Laserfiche WebLink
File Number: 15-698 <br />Councilmember Lopez asked if it is possible to replace lights at the Library with comfortable <br />light quality (color temperature) in LED. Choices of light temperatures can be reviewed to <br />select the best for reading, as well as aesthetic of library. <br />Project inflow and utility rebates first year in excess of $562K /outflow would be$478K. These <br />improvements would 100% self -funded and could be under a municipal lease at 3% interest <br />(among several financing options). <br />Sunpower: At the Wastewater Pollution Control Plant (WPCP), solar installation could be <br />deployed at 1/2 Megawatt (MW) option (if dirt moved offsite) or 1 MW option (if dirt remains at <br />site). The first option (1/2 MW) is most cost effective option and would offset 28% of current <br />energy usage at the WPCP. Although multiple engineering challenges at WPCP, $3.8M could <br />be generated over twenty-five year life of installation. <br />When asked what specifically are the challenges at the WPCP, D. Pollart responded by <br />saying the disposition of hot dirt still to be determined by State of California as to whether <br />allowed to use on or off-site. Other engineering challenge is determining location of panels as <br />optimal site must be used for additional wastewater treatment capacity. <br />Mayor Cutter asked about surrounding environment factors of the installation, such as dust <br />and other pollutants from adjacent Waste Management site. Sunpower did studies of soil as <br />well as habitat of proposed installation site and surrounding areas and included costs that <br />address those factors in the proposal. It is very common for client cities to house solar panels <br />at wastewater treatment plants due to available space; similarly, cities typically use most of <br />energy consumption on street lights and waste water treatment. <br />Second option: 1 MW option would offset 56% of energy consumed by WPCP; would double <br />output of option 1. $350k -$450k per year is currently spent on energy for WPCP currently. <br />As Climatec has provided the energy audit and they are ready to provide a contract by <br />February, the question is being brought to the committee as to how to direct staff whether to <br />go out to bid for implementation of the recommendations or continue with Climatec. D. Pollart <br />replied in similar cities, two models were used: one with the energy audit and attendant <br />implementation of recommendations completed by the same company or the audit was <br />completed and then the recommended actions bid out separately as the alternative. After <br />review by City Attorney, Engineering and Finance, it was determined that bidding out the <br />energy audit and implementation of recommendations together would be most advantageous <br />to the City. If Climatec does both audit and implementation of upgrades, there is more <br />accountability in realizing savings in energy and reduction in cost. <br />Climatec will serve as general contractor and then will do internal competitive bidding, with full <br />disclosure to the City. Staff will present to full Council once subcontractors and consultants for <br />project are determined a fully itemized proposal for review. <br />Mayor Cutter asked staff to determine materials used so that San Leandro businesses can be <br />utilized as suppliers. PG&E and EBMUD would continue to provide utilities to San Leandro <br />but amount will be less and savings from that reduction will be used to fund the program. <br />Purchase of energy will be at better rates because of the solar tariff advantage. <br />City of San Leandro Page 3 Printed on 111212016 <br />