Committee reviews field‑lighting bids, weighing $100,000 LED grant and financing options

Officials reviewed competitive bids for a field‑lighting upgrade at the park and discussed whether to use a $100,000 LED conversion grant to pay for part of the work.

Staff reported bid totals ranging from about $504,280 (Techline) to $950,000, with an alternate Musco package rising to roughly $1.2 million. Vendors and terms noted in the record included Techline, Lighting Inc., Musco and Ephesus. The meeting record said Lighting Inc. showed interest rates of roughly 4.63%–4.76% across 3‑, 5‑ and 7‑year financing options; Techline’s financing figures were reported in the discussion as a lower annual percentage in the mid‑4s, while Musco’s quoted rates were about 5.96% (3‑ and 5‑year) and 6.11% (7‑year). Ephesus’s option was described as a 7‑year payment of about $129,929 per year in the presentation.

Staff also compared warranty lengths: Musco’s bid included a 25‑year warranty; Lighting Inc. offered a 24‑ to 25‑year warranty; the other bidders offered 10‑year warranties, according to the report.

Committee members discussed using the $100,000 LED grant to convert a subset of lights rather than fund a full system replacement, and staff noted the grant is limited to LED upgrades and must be spent by Sept. 30 or returned. One member expressed reluctance to commit the jurisdiction to a large loan — “I’m hesitant to put ... ourselves in a hole” — and asked if the grant could fund a single field conversion this year while the authority seeks additional funding in later years. Staff recommended obtaining per‑field line‑item bid breakdowns so the authority can identify which field conversions could be completed within the grant amount and which fields produce the most night‑time play.

Cost details discussed included an example line noting Lighting Inc.’s estimate of roughly $73,000 per softball field in one breakdown, and Techline’s low bid of roughly $504,280 for a larger package. Staff advised that converting a single field could allow reuse of still‑working bulbs from other fields to reduce near‑term replacement costs.

No final financing decision was made at the meeting; staff were asked to obtain detailed per‑field pricing and to explore financing options, private donations and whether the authority’s ADA fund could cover part of the project.

The grant and vendor bids will return to a future meeting once staff supply the requested breakdowns and financing options.