scheduled sanitation collection. This system would
allow pick-up only on designated days of the week for each house. The
City of Bloomington currently utilizes this method.
IV. City Compost Site
The City of Prior Lake does not currently have any sites for residential
composting. The City also ends up purchasing compost to be utilized at City
parks and facilities annually. Staff met with SMSC Staff to discuss utilization of
the SMSC Compost Site located on CR 42 west of CR 83. Discussions
revolved around the City staffing the site one day a month for City resident
drop off 6 to 7 months a year. The SMSC would utilize City material (branches
and leaves) to develop compost to combine with food waste from the Casino.
The SMSC believe they would have ample compost and that the City could
then reuse the surplus at our parks and facilities.
The only cost to the City is staff time to man the site (2 people) one day a
month.
V. City Buildings
The City Library, Maintenance Facility and Fire Station #1 are all more than 10
years old and were constructed during a period when there was not a high
emphasis on energy conservation in design.
R:\COLlncil\Agenda Reports\2007\ 12 17 07\Vehicle and Facility Energy Conser/atioll agenda.doc
For $1,300 the City can have Xcel Energy and CenterPoint provide detailed
energy assessments of all three facilities. These assessments would be the
foundation of a plan to retrofit the existing City facilities with energy
conservation measures that will reduce costs and make facilities more
environmentally friendly.
VI. Earth Day
Earth Day 2008 falls on April 22nd which is typically the same weekend as the
City Clean up day. City Staff would recognize Earth Day formally in 2008 and
include a clean-up day and a City sponsored tree sale as events on that day.
The tree sale could be an extension of clean up day as the City already will
have staff working that day. In future years the City could build from this
beginning.
Conclusion
The City Council should give staff specific endorsement of the
recommendations.
ISSUES:
Staff believes the recommendations related to the City Fleet, Street Lighting,
Compost Site, City Buildings and Earth Day will advance the City's efforts
related to conservation and environmental responsibility.
FINANCIAL
IMPACT:
Organized refuse collection has many pros however staff believes the City
should precede cautiously with this option. A separate work plan should be
developed and public input should be solicited outside of a City Council
meeting prior to proceeding.
The City Fleet recommendations are designed to save the taxpayers money
immediately. The recommendations related to the Compost Site, City
Buildings and Earth Day have minor costs that can be absorbed by the 2008
Operating Budget without additional costs. Staff recommends the City
consider implementing the Street Light recommendations at the Water
Treatment Facility and in new subdivisions at no cost to tax-payers.
ALTERNATIVES:
Potential City costs related to the Organized Refuse Collection would be
identified as part of a work plan if the City decides to proceed.
1. Approve this report regarding the City of Prior Lake Vehicle and Facility
Energy Conservation and Alternatives Plan in order for the staff to proceed
with implementation of these programs.
2. Table this agenda item for a specific reason.
3. Deny this agenda item for a specific reason and provide staff with direction.
RECOMMENDED
MOTION:
Alternative #1.
port 2007\12 17 07\Vehicle and Faciiily Energy Conser/ation agenda.doc
Dick's San ita Contract Prices 2006 - March 2011**
au er B I s, City rocess ng, No Containers - Year 1 (2006
ze e use
30 Gallon 8.20
60 Gallon $10.30
90 Gallon $12.00
Town Home - 30 G & 60 G $6.25
Town Home - 90 Gallon $7.05 $2.95 $10.00 $1.25
Hauler Bills, City Processing, No Containers - Year 2 (2007)
Size Refuse** Recycling Total Yard Waste*
30 Gallon $8.20 $3.40 $11.60 $1.25
60 Gallon $10.30 $4.30 $14.60 $1.25
90 Gallon $12.00 $5.00 $17.00 $1.25
Town Home - 30 G & 60 G $6.25 $2.55 $8.80 $1.25
Town Home - 90 Gallon $7.05 $2.95 $10.00 $1.25
Hauler Bills, City Processing, No Containers - Year 3 (2008)
Size Refuse** Recycling Total Yard Waste*
30 Gallon $8.53 $3.54 $12.06 $1.45
60 Gallon $10.71 $4.47 $15.18 $1.45
90 Gallon $12.48 $5.20 $17.68 $1.45
Town Home - 30 G & 60 G $6.50 $2.65 $9.15 $1.45
Town Home - 90 Gallon $7.33 $3.07 $10.40 $1.45
Hauler Bills, City Processing, No Containers - Year 4 (2009)
Size Refuse** Recycling Total Yard Waste*
30 Gallon $8.53 $3.54 $12.06 $1.45 $12.67
60 Gallon $10.71 $4.47 $15.18 $1.45 $15.69
90 Gallon $12.48 $5.20 $17.68 $1.45 $18.03
Town Home - 30 G & 60 G $6.50 $2.65 $9.15 $1.45 $9.86
Town Home - 90 Gallon $7.33 $3.07 $10.40 $1.45 $11.04
Hauler Bills, City Processing, No Containers - Year 5 (2010 - March 2011)
Size Refuse** Recycling Total Yard Waste*
30 Gallon $8.87 $3.68 $12.55 $1.50
60 Gallon $11.14 $4.65 $15.79 $1.50
90 Gallon $12.98 $5.41 $18.39 $1.50
Town Home - 30 G & 60 G $6.76 $2.76 $9.52 $1.50
Town Home - 90 Gallon $7.63 $3.19 $10.82 $1.50
.Seasonal Yard waste - 52.501year
$12.67
$15.69
$18.03
$9.86
$11.04
$12.67
$15.69
$18.03
$9.86
$11.04
$12.67
$15.69
$18.03
$9.86
$11.04
** Bulk Prices will remain the same as the 2005 prices, with a CPI index annual adjustment
*** Prices do not include the 9.75% tax on refuse.
$1.07
$1.09
$1.03
$1.06
$1.04
$0.61
$0.51
$0.35
$0.71
$0.64
$0.61
$0.51
$0.36
$0.71
$0.64
$0.12
($0.10)
($0.36)
$0.34
$0.22