AGENDA City Council Work Session Monday, September 19, 2016 Minnesota River Room

Transcription

1 AGENDA City Council Work Session Monday, September 19, 2016 Minnesota River Room 1. Ameresco Presentation 2. Mankato Area Planning Organization (MAPO) Update 3. Discuss Sales Tax Capital Improvement Policies 4. Adjournment

2 Your Trusted Sustainability Partner. Energy Savings Performance Contract City of Mankato Working Session Sept. 19, 2016

3 Introductions Project Objective Energy Conservation Measures (ECMs) Scope and Benefits Summary Project Options Summary Pro Forma(s) Recommended Project Option Project Summary Review Next Steps

4 Project Objective Identify a Self-Funding Energy Savings Performance Contract (ESPC) which has: A Self-Funding project which generates cost savings benefit to meet the self-funding requirements per MN Statute Reduce operating costs and minimize impending capital improvement expenditures (minimize future tax or utility rate increases) Date of Presentation Investigate other building improvement needs Verizon Civic Center investigate improvement needs based on energy cost savings strategy / potential savings opportunity Intergovernmental Center Boiler Replacement Integrate Ameresco Asset Management Analysis/Data Page 3

5 What does a Guaranteed Energy Saving Project look like? Ameresco guarantees cost avoidance (utility & operations expenses) will meet or exceed annual payments to cover all project costs, over an agreed upon debt service period, or we will pay the difference. Energy Budget Pre-Project (Now) Increased Energy Budget Future (Post-Project) Maintenance Cost Savings Repayment Energy Cost Enabling Legislation: Minnesota State Statute Energy Efficiency Projects Page 4

6 City of Mankato Utility Providers Utilities Providers - City of Mankato - Water Treatment Plant - Waste Water Treat Plant - WWTP - Xcel Energy - CenterPoint Energy - BENCO Electric Coop Moderate energy rates Page 5

7 City of Mankato 2015 Utility Spend Gas $224,263 11% Water $57,971 3% Mankato s Current Utility Cost * Electric $1,735,156 86% * Utility Costs based on 2015 utility data provided by the City Annual Utility Costs = $2,017,390 Total Carbon Footprint = 13,957 Metric tons of CO2 per year Page 6

8 ECM Descriptions Scope and Benefits

9 ECM 1 Interior LED Lighting Upgrades Scope of Work LED lighting upgrades from fluorescent/incandescent lighting Interior: combination of new LED fixtures and LED retrofit upgrades Exterior: New LED fixtures New Civic Center Arena lighting Facilities included in Scope of Work Civic Center Intergovernmental Center Parking Ramps Public Works WWTP Water Plant Airport Terminal Airport Hangers PSC & Fire Station 1 Fire Station 3 Tech Plus Building DNR Buildings Parks & Support Buildings Tourtellotte Pool Investigated: Not Included Fire Station 2 (recent construction) Page 8

10 ECM 1 Interior LED Lighting Upgrades Verizon Arena Lighting and Control Ephesus lighting fixture upgrade Installing 56 new LED fixtures replacing 252 existing HID fixtures Broadcast quality lighting and control Eliminates ballast noise BUZZ!!! Reduces arena/building heating load (may also improve ice quality) Used Currently in the US Bank Stadium Page 9

11 ECM 1 Interior LED Lighting Upgrades Benefits Energy cost saving Maintenance cost savings, service life expectancy Improved light distribution/uniformity Standardization of lighting type Security improves parking ramp lighting and security camera clarity Ramp lighting to be zone-controlled with occupancy sensors Page 10

12 ECM 2 LED Street Light Upgrade Scope of Work Metered and non-metered scopes (separate) ArcGIS Audit Geo-location & street light asset identification Baseline energy use established Photometric analysis based on MnDOT standards for street classification Xcel tariff conversion; non-metered ($/month/fixture) to metered ($/kwh) Non-metered feed point conversion requirements vary per location Xcel street light rate conversion to be coordinated with Ameresco, City and Xcel involved ROAM system expansion Enable monetization of dimming savings Interconnects and expands existing City ROAM coverage Lighting temperature 4000k Page 11

13 ECM 2 LED Street Light Upgrade; ArcGIS Locations Benefits Energy cost saving Maintenance cost savings, service life expectancy Improved light distribution/uniformity Standardization of lighting type Security improves exterior lighting and security camera clarity ROAM system expansion - adjust schedules for light output levels (dimming) City of Mankato ArcGIS Page 12

14 Street Light Locations - Project A versus Project B/C Metered Project A Non metered Project B/C Existing LED, Not in Scope County Project, Not in Scope Page 13

15 ECM 2 LED Street Light Upgrade LED Street Light Conversions Project A Metered Fixtures Only Projects B&C Metered and Non Metered Fixtures Scope of Work - Difference Fixture Description No. Project A Projects B & C Metered Non Decorative * 402 X X Metered Decorative 539 X X Subtotal 941 Non Metered Non Decorative 286 Non Metered Decorative 17 Subtotal 303 Total Fixtures 1244 X X *Includes 2 existing LED fixture with ROAM control added Page 14

16 LED Street Light Upgrade Maintenance Comparison HPS fixture Relamp Replace Ignitor/Capacitor/Ballast Relamp Relamp LED fixture 0 YEARS YEARS Less Maintenance (and Expense) This schedule represents the average time to replace key components of both HID and LED cobra heads. The LED fixture requires far less maintenance. HID ballast: every 10 years HID lamp: every 5 years Photocontrol: every 20 years LED driver: every years Photocontrol every 20 years Page 15

17 ECM 2 LED Street Light Upgrade High Intensity Discharge Street Lights Existing LED City Installed Street Light Downtown - High Intensity Discharge Page 16

18 ECM 2 LED Street Light Upgrade Various Existing Mankato Street Lights Page 17

19 ECM 2: LED Street Light Upgrade Feed #23 Metered Feed #19 Metered Feed #26 Un-Metered Feed #34 Metered Existing Street Light Feed Point Examples Feed #25 Un-Metered Feed #28 Metered Page 18

20 ECM - 3 Water Conservation Scope City and Public Buildings Retrofit sink faucets with tamperproof low flow aerators Showerheads: New 1.5 gpm heads/wands in public/city staff locations Non-aerated spray; less temperature loss Tamperproof flow compensator Three spray settings, 9 jet spray Replace or retrofit urinals and toilets Benefits Costs savings through reduced water consumption and waste water treatment needs Energy Savings from Domestic Hot Water Use Reduction Shower head or Shower wand Page 19

21 ECM - 4 Building Envelope Scope Seal and weather-strip all city buildings except DNR and Parks Install polyurethane sealant in all wall cracks and concrete mortar cracks, Install door sweeps Seal joints Silicone sealant weather-stripping, capping the exterior edges of EPDM glazing gaskets, sealing joints between non-porous surfaces (i.e. metal and glass) Benefits Reduces energy; reduces building heating and cooling Loads Preserves building structures reduces penetrating moisture damage Improves occupant comfort by minimizing uncontrolled air infiltration Improves building aesthetics Page 20

22 ECM - 4 Building Envelope Intergovernmental Center Wall Penetration Verizon Civic Center Window Seal Page 21

23 ECM - 5 Mechanical Insulation Scope Insulate Piping and Equipment Piping, Valves, Pumps, and Flanges at Verizon Civic Center and Waste Water Treatment Plant Benefits Reduce WWTP Process Heat Loss Personnel Protection and Noise Control Condensation and Freeze Protection Reduce Corrosion Potential Reduce ongoing insulation maintenance expense Page 22

24 ECM - 5 Mechanical Insulation Thermal Images with corresponding photographs Un-Insulated Piping Thermal Energy Loss Un-Insulated Air Separator Thermal Energy Loss Page 23

25 ECM - 6 Recommission Controls IGC and Verizon Civic Center Scope Schedule and set-point changes in the existing control system Optimize VAV box control sequence to reduce simultaneous heating/cooling Implement efficient programming: RTUs, AHUs, and Verizon Civic Center chiller Benefits Occupied and un-occupied schedule defined Energy cost savings Verizon Civic Center chiller runtime reduction IGC reheat energy reduction Page 24

26 ECM 6 Recommissioning Controls IGC Example RTU-1 currently supplying cold air due to other VAV zone cooling requests Zone set-point is 73.5⁰F with high reheat needs Re-commissioning will provide operational changes for improved automation control Page 25

27 ECM - 6 Recommissioning Controls Current Conditions at the Civic Center Increase un-occupied building set points Provide improved scheduling control on weekends outside of arena/building events and use Page 26

28 ECM - 7 Waste Water Treatment Plant Blowers Scope Demo and remove four existing positive displacement blowers Install four new turbo blowers Install proper size motor controls and power supply to each unit Transition new blower connections to existing piping as required Recommission controls associated with blowers for optimal operations Existing blower Benefits Reduces approximately 7% of the WWTP Electric consumption! Cost savings from blower efficiency upgrade ($91k) will fund Blower replacement cost of $2.55M with only $475k Capital contribution! Reduces future O&M costs Sound/noise reduction Proposed blower Page 27

29 ECM - 8 Boiler Replacement: IGC Scope Replace Existing Boilers with New High Efficiency Condensing Boilers New controller provides adjustable hot water reset Install boiler isolation valve and piping interconnection Reuse existing hot water pumps Correct combustion air intake and combustion exhaust problem Automated boiler isolation valves Existing IGC boilers Benefits Energy costs savings through optimized temperature setback control Improve boiler modulation to match building heating demand New isolation valves prevent hot water backflow through the heat exchanger when boiler is off, saving pumping energy and heat loss New combustion gas venting solves negative pressure problems in mechanical room Proposed boiler upgrade style Page 28

30 Project Options Summary

31 Ameresco Project Options Summary City of Mankato Project Options ECM # Facility Description Project A Self Funding Project B Project C ECM 1 LED Interior Light Upgrades X X X ECM 2a Street Lights (Metered) X X X ECM 2b Street Lights (Non metered) X X ECM 3 Water Conservation X X X ECM 4 Building Envelope X X X ECM 5 Mechanical Insulation X X X ECM 6 IGC/Civic Center Controls Recommissioning X X X ECM 7 WWTP Blower Replacement X ECM 8 IGC Boiler Replacement X X X Customer Construction Contigency X X X Cost $5.2M $5.8M $8.2M Guaranteed Annual Cost Savings $284k $293k $384k Capital Contribution Funding $0 $200k $675k Page 30

32 Project A Self -Funding Est Cost: $5.2M Benefits Energy cost savings represents 14% Plus of City s annual utility spend! NO CAPITAL ($0) contribution required Self-Funding from Cost Savings Metered Street Lights Included Repurposes utility budget dollars to fund improvements Upgrade equipment/systems which are inefficient Reduces Future O&M costs Project A Economics Project Cost $5.2M Guaranteed Annual Cost Savings $284 K Interim Cost Savings (during implementation) $50k Rebates Estimate (one time only) $224k Capital Contribution Required $0 Excess Savings (20 Yrs) Positive Cash Flow $805k Simple Payback (years) 18.4 Page 31

33 Project B - Recommended Est Cost: $5.8M Benefits Energy cost savings represents 14.5% Plus of City s annual utility spend! Metered and non metered street lights (city owned) Reduces Future O&M costs ROAM system capabilities; dimming, individual fixture performance, scheduling, fixture outage reporting Boiler replacement Boilers have exceeded Life Cycle expectancy Energy efficiency improvements Project B Economics Project Cost 5.8M Guaranteed Annual Cost Savings $293k Interim Cost Savings (during implementation) $50k Rebates Estimate (one time only) $224k Capital Contribution Required $200k Excess Savings (20 Yrs) Positive Cash Flo $490k Simple Payback (years) 19.9 Page 32

34 Project C Est Cost: $8.2M Benefits Energy cost savings represents 16% Plus of City s annual utility spend! Bundled ECMs with short term payback benefit ECMs with longer term paybacks Upgrade Four WWTP Blowers at a cost of $2.55M (with an additional $475k capital contribution) Blower(s) upgrade will provide an additional $91k annual sustainable energy savings Reduces Future O&M costs No Ratepayer rate increase required for WWTP upgrades Project C Economics Project Cost $8.2M Guaranteed Annual Cost Savings $384k Interim Cost Savings (during implementation) $50k Rebates Estimate (one time only) $264k Capital Contribution Required $675k Excess Savings (20 Yrs) Positive Cash Flow $334k Simple Payback (years) 18.6 Page 33

35 Project A Pro Forma Self Funding Energy Savings Performance Contract - Project Pro Forma City of Mankato OPTION - 1 (Self Funding) Project Implementation Cost $ 5,173,125 Other: Owner's Contingency $ 52,000 1% of Implementation Cost Total Project Price $ 5,225,125 Excess Savings w/ Positive Cash Flow at 20 years Rebates, Incentives & Grants $ 224,600 Interim Savings $ 50,000 Capital Contribution $ - Positive Cash Flow (20 Yrs) (Incentives and Cash Contribution to Project) $ 274,600 Financed amount of Project $ 5,225,125 Financing Costs during Construction $ - Total Amount Financed $ 5,225,125 No Cash Contribution A B C D E G H I J Year Energy Savings Operations & Total Program Lease Incentives and Total Program Cummulative Maintenance Net Savings Savings Payments Contributions Costs Savings Savings Annual Escalation 3.0% 3.0% Rate Construction 1 $ 237,450 $ 46,264 $ 283,714 $ 347,156 $ 274,600 $ 72,556 $ 211,158 $ 211,158 2 $ 244,573 $ 47,652 $ 292,225 $ 347,156 $ - $ 347,156 $ (54,930) $ 156,228 3 $ 251,911 $ 49,081 $ 300,992 $ 347,156 $ - $ 347,156 $ (46,163) $ 110,065 4 $ 259,468 $ 50,554 $ 310,022 $ 347,156 $ - $ 347,156 $ (37,134) $ 72,931 5 $ 267,252 $ 52,071 $ 319,322 $ 347,156 $ - $ 347,156 $ (27,833) $ 45,098 6 $ 275,269 $ 53,633 $ 328,902 $ 347,156 $ - $ 347,156 $ (18,253) $ 26,844 7 $ 283,528 $ 55,242 $ 338,769 $ 347,156 $ - $ 347,156 $ (8,386) $ 18,458 8 $ 292,033 $ 56,899 $ 348,932 $ 347,156 $ - $ 347,156 $ 1,777 $ 20,235 9 $ 300,794 $ 58,606 $ 359,400 $ 347,156 $ - $ 347,156 $ 12,245 $ 32, $ 309,818 $ 60,364 $ 370,182 $ 347,156 $ - $ 347,156 $ 23,027 $ 55, $ 319,113 $ 62,175 $ 381,288 $ 347,156 $ - $ 347,156 $ 34,132 $ 89, $ 328,686 $ 64,040 $ 392,726 $ 347,156 $ - $ 347,156 $ 45,571 $ 135, $ 338,547 $ 65,961 $ 404,508 $ 347,156 $ - $ 347,156 $ 57,353 $ 192, $ 348,703 $ 67,940 $ 416,643 $ 347,156 $ - $ 347,156 $ 69,488 $ 262, $ 359,164 $ 69,978 $ 429,143 $ 347,156 $ - $ 347,156 $ 81,987 $ 344, $ 369,939 $ 72,078 $ 442,017 $ 347,156 $ - $ 347,156 $ 94,861 $ 438, $ 381,037 $ 74,240 $ 455,277 $ 347,156 $ - $ 347,156 $ 108,122 $ 547, $ 392,468 $ 76,467 $ 468,936 $ 347,156 $ - $ 347,156 $ 121,780 $ 668, $ 404,243 $ 78,761 $ 483,004 $ 347,156 $ - $ 347,156 $ 135,848 $ 804,649 Totals $ 5,963,998 $ 1,162,007 $ 7,126,004 $ 6,595,955 $ 274,600 $ 6,321,355 $ 804,649 $ 804,649 Page 34

36 Project B Pro Forma, - Recommended Energy Savings Performance Contract - Project Pro Forma City of Mankato Project B (Full Street Light, w/o WWTP) Project Implementation Cost $ 5,765,831 Other: Owner's Contingency $ 58,000 1% of Implementation Cost Total Project Price $ 5,823,831 Excess Savings w/ Positive Cash Flow at 20 years Rebates, Incentives & Grants $ 224,600 Interim Savings $ 50,000 Capital Contribution $ 200,000 (Incentives and Cash Contribution to Project) $ 474,600 Financed amount of Project $ 5,823,831 Positive Cash Flow (20 Yrs) $ 490,093 Financing Costs during Construction $ - Total Amount Financed $ 5,823,831 Cash Contribution A B C D E G H I J Year Energy Savings Operations & Total Program Lease Incentives and Total Program Cummulative Maintenance Net Savings Savings Payments Contributions Costs Savings Savings Annual Escalation 3.0% 3.0% Rate Construction 1 $ 247,054 $ 46,264 $ 293,318 $ 386,933 $ 474,600 $ (87,667) $ 380,985 $ 380,985 2 $ 254,466 $ 47,652 $ 302,117 $ 386,933 $ - $ 386,933 $ (84,816) $ 296,169 3 $ 262,100 $ 49,081 $ 311,181 $ 386,933 $ - $ 386,933 $ (75,752) $ 220,416 4 $ 269,962 $ 50,554 $ 320,516 $ 386,933 $ - $ 386,933 $ (66,417) $ 153,999 5 $ 278,061 $ 52,071 $ 330,132 $ 386,933 $ - $ 386,933 $ (56,801) $ 97,198 6 $ 286,403 $ 53,633 $ 340,036 $ 386,933 $ - $ 386,933 $ (46,898) $ 50,300 7 $ 294,995 $ 55,242 $ 350,237 $ 386,933 $ - $ 386,933 $ (36,696) $ 13,604 8 $ 303,845 $ 56,899 $ 360,744 $ 386,933 $ - $ 386,933 $ (26,189) $ (12,586) 9 $ 312,961 $ 58,606 $ 371,566 $ 386,933 $ - $ 386,933 $ (15,367) $ (27,953) 10 $ 322,349 $ 60,364 $ 382,713 $ 386,933 $ - $ 386,933 $ (4,220) $ (32,173) 11 $ 332,020 $ 62,175 $ 394,195 $ 386,933 $ - $ 386,933 $ 7,261 $ (24,911) 12 $ 341,980 $ 64,040 $ 406,021 $ 386,933 $ - $ 386,933 $ 19,087 $ (5,824) 13 $ 352,240 $ 65,961 $ 418,201 $ 386,933 $ - $ 386,933 $ 31,268 $ 25, $ 362,807 $ 67,940 $ 430,747 $ 386,933 $ - $ 386,933 $ 43,814 $ 69, $ 373,691 $ 69,978 $ 443,670 $ 386,933 $ - $ 386,933 $ 56,736 $ 125, $ 384,902 $ 72,078 $ 456,980 $ 386,933 $ - $ 386,933 $ 70,046 $ 196, $ 396,449 $ 74,240 $ 470,689 $ 386,933 $ - $ 386,933 $ 83,756 $ 279, $ 408,342 $ 76,467 $ 484,810 $ 386,933 $ - $ 386,933 $ 97,876 $ 377, $ 420,593 $ 78,761 $ 499,354 $ 386,933 $ - $ 386,933 $ 112,421 $ 490,093 Totals $ 6,205,221 $ 1,162,007 $ 7,367,228 $ 7,351,734 $ 474,600 $ 6,877,134 $ 490,093 $ 490,093 Page 35

37 Project C Pro Forma Energy Savings Performance Contract - Project Pro Forma City of Mankato Project - C (ALL ECMs) Project Implementation Cost $ 8,095,748 Other: Owner's Contingency $ 81,000 1% of Implementation Cost Total Project Price $ 8,176,748 Rebates, Incentives & Grants $ 264,600 Interim Savings $ 50,000 Capital Contribution $ 675,000 (Incentives and Cash Contribution to Project) $ 989,600 Cash Contribution Excess Savings w/ Positive Cash Flow at 20 years Financed amount of Project $ 8,176,748 Positive Cash Flow (20 Yrs) $ 334,504 Financing Costs during Construction $ - Total Amount Financed $ 8,176,748 A B C D E G H I J Year Energy Savings Operations & Total Program Lease Incentives and Total Program Cummulative Maintenance Net Savings Savings Payments Contributions Costs Savings Savings Annual Escalation 3.0% 3.0% Rate Construction 1 $ 338,611 $ 46,264 $ 384,875 $ 543,260 $ 989,600 $ (446,340) $ 831,214 $ 831,214 2 $ 348,769 $ 47,652 $ 396,421 $ 543,260 $ - $ 543,260 $ (146,839) $ 684,375 3 $ 359,232 $ 49,081 $ 408,314 $ 543,260 $ - $ 543,260 $ (134,947) $ 549,429 4 $ 370,009 $ 50,554 $ 420,563 $ 543,260 $ - $ 543,260 $ (122,697) $ 426,731 5 $ 381,109 $ 52,071 $ 433,180 $ 543,260 $ - $ 543,260 $ (110,080) $ 316,651 6 $ 392,543 $ 53,633 $ 446,175 $ 543,260 $ - $ 543,260 $ (97,085) $ 219,566 7 $ 404,319 $ 55,242 $ 459,561 $ 543,260 $ - $ 543,260 $ (83,700) $ 135,866 8 $ 416,449 $ 56,899 $ 473,347 $ 543,260 $ - $ 543,260 $ (69,913) $ 65,953 9 $ 428,942 $ 58,606 $ 487,548 $ 543,260 $ - $ 543,260 $ (55,712) $ 10, $ 441,810 $ 60,364 $ 502,174 $ 543,260 $ - $ 543,260 $ (41,086) $ (30,845) 11 $ 455,065 $ 62,175 $ 517,240 $ 543,260 $ - $ 543,260 $ (26,021) $ (56,866) 12 $ 468,717 $ 64,040 $ 532,757 $ 543,260 $ - $ 543,260 $ (10,504) $ (67,369) 13 $ 482,778 $ 65,961 $ 548,739 $ 543,260 $ - $ 543,260 $ 5,479 $ (61,890) 14 $ 497,261 $ 67,940 $ 565,202 $ 543,260 $ - $ 543,260 $ 21,941 $ (39,949) 15 $ 512,179 $ 69,978 $ 582,158 $ 543,260 $ - $ 543,260 $ 38,897 $ (1,052) 16 $ 527,545 $ 72,078 $ 599,622 $ 543,260 $ - $ 543,260 $ 56,362 $ 55, $ 543,371 $ 74,240 $ 617,611 $ 543,260 $ - $ 543,260 $ 74,351 $ 129, $ 559,672 $ 76,467 $ 636,139 $ 543,260 $ - $ 543,260 $ 92,879 $ 222, $ 576,462 $ 78,761 $ 655,224 $ 543,260 $ - $ 543,260 $ 111,963 $ 334,504 Totals $ 8,504,843 $ 1,162,007 $ 9,666,850 $ 10,321,947 $ 989,600 $ 9,332,347 $ 334,504 $ 334,504 Page 36

38 ECM Economics Project B (Recommended) City of Mankato ECM # Facility Description Annual Energy Implementation and O&M Cost Cost Savings ECM 1 LED Interior Light Upgrades $ 188,567 3,072,000 ECM 2a Street Lights (Metered) 2,3 $ 55,702 1,476,000 ECM 2b Street Lights (Non metered) 2,4 $ 559,000 ECM 3 Water Conservation $ 5, ,000 ECM 4 Building Envelope $ 18, ,000 ECM 5 Mechanical Insulation $ 2,327 46,000 ECM 6 IGC/Civic Center Controls Recommissioning $ 10,707 42,000 ECM 8 IGC Boiler Replacement $ 2, ,000 Customer Construction Contingency NA 58,000 Cost 5,715,000 ECM Economics Payback Period Equipment Life Cycle 1 /Age $ 16.3 Variable $ 26.5 Variable $ #DIV/0! Variable $ 19.5 Variable $ 11.2 Variable $ 19.8 Variable $ 3.9 Variable $ /23 $ NA $ Implementation Cost Guaranteed Annual Cost Savings 19.6 Simple Payback Capital Contribution Funding $200k Capital Contribution $490k 1. ASHRAE: Owning and Operating Database 2. Utility Rate Conversion 3. Long payback as a result of utility rate conversion & decorative fixture replacement vs retrofit 4. Longer payback as a result of non-metered feed point improvements and ROAM system expansion 5. Includes four blower upgrades as recommended by City WWTP Consultant 6. $475k capital contribution will fund $2.55M blower replacement Excess Savings (20 Yrs.) Positive Cash Flow Page 37

39 Project Summary Project - Benefits to the City of Mankato RECOMMEND Project B - $5.8M with only $200k Capital Contribution Energy cost savings guarantee Verizon Civic Center Arena LED Lighting Upgrade Bundled project ECMs leverages short term paybacks for long term project Goals New high efficiency systems/equipment reduces future maintenance costs (future avoided cost savings) Improved IGC and Verizon Civic Center environmental and operational control while reducing energy Page 38

40 EPA Greenhouse Gas Savings Equivalencies by Project* PROJECT A: Metric Tons CO2 = 1,976 Total PROJECT B: Metric Tons CO2 = 2,147 Total PROJECT C: Metric Tons CO2 = 2,796 Total * The sum of the greenhouse gas emissions is equivalent to the above based on the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Greenhouse Gas Equivalencies Calculator found at gas equivalencies calculator. Page 39 39

41 Ameresco Project Options Summary City of Mankato Project Options ECM # Facility Description Project A Self Funding Project B Project C ECM 1 LED Interior Light Upgrades X X X ECM 2a Street Lights (Metered) X X X ECM 2b Street Lights (Non metered) X X ECM 3 Water Conservation X X X ECM 4 Building Envelope X X X ECM 5 Mechanical Insulation X X X ECM 6 IGC/Civic Center Controls Recommissioning X X X ECM 7 WWTP Blower Replacement X ECM 8 IGC Boiler Replacement X X X Customer Construction Contingency X X X Cost $5.2M $5.8M $8.2M Guaranteed Annual Cost Savings $284k $293k $384k Capital Contribution Funding $0 $200k $675k RECOMMENDED Page 40

42 Next Steps

43 Next Steps Council/Staff Milestones City Council Working Session Project(s) introduction City Council considers resolution approving Energy Services Agreement (ESA) negotiations City Council considers resolution approving ESA with Ameresco Project Implementation Construction Kick Off meeting Project Construction Project Final Completion and start of Measurement and Verification for Energy Savings Date September 19, 2016 September 26, 2016 October 10, 2016 November 11, 2016 November 2016 October 2017 October 2017 Page 42

44 ECM Implementation Timeline Energy Conservation Measure Description Schedule Preliminary Estimate ECM 1: Interior and Exterior LED Lighting Upgrades Nov July 2017* ECM 2: LED Street Light Upgrades Nov June 2017* ECM 3: Water Conservation Nov January 2017* ECM 4: Building Envelope Nov January 2017* ECM 5: Mechanical Insulation at Civic Center and WWTP ECM 6: Recommission Controls at IGC and Civic Center Nov December 2016* Nov January 2017* ECM 7: Waste Water Treatment Plant Blowers Nov May 2017* ECM 8: Boiler Replacements at the IGC Nov January 2017* * Schedules are dependent on current equipment lead times for equipment delivery ** Civic Center Arena LED Lighting upgrade January completion dependent upon arena use schedule and access Page 43

45 Project Sustainability Analysis Gas $224,263 11% Water $57,971 3% Energy Savings Equivalent to: 2,998 Metric Tons of CO 2 Emission Reduction 633 cars removed from the roads Electric $1,735,156 86% Mankato s Current Utility Cost * Annual Utility Costs = $2,017,390 Water $53,174 3% Gas $201,357 10% Savings $338,611 17% Electric $1,424,248 70% * Utility Costs based on 2015 data provided by the City Mankato s Anticipated Utility Cost Page 44

46 Questions / Concerns

47 AMERESCO Information / Resources Please visit our website: Services Press Releases Case Studies Kent Wolf Business Development Manager Cell: Ameresco-Midwest Region 9855 West 78 th Street, Suite 310 Eden Prairie, MN kwolf@ameresco.com THANK YOU! Page 46

48 Mankato/North Mankato Area Planning Organization (MAPO) Overview and Update of the MAPO City of Mankato City Council Work Session September 19, 2016

49 Summary of Today s Presentation MAPO Organization & Background Long Range Transportation Plan (LRTP) Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) Current Studies & Activities Upcoming Initiatives

50 MPO s In Minnesota Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPO) are entities designated by law with the lead responsibility for the development of a metropolitan area's transportation plans and to coordinate the transportation planning process. All urban areas over 50,000 in population are required to have an MPO if the agencies spend Federal funds on transportation improvements. There are eight Metropolitan Planning Organizations in Minnesota: Duluth/Superior Metropolitan Interstate Council Grand Forks/East Grand Forks MPO Fargo-Moorhead Metropolitan Council of Governments St. Cloud Area Planning Organization Twin Cities Metropolitan Council Rochester/Olmsted Council of Governments La Crosse Area Planning Committee Mankato/North Mankato Area Planning Organization The Mankato/North Mankato Area Planning Organization (MAPO) was established in 2012 in response to the 2010 U.S. Census, which designated the Mankato/North Mankato region as an urbanized area (metropolitan statistical area MSA, Previously designated in 2008), requiring the formation of a metropolitan planning agency.

51 MAPO Planning & Urbanized Area Planning Area Population: 61,698 Urbanized Area Population: 58,265 Total Square Miles: 131sq Miles

52 Organization Structure & Joint Powers Agreement Membership to be cities of Mankato, North Mankato, Eagle Lake, Skyline (Technical Committee), and counties of Blue Earth and Nicollet. Townships would designate one representative to represent all 5 Townships (Belgrade, LeRay, Mankato, Lime, South Bend) Elected representatives to be appointed by each jurisdiction total of 7 on the Policy Board, which is the governing board of the MPO. 1 member City of Mankato 1 member City of North Mankato 1 member Blue Earth County 1 member Nicollet County 1 member Eagle Lake 1 member Townships 1 member representing Transit Operator (future if separate entity) Operating budget for MPO (with match and grant funds) would fund staff resources and consultant services. Operation budget can also be used for corridor studies, intersection control evaluations, transit updates and other required transportation related plans that are currently funded by local budgets. Powers and duties of the MPO include adopting unified works plan, long range transportation plan, and transportation improvement program. In addition, MPO enters into MOU with State and transit operator regarding coordination of transit related planning activities.

53 MAPO Policy Board MAPO Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) MAPO Staff Organization Structure MAPO Policy Board: Mark Piepho, chair, Blue Earth County Board of Commissioners Christopher Frederick, vice chair, city of Mankato Robert Freyberg, city of North Mankato Jack Kolars, Nicollet County Board of Commissioners Daniel Rotchadl, Mankato Township Ryan Short, city of Eagle Lake MAPO Technical Advisory Committee (TAC): Sheri Allen, superintendent, Mankato Area Public Schools (District #77) Mark Anderson, transit superintendent, city of Mankato Lisa Bigham, District 7, Minnesota Department of Transportation Scott Fichtner, director of environmental services, Blue Earth County Ronald Fields, assistant vice president for facilities management, Minnesota State University, Mankato Michael Fisher, director of community development, city of North Mankato Ryan Thilges, director of public works, Blue Earth County Karl Friedrichs, chair, Lime Township Seth Greenwood, county engineer, Nicollet County Travis Javens, city council, city of Skyline Jeff Johnson, director of public works, city of Mankato Curt Kloss, chair, Leray Township Mandy Landkamer, director of environmental services, Nicollet County Loren Lindsay, chair, Belgrade Township Sam Parker, Region 9 Development Commission Brad Potter, city administrator, city of Eagle Lake Ed Pankratz, board member, Mankato Township Dan Sarff, engineer, North Mankato Open, South Bend Township Paul Vogel, executive director, Mankato/North Mankato Area Planning Organization MAPO Staff: Paul Vogel Executive Director Jake Huebsch Transportation Planner

54 Key Actions of the MAPO Joint Powers Agreement/MPO designation - Established 2012 Continued Legacy of Mankato Area Transportation And Planning Study (MATAPS ) Unified Planning Work Program (updated annually) Long Range Transportation Plan LRTP (updated every 5 years) Transportation improvement program TIP (updated annually) TIP is based on the LRTP and must demonstrate compliance with the LRTP Local Planning Studies

55 How is the MAPO Funded? 2015 Budget $329, Budget $352, Local Share $31,530 10% 12% 9% 9% 13% 12% 38% 78% 82% 37% Federal Funds State Funds Local Funds Federal State Funds Local Share Blue Earth County City of Mankato City of North Mankato Nicollet County

56 MAPO 2016 Funding Allocation Consultant Services & Contracts for Local Studies Staffing / Personnel 4% Commodities / Other Services & Charges 44% 52%

57 Long Range Transportation Plan Table of contents Chapter 1 - Introduction Chapter 2 - Public engagement process Chapter 3 - Existing system conditions Chapter 4 - Safety and crash assessment Chapter 5 - Goals, objectives, and performance measures Chapter 6 - Traffic forecasts and operations Chapter 7 - Range of alternatives Chapter 8 - Financial report Chapter 9 - Implementation report Preservation Major Rehab/Reconstruct Corridor Capacity Expansion Bike & Ped Safety Freight Airport Transit Chapter 10 - Recommended future network Chapter 11 - System management Chapter 12 - Next Steps Adopted December 2015

58

59 Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) Developed in cooperation with MnDOT and public transit operator Includes all regionally significant projects and all projects receiving federal transportation funds located within metropolitan planning area Covers at least 4 years Is fiscally constrained Is consistent with the MPO transportation plan Provides opportunity for public comment All amendments for projects within metropolitan planning area must be approved by MAPO Policy Board

60 Current Studies & Activities Identified in the Annual Work Program Local studies determined by local agencies, TAC and Policy Board 2016 Studies Include: Intersection Control Evaluations o Lor Ray Dr. & Howard Dr. o Pohl Rd. & Stadium Rd. o Pohl Rd. & Balcerzak Dr. Riverfront Drive Corridor Study Belgrade Avenue Corridor Study North Mankato Complete Streets Plan Aerial Imagery & GIS coordination Mankato Old Town Planning Mankato Complete Streets Planning & Implementation Others

61 Upcoming Initiatives Transit Development Plan Trunk Highway 22 Corridor Study Pavement Management Plan Bike & Pedestrian Planning Warren Street Corridor Study Others Projects or Studies Identified by Local Agencies, TAC or Policy Board Requests from Local Members and Partners

62 Questions & Contact Information Contact Information: Paul Vogel Jake Huebsch

63

64

65