My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
2024-01-24 CC Packet
Centerville
>
City Council
>
Agenda Packets
>
2024
>
2024-01-24 CC Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/19/2024 4:04:48 PM
Creation date
1/19/2024 4:04:35 PM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
108
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
employee to pick it up would be $3,450 + 1600 + 700 = $5,750. We would offer the <br />seller a lower amount first to see if they would take it. <br />We received quotes from Hugo Plumbing, Comfort Plus and Metro Heating. Each <br />company did not quote all of the options and had various suggestions on how and what to <br />do in each case. The pricing you see above, represents the low quote for each option, <br />among the three contractors. <br />Ongoing Costs <br />Moving to a more efficient boiler will offer cost savings on our natural gas bill. The cost <br />for gas at public works has been, in the past, about $1,100 per month during the heating <br />season. This includes the boiler, roof top HVAC for the office area and the hot water <br />heater. The difference of 97-82 is 15% @ $800 per month over 5.5 months would be <br />$660 per year. Therefore, looking at the upfront capital costs for the high efficiency <br />model vs. the least expensive traditional model gives us: $14,445 - $5,750 = <br />$8,695/$660/yr = 13.2 years. So, the return on our investment would take about 13 years <br />to realize. Our current boiler lasted 16 years. <br /> <br />Recommendation <br />Staff is recommending the purchase of the same model off of eBay and having it installed <br />by a contractor (Option #3). As the existing boiler is removed, it can be stripped for parts <br />to ensure we have no-cost replacement parts, since we would be installing the same <br />model. <br />Staff would also support Option #1 if the council felt that the return on investment time <br />was reasonable and they desired to install a more energy efficient model for <br />environmental stewardship reasons. <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.