Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Facilities Energy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
County staff proposes pausing some facilities projects for independent energy and priorities review
Summary
Staff recommended stepping back from several building projects and energy retrofits in FY2014 to allow an independent, systemwide evaluation of the county’s critical maintenance, programmatic repairs and energy conservation measures; commissioners generally supported pausing and re‑prioritizing those projects.
County facilities and public‑works staff asked the Board of County Commissioners on Feb. 25 to pause several planned maintenance and energy projects in FY2014 and to use the time to perform a systemwide evaluation to validate priorities and maximize return on investment.
George Erickson (facilities/public works) framed the proposal as targeting “low‑hanging fruit” energy savings first and then pausing the FY2014 list of critical maintenance, programmatic repairs and energy conservation projects so an independent review can rank projects by operational benefit and ROI. Erickson cited examples: replacing the courthouse chiller tower to stop constant water loss, converting propane‑fueled heating at the Northern Senior Center to a less expensive fuel source, and LED lighting retrofits in county facilities.
Commissioner questions focused on payback periods and prior ROI work. Commissioner (surname not provided) noted LED projects often show 13–15 year returns when replacing fluorescent fixtures, and staff confirmed the state energy office (MEA) had already performed ROI analyses for some LED projects included in prior grants; county staff had not performed a comprehensive ROI for the FY2014 package.
Why this matters: capital and operating budgets intersect here. Energy upgrades can reduce ongoing operating costs, but many projects have multi‑year paybacks. Commissioners supported pausing to validate that the limited capital available goes to the highest‑value projects and to ensure the county captures any available state grant matches.
After discussion, the board generally agreed to slide the FY2014 facilities/energy items into FY2015 and use FY2014 to commission an independent evaluation and to re‑prioritize the list so that when funds are expended the projects provide the best operating and energy benefits.
Ending: Staff will prepare a scope for an independent facilities/prioritization and energy audit and return with a revised, prioritized project list that incorporates independent findings before projects are funded in FY2015.
