Difference between revisions of "Vote to Upgrade 3515 Lighting"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
| Line 3: | Line 3: | ||
== History == | == History == | ||
| − | * Mailing List Announcement: | + | * Mailing List Announcement: June 14, 2016 |
| − | * Officially Proposed: | + | * Officially Proposed: June 14, 2016 |
| − | * Voted on: | + | * Voted on: June 21, 2016 |
** Quorum: | ** Quorum: | ||
** Yes: | ** Yes: | ||
| Line 14: | Line 14: | ||
== Background == | == Background == | ||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| + | |||
| + | *The lighting on the 3515 side is poor. We received a lighting assessment from Ener-Light as part of ComEd's energy efficiency rebate program. | ||
| + | *As a condition of the lease, the landlord has agreed to "repair or replace" the non-working existing fluorescent fixtures. This likely leaves us with a bunch of old and inefficient lights. | ||
| + | *The Ener-Light proposal is for $2587.70 | ||
| + | *The landlord has agreed to chip in up to $1000, there are conditions. | ||
| + | *The Ener-light proposal has a energy savings pay back time of 1.42 years. | ||
| + | *We need to authorize the full amount plus a cushion so we can be sure we can fulfill the contract terms regardless of what the landlord actually does or doesn't do. | ||
| + | *It's possible Com Ed could deny our application and it's possible we might need to do some work if Com Ed decides to inspect prior to okaying the application. The contractor says this is unlikely. | ||
== Language == | == Language == | ||
Revision as of 22:13, 14 June 2016
Sponsors
Michael Skilton
History
- Mailing List Announcement: June 14, 2016
- Officially Proposed: June 14, 2016
- Voted on: June 21, 2016
- Quorum:
- Yes:
- No:
- Abstain:
- Discarded due to invalid proxy format:
- Result:
Background
- The lighting on the 3515 side is poor. We received a lighting assessment from Ener-Light as part of ComEd's energy efficiency rebate program.
- As a condition of the lease, the landlord has agreed to "repair or replace" the non-working existing fluorescent fixtures. This likely leaves us with a bunch of old and inefficient lights.
- The Ener-Light proposal is for $2587.70
- The landlord has agreed to chip in up to $1000, there are conditions.
- The Ener-light proposal has a energy savings pay back time of 1.42 years.
- We need to authorize the full amount plus a cushion so we can be sure we can fulfill the contract terms regardless of what the landlord actually does or doesn't do.
- It's possible Com Ed could deny our application and it's possible we might need to do some work if Com Ed decides to inspect prior to okaying the application. The contractor says this is unlikely.
Language
We authorize the board engage in a contract with Ener-Light and to spend up $2900 to upgrade the lighting in the 3515 N. Elston portion of the building.
Vote
- Quorum:
- Yay:
- Nay:
- Abstain: