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"