County legislators will soon decide if the current economic climate is right for a construction project that would cost money now and save money in the future.
Members of the county Properties Committee earlier this week received a report from an energy consultant, suggesting upgrades that are needed to lower utility bills at county buildings.
Everything from new boilers and windows to insulation and new air conditioning units is included in the report. The upgrades could be applied, where necessary, to any of the county’s buildings.
Overall project costs could reach over $2.47 million, if all of the suggested upgrades are made. But the consultant is proposing that the energy and operational savings, which are estimated to reach over $3.7 million in 20 years, would more than pay the bill.
Only the county wouldn’t realize any budget relief for another almost 15 years, as it would be paying of the annual payments and interest on the construction project.
The wait for the payback on the investment is much shorter if several of the projects are taken out, however.
A cost-free energy efficiency project is something that school districts, government agencies and businesses alike are all considering.
The formula is based on annual savings on utilities being enough to erase the project cost over time. After the annual savings erase the annual payments and interest for the construction, the business begins saving money through cheaper utility cost.
Legislators requested that the consultant return alternative timetables for the formula after taking out several projects.
County officials said they don’t want to replace the boiler at the county jail. The potential construction of a new county jail makes it a bad time to invest in the existing facility, several legislators said.
The replacement of boilers at the county office building on Mary Street, sheriff’s office, treasury and jail would cost a combined over $708,000, according to the proposal, submitted by Johnson Controls.
An over $210,000 window replacement at the treasury building is also a project that legislators did not support. The high project cost and low energy savings have a major impact on the overall amount of time the county must wait before it is paid back on its investment.
If the window project was done on its own, the payback wouldn’t be realized for 99 years, according to the report.
If the window project is taken out, the county would have its investment paid back by year 13 years. If both the window project and boiler replacements are removed, the timetable to begin realize actual savings is year six.
Another decision the county will have to make, if it chooses to move forward, involves the number of years they would like a guarantee on the amount of energy savings.
Johnson Controls guarantees it will pay the county the difference if the utility bills don’t reflect the numbers in the report.
The consultant only gives a guarantee on the energy savings included in the report if the county pays an annual fee, which goes towards measurement and verification.
The fee ranges from $21,114 in year one to $24,700 in year five, which is when the report stops the payment. But the county could choose, despite cutting the guarantee, to stop paying the fee earlier if it feels the energy savings will continue.
Further savings from incentives from utility providers could also cheapen the project costs. New York State Energy Research and Development Authority is estimated to give a $43,000 incentive payment if the county does the project.
An possible incentive from National Grid is still unknown, but the county would only receive one of the two benefits, according to county officials.
If the county chooses to not do a project with Johnson Controls, it will still pay the company $23,500 for its work on the study, according to Bernard Decker, county budget officer. The fee is included in the payback formula if the county moves forward, he added.
Herkimer, N.Y. —
