Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMN-EC-1985 CITY of ITHACA ENERGY COMMISSION 108 E. GREEN ST. ITHACA, NY 14850 607-272-1713 REGULAR MEETING MINUTES THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 21, 1985 CITY HALL, THIRD FLOOR CONFERENCE ROOM PRESENT: Doug Dylla, Paulete Conroy, Lewis Durland, Joseph Laquatra, Jeanne Fudala, and Staff Liaison John Clynes. THE MEETING WAS CALLED TO ORDER AT 7:37 P.M. BY DOUG DYLLA. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: The minutes were adopted after correction showing that Tompkins County is the second largest energy user, not Department of Social Services. REPORTS: RENTAL UNIT SURVEY: Joseph Laquatra reported on results obtained to date through the cooperation of the Building Department. Of the 148 rental units surveyed, it was determined that nearly 757 of glass area had storm windows, nearly 507 of the exterior doors had storm doors, and that two-thirds of the units were individually metered. Joe will continue to build and refine the data. POWER COST REDUCTION STUDY(PUMPING) : This submission from the City Engineer was discussed and unanimously endorsed by the Energy Commission. It was pointed out that this could not be funded by the existing reserve fund, however. Paulete Conroy suggested that NYSEG people (Messrs. Messmer and Masters) would be happy to assist. Ms. Conroy also mentioned that if day usage was low enough it could be included at the night metering rate. Enlisting the help of NYSEG was incor- porated into the Energy Commission recommendation. ANNUAL ENERGY COSTS: The tracking charts for 1984 and Doug Dylla's computer assisted bar chart were discussed. NEW BUSINESS: Paulete Conroy reported on NYSEG's program of rebates ($50 - $100) for 80-gallon water heaters put on restrictive meters. The times for these can be manually overridden. They will credit a 52-gallon for a one or two bedroom apartment, but for a family of four, an 80-gallon is necessay. NEXT MEETING: Thursday, March 21, 1985, at 7:30 p.m. ADJOURNMENT: Meeting adjourned. Respectfully submitted, f Join C. Clynes J "An Equal Opportunity Employer with an Affirmative Action Program" CITY of ITHACA ENERGY COMMISSION 10B E. GREEN ST. ITHACA, NY 14850 607-272-1713 REGULAR MEETING MINUTES THURSDAY, MARCH 21 , 1985 CITY HALL, THIRD FLOOR CONFERENCE ROOM PRESENT: Paulete Conroy, Lewis Durland, Douglas Dylla, Melvin Brown, and Staff Liaison John Clynes THE MEETING WAS CALLED TO ORDER AT 7 : 40 P .M. BY DOUGLAS DYLLA. APPROVAL OF MINUTES : The February minutes were recorrected to show that Department of Social Services , by itself, is the second largest energy consumer in the county. Mr. Dylla introduced guest George Hascup of William Downing Associ- ates who reviewed the preliminary plans for the Youth Bureau Build- ing. (Attached is a copy of Doug ' s notes regarding this . ) ANNOUNCEMENTS : Ms . Conroy announced a NYSEG meeting on April 26 regarding night rates. NEXT MEETING: Thursday, April 18th, 7 : 30 p.m. ADJOURNMENT: Meeting adjourned Resepectfully submitted, John C. Clynes "An Equal Opportunity Employer with an Affirmative Action Program" Memo To: Common.Council Members From: Doug Dylla, Coordinator, Ithaca Energy Commission Date: 3/25/85 Re: Notes from review of proposed Youth Bureau building George Hascup of Wm. Downing Associates kindly reviewed the plans and the model of the new Youth Bureau building with the Ithaca Energy Commission at our meeting on 3/21/85. Although the plans are still in the preliminary stages, I would like to share some of the Commission members' observations and recommendations in the hope that we can work toward developing an energy-efficient Youth Bureau building (as opposed to the Tin Can which has been a consistent "energy hog" for the city). "Let me also add that I hope 1 won't misstate the comments of some members. 1. In general, Commission members were impressed with the design. Obviously, the architect has put much thought into using the site and the space well. He has clearly spent an extensive period discussing the space needs with the Youth Bureau occupants and other city officials. The building has the potential to be very attractive and energy-efficient. 2. Clearly, the initial building cost estimate was too low. New construction costs of $50-55 per square foot are current costs for residential construction. Commercial construction costs should more accurately be figured about $70-75 l per square foot. The Commission felt it was unfair to blame the architect for a higher cost estimate for the building or to characterize it as a "construction cost over-run". The architect was not involved in the original estimate and construction has not starl.ed yet. 3. That said, the Commission members felt that there may be some areas where costs could be trimmed. Specifically, members suggested that the building appeared to have much more useable space than the Tin Can (although larger at 19,000 sf, the Tin Can was grossly inefficient in design for use as the Youth Bureau). Our hope was that the new building could be reduced in size (to 14,000 sf, for instance) to lower costs and yet, still provide enough space to meet program needs. 4. Commission members feel that it is imperative that the consulting engineers be involved soon in the design of the building so that they can make some suggestions for improvements based on some thorough calculations of the building's heating and cooling loads. It seems that all too often in building design, an engineer is used too late in the process to incorporate major improvements into the design. An engineer's calculations will be of particular importance on this project because of the innovative skylighting over the multi-purpose space, the large expanses of glass on the north and west faces of Notes on proposed Youth Bureau Building- 3/85: p. 2 the building (with the best views of the lake), and the multitude of different volumes of spaces to heat (and possibly, cool). There may well be benefits from the extensive skylights in the roof (such as less dependence on artifical lighting and some solar heat gain in the winter) however, they could also be a net energy loss (in terms of extensive heat loss in the winter and extensive overheating in the summertime). A good engineer will be able to calculate and balance these and other design concerns. 5. Although there are no specifications developed as yet, our understanding is that the walls will have at least 6" of insulation and the roof at least 10-12" of insulation. Certainly, those levels of insulation are acceptable. 6. We are very concerned about the number, size, and location of the windows and entry doors in the building. We would like to see the size and the number of the entry doors reduced, especially on the north face of the building. The large garage bay doors and the large sliding glass door on the north elevation are clearly going to be major sources of heat loss in the building. We would suggest fewer and smaller doors with less glass. The glazing should also be smaller, particularly on the north where the heat loss will be greatest, and on the west where the heat gain will be the greatest. Shade trees should be planted or other shading devices used to reduce potential overheating on the western elevation in the summer and fall. 7. We would request that air-conditioning be considered pp.11 for the office spaces that are in full-time use. Presumably, if the building is well-designed and well insulated, it should stay at a comfortable temperature throughout the summer without any air-conditioning. 8. If air-conditioning is not being considered, we suspect that a heat pump will not be a cost-effective heating system. Again, this is something that the engineer can calculate, but we would suggest possibly radiant heating for the garage bays and the multi-purpose spaces (similar to the heating system installed in the Streets and Facilities Garage last year) and a high efficiency natural gas boiler for the offices. Certainly, the building should be set up on several different heating zones where only the spaces being used are being heated. We also suggest that the different spaces be able to be closed off from one another so that the heating zones are not compromised. Finally, we thought that sophisticated thermostatic controls could be utilized effectively in this building and urge that they be considered. 9. We did not discuss lighting requirements, but hope that the gym and the exterior will utilize high pressure sodium lighting. The interior should utilize energy efficient flourescent lighting in addition to the natural lighting. Task lighting should be planned for the offices. Notes on t)ronosed Youth Bureau Buildinu; 3/85; a. 10. Given the high ceiling in the central spaces, we suggest ducts and fans to recover some of the stratified heat at the ceiling and blow it out at the floor level. Possibly these fans and ducts could also be used to ventilate the space to the exterior`in the summer to prevent overheating. Again, our final thoughts on the building were that it appeared to be a good design that could be refined to be an attractive and energy efficient home for the Youth Bureau. We commend the architect for his work thus far and caution Common Council against reducing the costs of the building if it means a reduction in the quality of construction. Clearly, long term maintenance and operating costs should be considered as well as the initial construction costs. I suspect that we all want a building we can be proud of as well. We hope that an engineer will be involved soon in the project to help refine the plans and we look forward to reviewing some of the building's details in the near future. cc. George Hascup J.C. Clynes Planning Dept: CITIr of ITHACA ENERGY COMMISSION 108 EAST GREEN STREET ITHACA,NEVI YORE: 14850 607-273-1713 Minutes of April 18, 1985 Meeting Present: Bea Brownell,,Joe Laquatra, Paulette Conroy, Harold Jones, Doug Dylla. D. Dylla updated the Commission members on the progress of the Youth Bureau building plans. An engineering professor has been retained to perform heat-loss calculations on the proposed building to determine whether it should have a flat or gabled roof. Afterward, the Planning and Development Committee of Common Council will review the engineering study and decide whether to proceed with the project_ J. Laquatra reported on the window survey conducted by members of the Ithaca Building Dept. Thus far, 26 units have been inspected and of these, 81 x of the windows had double glazing. The previous sample done by the Building Dept. revealed that 71 x of the apartments had double glazing. The Commission then discussed ways of developing a strong case for the passage of a weather- ization ordinance. J. Laquatra and L. Durland will meet shortly to prepare for a meeting with some city aldermen to review the proposed ordinance. P. Conroy reported on the progress of the street lighting change-over around GIAC.*Dylla read notes from J. Clynes which indicated that a portion of the Green Street Ramp had been relamped with high-pressure sodium lights; that the contract for a domestic water heater at Central Fire Station was about to be awarded; and that the City Ehgineer's pumping project was about to be approved by BPW. Finally, discussion focused on the Commission's Annual Report to Common Council. There was general agreement that we should continue to push for a full-time energy manager on city staff. This report will be assembled by the June meeting. After that time, the Commission will meet only quarterly or on an ad hoc basis. The meeting was adjourned at 8:30 pm. THE NEXT MEETING IS SCHEDULED FOR: Thursday, May 16th at 7:30pm --------------------------------- * THE LIGHTS IN FRONT OF GIAC HAVE BEEN CONVERTED. May 8, 1985 TO: Doug Dylla FROM: Joe Laquatra Lew Durland RE: Weatherization Ordinance Following is a savings projection from storm window installation in Ithaca apartments. The projection is based on data collected by the Ithaca Building Department and calculations by Lew (see attachment) . From the most recent survey of 26 units, glazed area totaled 3,652 square feet. Of this figure, 2,967 square feet (81%) had storm window protection. Assumptions Average glazed area per apartment in sample: 3,652 = 140 sq. ft. 26 140 x .81 = 114 square feet with storm window protection, and 26 sq. ft. without @ .58/sq. ft. savings, .58 x 26 = $15 per apartment $15 x 6,230 apts. _ $93,450 savings per year. Questions remain about the representativeness of data collected by the building department. The savings projection is likely to be a very conservative estimate. With more data, it is possible to demonstrate a multiplier effect of savings from energy conservation. Actual savings may be higher by a magnitude of 2 or more. Can we request a meeting with several Common Council members to discuss possible support for the ordinance? JL/LD:bjr I STo4 WI^IL � -r- Aca f Loss a. window qo s4ori,n: (j.16f4 hr-1 oF) X 5ef, = 7/-S 5Ju/hr-�17- b. Uj i n JDO W1 54orm : Q = (0.5) ,� C6 5) 39.D f�+ullr-47- ?L, Annual 5x4viT.s Per W itld O J p A. Aaf lral Gas mace ¢Q�iccenc� C5 assu^ w be bo/ 1�•�.U.E 37.oP(o oo f) nonoX, o o o _ o.s ? b klm4hc. USw-r : '3 9 X 65s0)' X Z-¢ x a65) k '0.0 �)� I•o)xC3gf3 r��u/K��) Nam w/ /s 35 x �o" L—lji4 vs, or 292 ��Z w�� arca CAal k, 5cre..5,cor4. = SD fax 5$ o TAS-LIW Cob+ -z "1170 _ f�n►uc�.� Sau►�� Z $ i_ l C4. nulwal itis . : I Z �f o,s���f - �b�r 14.��lr► TI-7o�r q4ears . �� �2 uyindokJs qfe�',nr�nceo�, undo �eN�'SE(r l oa,n p► ra.R1 Wo tinc."CCA a{' /O`o Cno d") _ �/7 g3/monA Wa e-Ar f eTn'1 a. naturaI(gas: io•9y/mo-A IV6T SAOIH6-s ,� I}SS Gt.►`'�P��0X(5 ; I�+�'urAl�,s @ �o..S�,K,erM, eler f rcc��.D��/i"�t�t CITY of ITHACA ENERGY COMMISSION 108 E. GREEN ST. ITHACA, NY 14850 607-272-1713 M E M O R A N D U M TO: Energy Commission Members FROM: John C. Clynes Staff Liaison RE: May 16, 1985 DATE: June 6, 1985 A formal meeting was not held due to lack of anywhere near a quorum in attendance. Only Doug Dylla, Joseph Laquatra, and John Clynes were present. A roundtable discussion en- sued regarding storm windows (see enclosed) and the computer study done on energy use in the proposed Community Services Building (Youth Bureau) . Laquatra and Durland are going to review this further as there appear to be serious discrep- ancies . D. Dylla suggested a partifor our June meeting since it is our last for the summer. No word yet. NEXT MEETING: THURSDAY, JUNE 20 , 1985 , 7 :30 P.M. Enclosure "An Equal Opportunity Employer with an Affirmative Action Program" CITY of ITHACA ENERGY COMMISSION 108 E. GREEN ST. ITHACA, NY 14850 607-272-1713 REGULAR MEETING MINUTES THURSDAY, JUNE 20, 1985 CITY HALL, THIRD FLOOR CONFERENCE ROOM PRESENT: Doug Dylla, Harold Jones, Joseph Laquatra, Bea Brownell, Paulete Conroy, Lewis Durland, Jeanne Fudala, and Staff Liaison John Clynes The meeting was called to order by Doug Dylla at 7:36 p.m. Refreshments were provided by Doug Dylla and Lew Durland. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: May meeting lacked a quorum; no minutes. Minutes of April 18, 1985 meeting were not approved. ROUTE 96: Doug Dylla showed the new set of drawings that were being discussed next door. SENECA RAMP: Continuing energy costs were discussed. Moved by Bea Brownell, seconded by Lew Durland, that some or all of the electric heaters be removed. John Clynes reported that Green Street Ramp and Central Fire Station were completed and under budget. Lew Durland and Joseph Laquatra discussed their proposed code on double glazing. It was moved by Harold Jones, seconded by Bea Brownell, to move it on to Charter and Ordinance Committee. YOUTH BUREAU: Question of status of the new facility was raised. John Clynes was requested to circulate Lew Durland's letter to Board of Public Works, Budget and Administration Committee, Human Services Committee, and Planning and Development. Paulete Conroy commented that NYSEG is now doing combustion efficiency in their audits. ADJOURNMENT: Adjourned until September 19th; no meeting July or August. "An Equal Opportunity Employer with an Affirmative Action Program"