INFORMATION 11-07-2011
November 2011
Meeting Calendar
1 2 3 4 5
6 7 8 9 10 11 12
5:30 PM HRA 6:30 PM 6:00 PM Ice
6:30 PM City
Council Planning
Commission Arena
Commission VETERANS
DAY NOVEMBER 17
6:30 PM Park
& Rec
Commission
City Offices
Closed
13 14 15 16 17 18 19
5:30 PM EDA 3:30 PM 8:30 AM 6:00 PM HPC
6:30 PM City
Council Utilities
Commission Energy City
Commission
Worksession
7:00 PM
School Board
20 21 22 23 24 25 26
6:30 PM City 6:30 PM HAPPY
Council Library Board TIIANKSGIYING
6:30 PM
Planning
Commission
Wrkshp
City Offices City Offices
Closed Closed
27 28 29 30
7:00 PM Oct 2011 Dec 2011
School Board S M T W T F S S M T W T F S
1 1 2 3
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 11 12 13 14 15 16 17
16 17 18 19 20 21 22 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
23 24 25 26 27 28 29 25 26 27 28 29 30 31
30 31
INFORMATION
MEMORANDUM
~~
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Rebecca Haug, Environmental Administrator
Gary Lore, Building Maintenance Supervisor
DATE: November 7, 201 1
SUBJECT: RETAP Audit for City Hall & the Activity Center
The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) has a program called the Retiree
Environmental Technical Assistance Program (RETAP). This program employs skilled
retired professionals to provide environmental facility assessments and community
sustainabiliry assistance at no cost. T'he assessments look at the facility's energy, waste, and
water usage. The assessments involve an on-site visit to the facility from a team of RETAP
retirees with emphasis on finding opportunities to reduce waste, increase energy-efficiency,
and conservation and reduce operating costs.
Staff contacted RETAP to help determine ways to increase the efficiency of the heating and
cooling systems at City Hall and the Activity Center. These two facilities were chosen based
on their utility usage as they ranked quite high when compared to other cities' facilities that
were similar to age and size.
Staff including Gary Lore, Butch Pelarski, Dennis Anderson, Steven (Ross) Pomeroy, Vance
7ehringer, and I met with L.arry> 1~Iot1 and Norm Ledeboer on July 26, 2011 to tour both
facilities. Prior to the tour, staff provided Mr. Ledeboer with a year's worth of electric,
natural gas, water, and waste data for both facilities.
After the tour, Mr. Ledeboer requested some additional information about both facilities and
then prepared. the attached report. The report gives recommendations for ways in which the
City can save money at each facility. Because of this report, staff is working on making some
of the recommendations as time and money permit.
N:\Public Bodies\City Council\Counal RCA\Agenda Packet\11-07-2011\RH Info.docx
Minnesota Retired Engineers Technical Assistance Program
RET~F ci~='~'nT.4.~
Uni~r~tsityrf t!nnesota 6ate+tsaq enter
s~ sak Streat ~E. Shite g5n
-1.'.innaapVfis, R!inne~7ta 55~s5 - zn_C~3
atiti~.m~,ea_ st~[e• mn::~, s;'ret5
September 15, 2011
Rebecca Haug, Environmental Administrator
City of Elk River
13065 Orono Parkway
Elk River, MN 55330
RE~~P
Subject: Assessment reports for City Hall and Senior Activity Center
Greetings Rebecca;
Enclosed find paper copies of the assessment reports for the Elk River City Hall
and Senior Center. (My computer is not allowing me to send electronic copies at
this time!. I can try again later).
Larry and I and RETAP thank you and all the others involved for your interest in
these assessments and providing necessary information for us to complete the
reports. We commend you for your interest and your efforts to save energy,
costs and reduce waste.
We sincerely hope that this information may be helpful to you. Sometime in the
future you may be contacted by Gordon Amundson regarding follow-up to see
how any of this information was useful to the you and the City of Elk River. If you
have any questions or comments, please let me know (763-544-5625).
Thank you.
Sincerely,
4~ ~~~~
N rm Ledeboer, RETAP Consultant
Our mission is to help reduce waste and costs, prevent pollution and improve the energy efficiency of Minnesota
businesses and institutions.
ENERGY, WASTE MANAGEMENT ASSESSMENT ET~P
i ~` t
Energy and Waste Management
Assessment
Prepared Far: Rebecca Haug, Etk River Environmental Administratar
Report prepared by RETAP on behalf of the State of Minnesota
Assessment: July 26, 2011
Report: September 14, 2011
ENERGY, WASTE MANAGEMENT ASSESSMENT
Ghent: Elk Rl~eer Git~O Hall
Location:
13065 Orono Parkway
Elk River, MN 55330
Contacts:
Rebecca Haug, Environmental Administrator
Gary Lore, Building Maintenance Supervisor
763.635.1000 Rhaug@ci.elk-river.mn.us
763.635.1000
RETAP Assessment Team
Gordon Amundson, Follow-Up Coordinator, 651 486-2915, amund001 @umn.edu
Norm Ledeboer, Lead, 763 544-5625, medlakeledeboers@aol.com
Laurence Motl, Team Member, 952 944-8225, larrymotl@aol.com
Thomas Segar, Tech Team review, 952 888-7159, segar t@msn.com
Richard Person, Waste/Recycle review, 952-546-3490, 2persons@comcast.net
Table of Contents
1: Executive Summary .................................. 3
2: Facilities ................................................ 3
3: Energy/V1/ater/Waste Costs and Benchmarks. 4
4: Potential Savings .................................... 4
5: Solid Waste and Recycling Management...... 6
6: References ............................................ 7
7: Glossary ................................................ 8
List of Tables
Table 1: Recommendations ..............................................3
Table 2: Annual Utility Costs ..............................................4
Table 3: Benchmark Information ........................................4
Table 4: Bill Data Summary ...............................................9
The Minnesota Retired Engineers Technical Assistance Program conducts environmental assessments for Minnesota businesses and
institutions to help prevent pollution, reduce waste and improve energy efficiency. Support for Minnesota RETAP is provided by
the Minnesota Office of Environmental Assistance (OEA). Minnesota RETAP is housed in the offices of the Minnesota Technical
Assistance Program (MNTAP) at the University of Minnesota.
ENERGY,1r~ASTE MANAGEMENT ASSESSMENT
1: Exec~~i~e S~mrna~
~ 1 s
Elk River City Hall was assessed for energy and waste management efficiency by a team from the.
Minnesota Retired Engineers Technical Assistance Program (RETAP); on July 26, 2011. The RETAP
team was Larry Motl and Norm Ledeboer. We sincerely thank Rebecca Haug for arranging he
assessment, providing information and Dennis Anderson, Gary Lore, Steven Pomeroy and Vance
Zehringer for providing information for the assessment and a tour of the facility. Specific
recommendations are listed below in Table 1. Additional discussion and back-up information-and
calculations are listed in Section 4: Potential Savings.
TaEaEe 1: Recommendations
Potenti al Savin s A nnual
Recommendation KwH Kw Fuel Water Waste 's Tons
*Kbtu Gallons Yds CO2
1.Consider adding more insulation to the 10,900 3 520,000 0 0 $5,180 39
roof/ceiling to increase the "R° value to the
recommendated 38 from an estimated 20 now,
to reduce both heating and cooling costs.
2.Consider improving the efficiency of the HVAC 2,480 2 532,000 0 0 4,470 34
system by evaluation and possible replacement
of equipment and recommissioning.
3. Consider replacing the 17 metal halide lamps 7,740 0 0 0 0 $740 5
in the parking/security lights with pulse start
ballasts to reduce the power used from 460 watt
to 355 watts each.
4.Add a VendingMiser device to the soft drink 650 0 0 0 0 $62 0.6
machine.
5.Consider replacing the "U" Tube, 18 watt CFLs 423 0 0 0 0 $41 0.3
with magnetic ballasts in the hallway, with 13
watt CFLs with electronic ballasts.
6.Add insulation blankets to the two water 0 0 4,500 0 0 $36 0
heaters.
Total: 22,193 5 ' 1,056,500 ; ': $10,529 I 78.9
*1 Therm = 100 Kbtu _ _
This analysis and potential savings estimates are based on utility bill data provided for building structure, HVAC,
lighting, water and waste management and operating hours. Actual future savings will depend on weather, utility
billing rates, site or operational changes, and on recommendations implemented.
2: FaCf~ltl@S
The Elk River City Ha11 building is constructed of concrete, brick, steel, wood, typical building construction
with good quality double pane windows, with aluminum frames. Roof insulation is estimated to be about
"R" 22 with walls about 18. Lighting in the office areas is predominately T-5 fluorescent lamps with
-.electronic ballasts; in .good quality. fixtures. The.lower level utility room has T-8 fluorescent lighting.. There
are thirteen ceiling hung light fixtures in the hallway/entry area with 18 watt, CFL lamps which have
magnetic ballasts. HVAC system is seven modular boilers which produce hot water for heating and roof
top chillers for cooling. Security and parking lights consist of seventeen, 400 watt metal halide light
ENERGY, WASTE MANAGEMENT ASSESSMENT
j
fixtures, operating on photocells. One complaint heard was that sitting/working near the windows
produces a cold feeling-probably due to the aluminum frames on the windows.
~: Energy, Water, Waste Costs and Bencf~rt~arks
Annual utility costs are presented in Table 1: Bill Data Summary information for one year is in Table 4 on
the last. page of this report.
Table 2: Annual Utility Costs
Electrical Fuel Water Waste Total
$38,891 $22,372 $0 $1,202 $62,460
Table 3 lists the City Hall energy use per square foot of space and the DOE IA Benchmark information for
similar buildings in this temperature zone.
Table 3: Benchmark Eneruy Information
KwH/FtZ Fuel Total 's/FtZ Tons C02
Kbtu/Ft2 Kbtu/Ft2
Building Total 9.4 66 98 $1.42 438
*DOE IA Benchmark 10.2 50.7 85 - -
0 0 0 $0 0
"Department of Energy Information Agency 2003 Building Average Data, Zone 1(Degree Days > 7000) for Service type
buildings. Note: Energy Star building energy efficiency requirements can be 20% to 30% below DOE IA Benchmarks.
The benchmark information from the above table shows that the City Hall used less electrical energy for
the year evaluated than comparable buildings in this temperature zone based on the DOE benchmarks but
would not meet Energy Star requirements for the year, at about 25 percent lower. However, the building
used considerably more fuel than the benchmark number, 66 kbtu/sq.ft versus the benchmark of 50.7
See Section 4 for further discussion on this issue.
4: Potential Savings
Benchmark Discussion
As mentioned above, the fuel used for the year assessed, 66 Kbtu per sq.ft. of space, was considerably
above the DOE benchmark number of 50.7 Kbtu per sq.ft. If the DOE benchmark number were achieved,
the total fuel savings would be 6,579 therms and $5,224 for the year, based on 43,000 square feet of
space. The DOE benchmark used by RETAP for total energy was somewhat less than the M3 benchmark
used by the city, 85 Kbtu per sq.ft. versus 95 Kbtu per sq.ft. for B3. This may be due in part to the
different time period the benchmarks cover. The recommendations discussed in this report would provide
potential reduction in fuel use of 10;565 therms, if all were implemented and savings were as calculated.
Therefore; this would bring the City Hall 3,986 therms below the DOE benchmark. However, Energy Star
building energy efficiency requirements are 20 to 30 percent below DOE IA Benchmarks. These numbers
provide targets and goals for the City to work toward.
Page 4 of 9
ENERGY, WASTE MANAGEMENT ASSESSMENT
Electric Bitts
A review of the electric bills for the year is provided below;
1. The overall electric rate, including all fees, taxes, demand charges, etc., was $0.096 per Kwh, a
high rate,
2. Kwh usage and demand both peaked during summer months, probably due to air conditioning
loads,
3. Demand varied significantly from a high of 128 Kw in June to a low of 72 Kw for both January &
February. Again, this is probably caused by AC loads during summer months,
4. The average load factor (LF), was 46 percent,:which is considered "fair". A."good" LF would be 50
percent or better. (See Section 7: Glossary, for a discussion of LF and other terms used in this
report),
5. The $0.90 per square foot of space for the year is slightly higher than the M-3 baseline number of
$0.84.
RETAP recommends that the City discuss with Utility Representatives, ways to reduce demand and Kwh
usage to increase load factor and reduce electric bills.
Fuel Bilts
A review of fuel bills is provided below;
1. The average therms used during June, July and August, when no heating should be required, was
967 therms/month, indicating this fuel was used for water hea#ing, which is a significant amount for
this purpose,
2. The fuel used was above DOE Benchmarks and also the MN B-3 Benchmarks,
3. The overall unit cost for 2010 fuel use was $0.794 per therm.
Building Envelope
Add insulation to the rooflceiling to increase the ~R" value from about 22 now to 40. This could be
accomplished by adding 3 inches of polyisocyanurate foamboard, or 4 inches of polystyrene or 5 inches of
fibrous glass board or 8 inches of fiberglass Batt insulation. This would reduce the fuel consumption-for
heating by about 5,200 therms and electrical energy for cooling by about 10,900 kWhr for the year
evaluated, for a total of about $5,749 per year.
Consider some type of treatment for the aluminum window frames to reduce the conductance of thermal
energy (cold), from the windows. Potential savings are negligible but the comfort level would/could be
improved.
H~AC
Consider improvi^g he overall efficiency of the HVAC system from about 72 percent (heating), to 90
percent, by evaluation of the equipment and controls, conducting a recommissioning study if feasible and
replacing old-equipment with new, high efficiency equipment. Estimated energy savings would be 2,480
kWhr electrical energy and 5,320 therms of fuel. Dollar savings would be about $4,465 total, per year.
This analysis could/should include, bu# not be limited to, consideration of age and maintenance of
.-------®_ Page 5 of 9 , ~~---
ENERGY, WASTE MANAGEMENT ASSESSMENT ~~~~~
equipment, air and water distribution enhancement, zoning, dampers and economizer evaluation, set-back
thermostats and boiler stack dampers.
Li htin
The thirteen, 18 watt "U" tube CFLs in the hallway light fixtures have magnetic ballasts and draw about 26
watts each with their ballasts, thereby using a total of 845 Kwh per year, based on 2,500 hours per year, at
a cost of $81. Consider replacing these with 13 watt CFLs with electronic ballasts, which would use about
13 watts each. If these lamps are ON about 2,500 hours per year, the savings would be 423 kWhr and
$41.
The 400 metal halide lamps in the parking/security lights each draw about 460 watts with their ballasts.
These could be replaced with pulse start ballasts which would draw about 355 watts each. Total potential
savings would be 7,740 kWhr and $740 per the year evaluated, based on 4,380 operating hours per year.
LED lights would provide significantly greater savings for this application-however, the present cost of
LEDs is very high. Replacement options should be reviewed periodically as costs are reduced and new
options become available.
Consider adding motion sensors to the lights in the lower level utility room to reduce the time these lights
are ON. Potential savings are dependent on reduced operating hours for the lights.
Water/Sewer
The 1,080,000 gallons of water used during 2010, is nearly 3,000 gallons per day, including weekends.
The City Hall is not charged for water orsewer-however, efforts should be made to minimize water use
with low flow plumbing fixtures and a culture of wa#er conservation at the facility.
Waste/ReCVClinq
The waste/recycling cost of $1,200 for the year evaluated seems reasonable for this facility. Efforts are
being made to recycle and compost materials as much as possible/feasible, to reduce trash. Section 5
below provides guidelines for evaluating and possibly improving waste reduction and recycle programs.
Other
All computers, copiers, fax machines, and other electronic equipment should be turned off at night and on
weekends.
5: Solid Waste and Recycling Management
Following are guidelines for effective solid waste and recycling management. Not all this information is
necessarily applicable to your facility.
1. Level of Fill, Frequency of Pick-ups, Dempster Size, Compactor
Page 6 of 9
ENERGY, WASTE MANAGEMENT ASSESSMENT
T
• Monitor the level of #ill in a given period of time to determine the necessity of the current frequency. of pick-ups.
If not nearly full when picked-up, revise the schedule to reduce the pick-up frequency accordingly to .maximize
the fill level each time. This action is necessary after implementing recycling since there will be less in the
general waste stream. At no cost, excluding labor, the payback would be immediate.
• Evaluate whether use of the next size larger dumpster will allow less frequent pick-ups. Also, consider'
contracting for "on demand" or "as needed" pick-ups when the dumpster is full. Good for materials or
containers that accumulate or fill slowly. This should yield a monthly savings at little or no cost and the
payback would be immediate._
• Consider leasing or purchasing a small compactor to reduce the volume of waste. Although this won't reduce
trash weight, it will greatly reduce the frequency of pulls thus reducing the trash hauling cost.
2. Cardboard & ®ffice Paper
• Consider ways to reduce use of corrugated cardboard. Replace your company's shipping containers with
reusable tubs or with shipping bags.. Ask your suppliers to do the same.
Paper and paperboard make up the largest single component of our national waste stream (32%). Of that,
corrugated cardboard is the most prevalent paper material by far. It is nearly 3 times as prevalent as the next
most prevalent paper material, newspaper.
• Separate and recycle old corrugated cardboard (OCC). To find markets for this recyclable material, consult
the MPCA Recycling Market Directory wvrw.pca,state.mn.usJ Consider requiring a revenue share with your
recycler for this material
• Establish office policies to reduce the amount of paper that is used in your workplace. Include such things as
1 inch margins and doubled-sided printing for all documents and correspondence. Set copier/printers to
default to duplex. If your copier has a print release function or mail boxes whereby employees release the
print job when get to the machine, use these. Print release functions can reduce paper use by 20%. .
• Collect and recycle white office paper and mixed papers. White paper and mixed paper, properly baled, can
be sold to create a revenue stream (clean bales of vvhite :paper sell fora premium: price). Consult the MPCA:
www.pca.state.mn.usl -for sources to `recycle paper and cardboard. If paper and corrugated cardboard a"re not
sold; hey canbe picked up~at lower-cost than general. waste. While there will be an initiate"cost to provide '
recycling waste receptacles and an ongoing cost forcleaning crew time, this recommendation appears worthy.
of evaluation to determine whether the potential payback time will be worth proceeding.
3. Solid Waste -- MisceNaneous
• Identify the waste items disposed of in dumpsters and determine which are recyclable. More may be
recyclable than you think. To find markets for materials, consult the MPCA Recycling Markets Directory at:
www. pca. state. m n. ust
• Separate/collect and recycle any recyclable material. Determine the volume or weight of recyclable materials
so that specific information can be provided to recycling companies to assist in determining the feasibility of
recycling efforts.
• Consider replacing paper hand towel dispensers in all restrooms with electric air dryers to reduce solid waste..
• Provide reusable options for kitchens, cafeterias, break-rooms.
• Establish partnerships_with nearby schools, government facilities, andlor businesses to combine recycling,.
`efforts. Recycling economics'are volume sensitive. The potential for and the value of recycling increase if
volumes of recyclable wastes can be increased
• Capture and reuse office supplies. Hold occasional "office clean outs" and capture all folders, binders, paper
clips, etc. for restocking in central ofFce supply area.
• Depressurize and flatten empty aerosol cans containing non-hazardous contents and dispose of them as
scrap metal. To find markets for this recyclable material, consult the MPCA recycling market directory
www. oca.state. mn. usl
• Periodically, or at contract renewal time, request competitive bids from other local trash haulers. Check your
hauler contract for renewal date to be sure you have time to seek other bids prior to automatic renewal of
contract. Clients can contact the MPCA about contract elements that can yield better value from
waste/recycling contracts.
--~----- Pagel of 9'---------------
ENERGY, WASTE MANAGEMENT ASSESSMENT
Minnesota Waste Wise: vrw.rnnwastewise.org
Rethink Recycling: www.rethinkrecycEing.con~
Vending Miser, ~t~~~~tt~f.~.~~;~~inv~t~i~~r.
MN Pollution Agency, °~,~.~FF~t. ~~.~.~. ~.~~:..~.~
7: G(QSSary
The following definitions are given for terms used in this report*;
RET/~P
- Actual Demand, in Kw, is the highest average fifteen (15) minutes of demand over a billing period.
- Billed Demand or Adjusted Demand is actual demand plus an adjustment for low power factor.
- Load Factor is a measure of efficiency of using electrical power, and is the ratio of average load
supplied during a designated period to the peak load occurring that period.
Load Factor = Kwh used in a given time period
Peak Kw times hours in period
- Power Factor PF measures how effectively your equipment uses electrical current from the utility.
PF is a measure of how the current delivered to the equipment is converted into useful energy and is
listed as a percentage. If the PF is below 90 percent, Xcel Energy, like many utilities, charges extra
because it costs the utility more to build and operate the additional equipment to carry the extra
current needed to run your equipment.
- Adjusted Demand =Actual Demand times 90/PF, when PF is < 90.
- Kbtu is a unit of energy equal to 1,000 Btu (British Thermal Units). A Therm is a unit of energy equal
to 100 Kbtu. A CCF is 100 cubic feet of natural gas. For the purposes of measuring energy use, a
` therm and a CCF of natural oas are eauivalent_
- '• KwH is the electrical energy usage per hour. One KwH = 3,413 Btu.
* From Xcel Energy, "Small Business Guide to Energy Savings", 1999 and NSP, "How to Reduce Your
Energy Costs°, 1996 with 1998 modifications for NSP.
••------------ Page 8 of 9
Oi
Cil
t9
O_
tD
.,
~ ~ ~ o m c = ~ m ~ p
p
~ n < ~ c c ? i
n -o w a ? I
m ~ v Q _ ~ 3
co •• o 0 0 'o o ~ o 0 0 0 0 0 ~
••
T O ~
Efl
C7f W
W W
O W
O N
W A A
CT A
o W
A N
CD N
(fl N
CO N
V C
C
Ic
=
~ O V ~l N W A A O N N W Ut O o
O
O N
~ O N
O Oo
O O
O A
O A
O Oo
O W
O A
O Oo
O O
O N
O N
O
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ I~
_ ' V N ~ A A N N
p 0
, D
O W V O Oo N
~'
e
~~ ~° m
o r
o _ _ __ _ __. _ _ __._ ~
~ n a cn
W A
Cn w
OD w
CT A
V cn
-~ cn
O w
V w
O A
N rn
-~ cn
N ~
~o 'r
~ ~
'
,
01 , ~
.
o ~,
W to to fn ts> <n to rfl <» to E» Fn <n !
OD N 'N N :W A A A W N N N N
~2 t0 CVT ~ OOD N W UAi CEO ~ ~ 'O W W W
_.~ s A ,~ 'A A V CO pp 'O ~ .O p
n
O
iC!
O ~ ao 0 o N o w co cn m o 0 0 0
V
C
O N
\ ~ N
~ ~ ~
~ W . W (O A O V -+ U7 N OD U7 ~ .
V
~ W 'W W A N O O 'A OD W W
,
C.
~ 01
0 O
0 OD
0 OD
0 N O (J1 W O A A : V W a
~
~_ 0 0 0 0 O O O -0 O
fD ~ __ ___- ___ _- ___ -_ - -__ _- ____.
~
' ~
r N EA fA ffl ,. fA Efl ffl ffl - I
~ N
~
N
to
Hi
ffl
fA
_
Efl
- W
A ~
y tD
p W ~ W A lD V (T OD 00 ~ U7 N
_
N tD Cfl N W
- W W O : W W W ', Q7 ~I
a - --- - - - -_ -- -- --
c _
~o
~
O
~ t0
'-'I A
(T
CO
CO
W
A
V
N
W
A
N
Oo
j
OD
W
W
- Oo
V
O
N ..
=
~ OD C4 A W O ~! O (fl W O CO W A '~,
v
- A
<. O O O ~ CD N A N A ~ O ~ O'
fll D O O O O O O 'O O O O O O O ~
~p O
~ o O
O
- 'O
O O
o O
'O O
O 'O
O O
o O
O O
iO
- O
O O
O O~
O
N c
~
~ __ - - _ __ ---- -- -- _ ,..r
~p '.
v ~
~ ~,
Z <» ts~ cis 4n En En to [si to fn to v> to ! ~
p o 0 0 0 0 0 0 o o 'o 0 0 0
v ,
~
_ ~
= s
O N N N N N N N N N N N N Q C
{A N (T CT CT , (n (Ji CT G7 U7 tT CT tT CT (/~ !~
v .-r
- _
_..
--
-
-
-
-_ ~
<O ~
~p : N ,
,..p
~ En <D
~ ~1 N EA to fA -ffl 4fl Efl Vi 69 ffl (i9 !69 4A '. ~
N
~ N O ! O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 : 0 O'
+ ,. ', ,
~ (")
' ~.
~
Q O
~ _ _ r - ___ ~ _ - _ _ __.
'' ..._._._ _..
~,.. _ ..___._.
~ (Q ~~~ ~ ~ O
~ T
~ N ffl
V ffl
-. CT {fl
A ffl
A b9
C7t b9
CT ffl
CN ffl
CT : ffl
W Efl
A ! Efl
' ~ {p
O ,
~ y.
~r
~'.
W A O •~ A N O N ~ O V ~ ~O O
-~ m
a _ m
c~ ~
_
00 ~
v ";
m
~ Z
~
~
~ n
m
m
Z
•"~
D
~.
,cn
m
m
z
•
ENERGY, WASTE MANAGEMENT ASSESSMENT ~ETAP
Elk River Senior Activity Center
Energy and Waste Management
Assessment
Prepared Far: Rebecca Haug, Eik River Environmental Administrator
Report prepared by RETAP on behalf of the State of Minnesota
Assessment: July 26, 2011
Report: September 14, 2011
ENERGY, WASTE MANAGEMENT ASSESSMENT RETQP
Client: Eik River Senior Activity Center
Location:
413 Proctor Road
Elk River, MN 55330
Contacts:
Rebecca Haug, Elk River Environmental Administrator 763.635.1072 Rhaug@ci.elk-
river.mn.us
Gary Lore, Building Maintenance Supervisor 763.635.1072
RETAP Assessment Team
Gordon Amundson, Follow-Up Coordinator, 651 486-2915, amund001 @umn.edu
Norm Ledeboer, Lead, 763 544-5625, medlakeledeboers@aol.com
Laurence Motl, 952 944-8225, larrymotl@aol.com
Thomas Segar, Tech Team reviewer, 952 888-7159, segar t@msn.com
Richard Person, Waste/Recycle reviewer, 952-546-3490, 2persons@comcast.net
Table of Contents
1: Executive Summary ................................. 3
2: Facilities ................................................ 4
3: Energy,Water,Waste Costs and Benchmarks 4
4: Potential Savings ..................................... 5
5: Solid Waste and Recycling Management....... 6
6: References ............................................. 7
7: Glossary ................................................ 7
List of Tables
Table 1: Recommendations ............................................3
Table 2: Annual Utility Costs ..........................................4
Table 3: Benchmark Information .....................................4
Table 4: Bill Data Summary ...........................................9
The Minnesota Retired Engineers Technical Assistance Program conducts environmental assessments for Miruiesota businesses and
institutions to help prevent pollution, reduce waste and improve energy efficiency. Support for Minnesota RETAP is provided by
the Minnesota Office of Environmental Assistance (OEA). Minnesota RETAP is housed in the offices of the Minnesota Technical
Assistance Program (MNTAP) at the University of Minnesota
ENERGY, WASTE MANAGEMENT ASSESSMENT
"! : ExecutEVe Summat°~t
RETAP
The Elk River Senior Activity Center was assessed for energy and waste management efi=lciency by a
team from the Minnesota Retired Engineers Technical Assistance Program on July 26, 2011. The RETAP
team was Larry Motl and Norm Ledeboer. We sincerely thank Rebecca Haug for arranging the
assessment, providing information and Dennis Anderson, Gary Lore, Steven Pomeroy and Vance
Zehringer for providing information for the assessment and a tour of the facility. Specific::.
recommendations are listed below in Table 1. Additional discussion, back-up information and calculations
are provided in Section 4: Potential Savings.
Table 1: Recommendations
Potentia l Savin s Annual
Recommendation KwH Kw Fuel Water Wast 's Tons
*Kbtu Gallons a CO2
Yds
1.}Add insulation to the roof/ceiling to 1,720 0 100,000 0 0 $968 7
increase the "R" value from about 16 to
code recommendated 38, to reduce
both heating and cooling costs.
2.) Improve the efficiency of the HVAC 2,584 0 57,800 0 0 $720 5
system by evaluating all equipment,
possibly conducting a recommissioning
study to raise overall efficiency from
estimated 80 percent to 90 percent.
3.) Replace the nine, 175 watt mercury 2,934 0 0 0 0 :$296 2
vapor lamps in the front entry area with
42 watt CFLs
4.) Discuss with the electric utility 0 0 0 0 0 $280 0
representative, the possibility of
installing load control on the AC
condensers-potential credit of $5 per
ton of cooling per month,. for four
summer months.
5.) Replace the T-12 fluorescent lamps 1,392 0 0 0 0 $142 1
and their magnetic ballasts in the
meeting room with 28 watt, T-8 lamps
and eiectronis ballasts.
6.) Add an insulation jacket to the water 0 0 1,900 0 0 $15 0
heater.
Total: ' 8,630 ' 0 159,700 0 ' 0 ' $2,421 16
*1 Therm = 100 Kbtu
This analysis and potential savings estimates are based on utility bill data provided and on data provided
for building structure, HVAC, lighting, operating-hours; `waterand waste management for the facility.
Page 3 of 9 ------~--
ENERGY, WASTE MANAGEMENT ASSESSMENT
Actual future savings will depend on weather, utility billing rates, site or operational changes, and on
recommendations implemented.
2: FaciEities
The Senior Activity Center is a one story building of 10,600 square feet. It has a vestibule. entry, a foyer,
meeting/conference room, large assembly room, small kitchen/break room and other supporting spaces.
HVAC is via three boilers and air handlers for heating and three outdoor cooling condensers for cooling
(two 4 ton units and one 6 ton unit). Lighting is a combination of mercury vapor lighting in the foyer area,
T-12 fluorescent lighting in the meeting/conference room and T-8 fluorescent lighting in the assembly area
and other spaces. Windows are double glass, thermo pane, "fair" quality with aluminum frames. Outdoor
parking & security lighting consists of eleven, 200 watt metal halide lights controlled with photocells.
3: Energy, ~/ater, Waste Coss and Benchmarks
Annual utility costs are presented in Table 1: Bill Data Summary, is provided in Table 4, on the last page
of the report.
Table 2: Annual Total Utility Costs
Electrical Fuel Water Waste Total
$13 003 $4 699 $0 $641 $18 340
Table 3, below, lists the electric energy usage in KwH per sq.ft., the fuel use in Kbtu per sq.ft., the total
energy use in Kbtu per sq.ft, and DOE IA Benchmark numbers for the same parameters.
Table 3: Benchmark Information
KwH/Ft2 Fuel Total 's/Ftz Tons C02
Kbtu/Ftz Kbtu/FtZ
Buildin Total 12.2 56 97 $1.67 122
*DOE IA Benchmark 11.6 42 82 - -
0 0 0 $0 0
'Department of Energy Information Agency 2003 Building Average Data, Zone 1(Degree Days > 7000) for Public Assembly buildings.
Note: Energy Star building energy efficiency requirements can be 20% to 30% below DOE IA Benchmarks.
The above table shows that the Senior Activity Center exceeded the DOE IA Benchmark numbers for both
electrical usage and fuel usage per square foot of space for the year evaluated. See the discussion of
benchmark data in Section 4 below.
Page 4 of 9
ENERGY, WASTE MANAGEMENT ASSESSMENT
4. Patert~iai S~~rir~gs
E?iscussian afi Benchmarks
RETAP
Benchmark information can provide guidelines and establish goals to strive for in attempts to reduce
energy use in your building. For example, if the benchmark number for electrical usage of 11.6 KwH/sq.ft
were achieved, the savings in electrical energy would be 0.6 KwH/sq.ft. X 10,600 sq.ft. _ 6,360 KwH per
year and $642 per year. If the benchmark number for fuel were achieved, the fuel savings would be 14
Kbtu per sq.ft., or 14 X 10,600 = 148,400 Kbtu per year or 1,484 therms and $1,178 per year. The TOTAL
savings would be $1,820-per year. If the facility were to achieve Energy Star benchmarks(25 percent
below DOE IA benchmarks), the potential savings would be 36,040 KwH and 2,544 therms per year, or
$3,640 + $2,019 for a total of $5,659 per year.
Some potential savings recommendatios are listed below, which would bring this facility closer to the
benchmark energy usage numbers. ;
Electric Bills
A review of the electric bills for 2010;
1. The overall unit cost for electricity was $0.101, including fees, taxes, etc., a relatively high unit cost.
2. The total cost for electricity was $1.23 per square foot of space.
Fuel Bills
A review of the fuel bills for 2010;
1. The overall unit cost of fuel was $0.794 per therm.
2. Water heating used about 140 therms, out of a total of 5,921 therms, about 2.4 percent of the total:
Building Envelope
Consider adding insulation to the roof/ceiling to increase the "Rfl value from the estimated 16 to a
recommendaed 38. This would reduce the fuel used for heating and the electrical energy used for cooling
and to run the HVAC system: Potential=fuel saved would be about-1;000 therms and $794 per year, based
on 7,967 degree days and 90 degree design heating emperature difference and 20 degree design cooling
temperature difference and a 75 percent efficient system. The electrical energy saved would be: about
1,720 KwH and $174 per year, for a total of $968. .
HVAC
Consider a complete. evaluation of the HVAC system, including a possible recommissioning to .improve the
overall efficiency of the heating system from an estimated $0 percent to 90 percent.. This. may .include
replacing old equipment with new, high efficiency equipment, adding VFDs, modifying the control systems,
etc. Water heating uses about 140 therms of fuel per year, leaving 5,781 therms for building heating and
about 20 percent of the electrical energy used was for the HVAC system. Improving the overall HVAC
efficiency by 10 percent would reduce the fuel used by 578 therms per year and the electric use for the
system by 3,000 KwH, or $460 and $326 for a total savings of $786 per year.
Rages of 9
ENERGY, WASTE MANAGEMENT ASSESSMENT
RETAP
Discuss with the electric utility the possibility of adding load control to the air conditioning condensers,
similar to the Xce1 Energy SaverSwitch. This could possible provide and an AC credit of $5 per ton per
month for four summer months for a total of $280 a year.
Lighting
Consider replacing the nine, 175 watt mercury vapor lights in the entry area with 42 watt compact
fluorescent lamps (CFCs). The mercury vapor lights draw about 205 watts each with their ballasts. For
2,000 operating hours per year, these lights use 410 KwH per year each or 3,690 KwH per year for nine.
The CFCs would use about 756 KwH per year for a savings of 2,934 KwH and $296 per year.
Replace the T-12 fluorescent lamps and their magnetic ballasts in the meeting room with 28 watt T-8
lamps and electronic ballasts. The fixtures can be reused-only the lamps and ballasts need.. to be
changed. This would save about 1,392 KwH and $142 per year, based on 2,000 operating hours per year.
The eleven, 200 watt metal halide lights in the parking/security areas, are probably "super saver" now and
"fairly" efficient. These presently use about 215 watts each and if they are ON about 4,380 hours per year,
they would use 942 KwH per year each, at a cost of $95 each or $1,047 total for 11, per typical year. As
the first cost of LED lighting becomes more competitive, condiser replacing the metal halide with LED
lights. Potential savings would be about 75 percent, or more than $750 per year.
Replacement options for all lighting should be reviewed periodically for new energy saving technologies.
Water/ Sewer
Add an insulation jacket to the water heater. Potential savings would be 19 therms and $15 per year.
The 309,000 gallons of water used for the year is about 847 gallons per day, including weekends.
The Senior Activity Center is not charged for water or sewer. However, water conservation should be
considered with low flow plumbing fixtures and developing a "culture" of conservation in the facility.
Waste/Recycling
The $641 per year for waste/recycling cost seems reasonable for this facility and does now allow for much
improvement. Section 5 below provides guidelines for solid waste and recycling management.
Other
All electrical equipment including lights should be turned OFF when not being used and during night and
weekend hours.
5: Solid Waste and Recycling Management
following are guidelines for effective solid waste and recycling management. Much or most of this
information may not be applicable to your facility.
1. Level of Fill, Frequency of Rick-ups, Dumpster Size. Compactor
Page6 of 9
ENERGY, WASTE MANAGEMENT ASSESSMENT
RETAP
• Monitor the level of fill in a given period of time to determine the necessity of the current frequency
of pick-ups. If not nearly #ull when picked-up, revise the schedule to reduce the pick-up frequency
accordingly to maximize the fill level each time. This action is necessary after implementing
recycling since there will be less in the general waste stream. At no cost, excluding labor, the
payback would be immediate.
• Evaluate whether use of the next size larger dumpster will allow less frequent pick-ups. Also,
consider contracting for "on demands or "as needed" pick-ups when the dumpster is full. Good for
materials or containers that accumulate or fill slowly. This should yield a monthly savings at little or
no cost and the payback would be immedia#e.
• Consider leasing or purchasing a small compactor to reduce the volume of waste. Although this
won't reduce trash weight, it will greatly reduce the frequency of pulls thus reducing the trash
hauling cost.
2. Cardboard 8~ Office Paper
• Consider ways to reduce use of corrugated cardboard. Replace your company's shipping
containers with reusable tubs or with shipping bags. Ask your suppliers to do the same.
Paper and paperboard make. up the largest single component of our national waste stream (32%).
Of that, corrugated cardboard is the most prevalent paper material by far. It is nearly 3 times as
prevalent as the next most prevalent paper material, newspaper..
• Separate and recycle old corrugated cardboard (OCC). To find markets for this recyclable material,
consult the MPCA Recycling Market Directory www.pca.state.mn.us/ Consider requiring a
revenue share with your recycler for this material.
• Establish office policies to reduce the amount of paper that is used in your workplace. include such
things as 7 inch margins and doubled-sided printing for all documents and correspondence. Set
copier/printers to default to duplex. 1f your copier has a print release function or mail boxes
whereby employees release the print job when get to the machine, use these. Print release
functions can reduce paper use by 20%.
Collect and recycle white office paper and mixed papers. White paper and mixed paper, properly
baled, can be sold to create a revenue stream (clean bales of white paper sell for a premium price).
Consult the MPCA : www.pca.state.mn.us/ for sources to recycle paper and cardboard. If paper
and corrugated cardboard are not sold, they can be picked up at lower cost than general waste....
While there will be an initial cost to provide recycling waste receptacles and an ongoing cost for
cleaning crew time, this recommendation appears worthy of evaluation to determine whether the
potential payback #ime will be worth proceeding.
3. Solid Waste-- Miscellaneous
• Identify the waste items disposed of in dumpsters and determine which are recyclable. More may
be recyclable than you think. To find markets for materials, consult the MPCA Recycling Markets
Directory at: www.pca.state.mn.us/
• Separa#e/collect:-and recycle any recyclable material. Determine the volume or weight of recyclable
materials so that specific information can be provided to recycling companies to assist in
determining the feasibility of recycling efforts.
• Consider replacing paper hand towel dispensers in all restrooms with electric air dryers to reduce
solid waste.
• Provide reusable options for kitchens, cafeterias, break-rooms.
• Establish partnerships with nearby schools, government facilities, andlor businesses to combine
recycling efforts. Recycling economics are volume sensitive. The potential for and the value of
recycling increase if volumes of recyclable wastes can be increased
---------- Rage? ot:9 ---------
INFORMATION
MEMORANDUM
ttiver
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Jeremy Barnhart, Planning Manager
DATE: November 7, 201 I
SUBJECT: Snow Abatement Process Update
At the May 16, 2011, City Council meeting, the Council approved a new snow abatement
policy, which staff has begun implementation.
1. In late October, the City will notify residents of the requirements to remove snow from
public sidewalks via the publication of a notice and maps in the newsletter, newspaper,
website, social media, Cable TV, and all other methods.
(Staff has purchased door hangers, and the 11 /5 edition of the Star Nezvr will include an
advertisement reminding property owners of the responsibility of snow removal. The
notice will also be posted to the city website.)
2. Snowfall. After the initial snow fall, door hangers will be posted in neighborhoods with
significant delinquency.
3. Complaint received for the specific parcel.
4. Property inspected within 24 hours.
5. A door hanger is provided to the property in question, and other properties on the
block, as a reminder of the need to remove snow. (Staff will NOT phone property
owners on the need to remove snow. Not only is this time consuming, this is not
generally effective, and a written notice still needs to be provided.)
Do not use a colored paper, as the ink bleeds onto the door.
6. Certified notices sent to property in question and to other adjacent addresses in
violation. This is done to avoid enforcing one mid-block house, and ignoring the next
door neighbor, knowing that a cleared sidewalk does no good unless it is block wide at
minimum. A certified notice is sent out as required by law.
7. Wait 14 days.
8. On the 15~' day, an inspection is completed.
9. If the sidewalk is not cleared, the address is sent to our contractor, who must clear the
driveway within 48 hours.
M E ~ E i ®'~
N:\Public Bodies\Ciry Council\Council RCA\Agenda Packet\11-07-2011\Snow removal info.docx ~~
24 HOURS TO
SHOVEL SIDEWALKS
1'he city nr~~n incc rec~tiilc~ that sn~,u° ~~ii~d ice he r~~nlored
tforn ~sldri~;il~.s u1f~11t1 ' ~'hourt :ifcer <a sno~3 t,~11
:~ Why Shovel?
(fur trlcnds ~u~d nei~hhcits use d1e sidei~-alk sti stem ~°~en 1n
~~-intrr, tai wall. ur jo;;, ~1sit tritiids, and ~.o-to schn~~l_ :~
cleared side~ialks~~srrmkeel„ nc~ ~cr~~le off die ~trrce
~- Who Needs to Shovel?
Prohert~ c~«~nershorderin~]~ul_>Itcsidc~~.ills:
When to Shovel
tin<~~~ ,end Icr nccd Yw Lie cleared .from side~calks «-ithtn~~}
houre arter a sne,«-f,i11.
-~~ Where to Shovel
Cle~u~ the ~filll ~ridth of du sidel~alk. ~al~r and s-and icy, spots
~mdremo~~r sn~-,~~-.from sidtuall`~corizers and cur1~ ramps,
What Happens if I Do Not Shovel?
~'t~u «illrecc~~-e a rn>ria~ from the cir~ nod it you dr, not
cc>nlph, the c1n ~~aill trnx,~ c dle sno« <uid ice ,{nd you ~a111 be
chahed tOT'Snov1' Tc171~ n al seT~7cts.
~ Questions?
~i
'Code hntorcement C>tdci.d 6.~:(,ia.lU(>~
wwwci.ell<-n~ er.mn.us ei~ °~
Elk ---
~-
River