My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
55A - RESO SCE STREET LIGHTS
Clerk
>
Agenda Packets / Staff Reports
>
City Council (2004 - Present)
>
2018
>
04/03/2018
>
55A - RESO SCE STREET LIGHTS
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/29/2018 7:42:40 PM
Creation date
3/29/2018 7:21:43 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Clerk
Doc Type
Agenda Packet
Agency
Public Works
Item #
55A
Date
4/3/2018
Destruction Year
2023
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
438
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
Jif ALLILDING ATNNCE INC <br />Recommendations (continued) <br />LED Conversation Costs (continued) <br />• The reduction of cost is due to: <br />o Removing the additional poles from the scope <br />• The Tanko audit shows 33 poles that should be added due to their underlighting <br />study and recommends a total 150 additional poles due to other reasons <br />• Unless it is a high priority to the City, these additional lights only add cost <br />It is unclear if Tanko also accounted forthe additional energy cost the poles will <br />result it. Over the 20 -year lifespan of the 33 / 150 poles, it would cost around <br />$33,000 / $147,000 respectively <br />Maintenance / Software Costs <br />• LED streetlights typically have a 10 -year warranty. It can be assumed that during this time, <br />internal maintenance efforts will be minimal/nothing <br />• LED streetlights typically have around a 100,000 burn -hour lifespan. This results in about 24 <br />years of an expected effective life <br />• By eliminating the unnecessary remote monitoring system described above and associated <br />software/maintenance, the City will save over $250,000 a year <br />As indicated in their report and cashflows, the Tanko project would be cashflow positive the first year <br />(because of the rebate), then the project would have a negative cashflow for the next 13 years, resulting <br />in the City needing additional funds to pay for the project. If the City considers a project similar to that <br />described above, cashflow would be positive every year, resulting in substantial money saved to the <br />City. The project would also be paid for 5 years faster. See below for a Total Program Summary Table <br />and the following page for an example recommended project cash-flow. <br />Item <br />Program Cost w/ interest <br />RecommendedLine Project <br />w/ 10 -year Loan <br />$8,572,953 <br />Tanko Project <br />w/ 15 -year .. <br />$12,946,114 <br />Maintenance / Software Cost (20years) <br />$306,216 <br />$5,556,928 <br />Program Savings (Energy Savings+ Rebate) <br />$22,474,210 <br />$23,017,298 <br />Net Program Savings <br />$13,177,292 <br />$4,514,256 <br />Difference from Tanko Project <br />$8,663,036 <br />12526 High Bluff Drive Suite 345, San Diego, CA 92130 <br />www.absenergy.com <br />55A-89 <br />(858)333-4775 <br />Contractors License # 1008135 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.