HomeMy WebLinkAbout196-18 RESOLUTION113 West Mountain Street
Fayetteville, AR 72701
(479) 575-8323
Resolution: 196-18
File Number: 2018-0466
ARKANSAS DEPARTMENT OF AERONAUTICS:
A RESOLUTION TO AUTHORIZE APPLICATION FOR AN ARKANSAS DEPARTMENT OF
AERONAUTICS 50/50 GRANT IN THE AMOUNT OF $43,730.00 FOR THE REPLACEMENT OF THE
TERMINAL BOILER
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE,
ARKANSAS:
Section 1: That the City Council of the City of Fayetteville, Arkansas hereby authorizes application for
an Arkansas Department of Aeronautics 50/50 Grant in the amount of $43,730.00 for replacement of the
terminal boiler with a geothermal compatible boiler.
PASSED and APPROVED on 9/18/2018
Attest:
Sondra E. Smith, City Clerk Treasurer
Itt►t I1uy■■
• •. S �
�� FA`IEn�VILt�;
Page 1 Printed on 9124118
�. City of Fayetteville, Arkansas
r
Text File
rJ:
Lr
—� File Number: 2018-0466
Agenda Date: 9/18/2018 Version: 1
In Control: City Council Meeting
Agenda Number: A. 7
ARKANSAS DEPARTMENT OF AERONAUTICS:
113 West Mountain Street
Fayetteville, AR 72701
(479) 575-8323
Status: Passed
File Type: Resolution
A RESOLUTION TO AUTHORIZE APPLICATION FOR AN ARKANSAS DEPARTMENT OF
AERONAUTICS 50/50 GRANT IN THE AMOUNT OF $43,730.00 FOR THE REPLACEMENT OF
THE TERMINAL BOILER
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS:
Section t: That the City Council of the City of Fayetteville, Arkansas hereby authorizes application for an
Arkansas Department of Aeronautics 50/50 Grant in the amount of $43,730.00 for replacement of the terminal
boiler with a geothermal compatible boiler.
City of Fayetteville, Arkansas Page 1 Printed on 9/25/2018
City of Fayetteville Staff Review Form
2018-0466
Legistar File ID
9/18/2018
City Council Meeting Date - Agenda Item Only
N/A for Non -Agenda Item
Summer Fallen 8/23/2018
Submitted By Submitted Date
Action Recommendation:
AIRPORT SERVICES (7601
Division / Department
Staff recommends signature of the Mayor on an Arkansas Department of Aeronautics 50/50 grant application for
replacement of the terminal boiler with a geothermal compatible boiler.
Account Number
15027.1
Project Number
Budgeted Item? NA
Budget Impact:
Fund
Airport Boiler Improvements
Project Title
Current Budget $
Funds Obligated $
Current Balance
Does item have a cost? NA Item Cost
Budget Adjustment Attached? NA Budget Adjustment
Purchase Order Number:
Change Order Number:
Original Contract Number:
Comments:
Remaining Budget
Previous Ordinance or Resolution #
Approval Date:
V20180321
CITY OF
FAYETTEVILLE
ARKANSAS
MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 18, 2018
TO: Mayor and City Council
CITY COUNCIL MEMO
THRU: Don Marr, Chief of Staff
Terry Gulley, Transportation Services Director
FROM: Summer Fallen, Airport Services Manager
DATE: August 23, 2018
SUBJECT: Arkansas Department of Aeronautics 50/50 Grant Application
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends signature of the Mayor on an Arkansas Department of Aeronautics 50/50 grant
application for replacement of the terminal boiler with a geothermal compatible boiler.
BACKGROUND:
Garver Engineers conducted a site visit on December 6, 2017 to evaluate the current conditions at Drake
Field, and to identify potential upgrades, repairs or modifications. This site investigation indicates that a
bulk of the current HVAC system was installed during the construction of the building in 1978.
DISCUSSION:
Page 11 of the attached Energy Assessment report states that the current boiler system is in poor
condition, with one boiler deemed as dangerous to operate. The current equipment does not meet
ASHRAE 90.1 energy efficiency standards. The current boilers are operating at 80% efficiency, where a
modern condensing boiler would produce 95% efficiency. Contract will be executed once the grant has
been awarded.
BUDGET/STAFF IMPACT:
ADA: $43,730.00
City: 543,730.00
TOTAL: $87,460.00
Attachments:
Staff Review Form
City Council Memo
ADA Grant Letter
ADA Grant Application
Energy Assessment Report
Elite Quote
Email from Wade Abernathy from Elite
Mailing Address:
113 W. Mountain Street www.fayetteville-ar.gov
Fayetteville, AR 72701
►I
CITY OF
FAYETTEVILLE
ARKANSAS
August 23, 2018
Jerry Chism
Arkansas Department of Aeronautics
2315 Crisp Drive
Hangar 8
Little Rock, AR 72202
Re: Fayetteville -Drake Field Terminal Boiler Replacement
Dear Mr. Chism:
Thanks to the past help of the Arkansas Department of Aeronautics, Fayetteville -Drake Field
continues to prosper. In an effort to provide quality service and comfort for our customers,
Fayetteville -Drake Field Airport is pursuing a grant to replace the current boiler with a
geothermal compatible boiler.
Enclosed is a request for the replacement of the boiler and the energy assessment project
report that deems the boiler to be in eminent failure.
We respectfully request your consideration of the grant in the amount of $43,730.00. We greatly
appreciate the assistance you have given the Airport on past projects, and we look forward to
working with you on the project as well.
Please call me or Summer Fallen if you have any questions or comments.
Since ely,
r. Lionel rdan
Mayor
City of Fayetteville
Mailing Address:
113 W. Mountain Street www.fayetteville-ar.gov
Fayetteville, AR 72701
State Airport Aid Application Instruction Page
The following instructions are provided to assist in applying for State Airport Aid funds.
A cover letter is required from the sponsor. The letter should explain the need for the
airport project in your community and the effect improvements will have on economic
growth in your area of the state. A preliminary set of plans, specifications, and cost
estimates must accompany the application as well as bid results if bid quotes are required.
A Construction Quantities and Cost Sheet is included in the application for this purpose.
A Daily Report Sheet is also included in the application for In -Kind Services reporting.
This report sheet must be filled out for each day of In -Kind Services billed to the project.
Two complete copies are to be mailed to the Arkansas Department of Aeronautics, 2315
Crisp Drive — Hangar #8, Little Rock, AR. 72202.
Applications are accepted each working day of the month. Applications received after
the last day of each month will be considered the next funding cycle. Applications will
be reviewed during a 30 -day waiting period after receipt by the Department. (Example:
Applications received after the last working day of January will be acted on at the March
meeting of the Commission.) Applications may be sent by FAX with hard copy to follow
by mail. (FAX number is 501-378-0820)
Upon receipt of your application, you will be contacted by our office for an on-site
review of the project. You will be notified by mail of the date, time, and place of the
meeting in which your request will be brought before the Aeronautics Commission. You
are encouraged to attend the meeting to address questions concerning your proposal. You
will be notified by mail of the results of your request by the Aeronautics Commission.
Upon approval of a State Airport Aid grant, finds may be disbursed upon request when
one-half of the total project (50%) is completed and documented (Partial Payment).
Upon 100% completion of the project, a letter requesting final payment, submission of
proper documentation, and inspection of the project, the remainder of state funds will be
disbursed.
If you have any questions concerning the grant process or grant accounting
procedures, please feel free to contact our office at 501 376-6781
7-1 -18
State Airport Aid Application — Page 1
The City/Couy of _ Fayetteville _-. - , herein called "Sponsor", hereby makes
application to the Arkansas Department of Aeronautics for State funds pursuant to Act 733 of 1977, for
the purpose of aiding in financing a project for the development of a municipal airport located in the city
of_ Fayetteville _ Arkansas, _ Washington .r county.
Date of Request: September 18, 2018
Name of Airport: Fayetteville -Drake Field FYV
Name and address of City/County Commission
sponsoring request:
Cily of Fayetteville
113 W. Mountain Street
Fayetteville, AR 72701 --
Phone Number: 479-575-8330
Fax Number: 479-585-8257
Name and address of Engineering Firm
(if applicable):
Person to Contact about project:
Summer Fallen, Airport Services Manager
Li1y of Fayetteville
Fa etteville-Drake Field
Phone Number: 479-718-7642
Cell Number:
Fax Number: 479-718-7646
Contact Person:
Phone/Fax Number:
Describe the work to be accomplished: Replacement of current boiler with eothermal
compatible boiler.
State and Local Project Costs:
Please indicate:
f; 50-50% Match
O 80-20% Match
O 90-10% Match
O 100%
Total Cost of Project $87,460.00
Local Share/Funds $43,730.00
Local Share/In-Kind N/A
State Share $43.730.00
Federal AIP Projects:
AIP Number:
O 95-5% Match
O 90-10% Match
Total Cost of Project:
Federal Share:
State Share:
Local Share:
State Airport Aid Application — Page 2
Provide the information listed below as it applies to your project:
Funding:
Source of Funds: Airport/ADA
Source of In -Kind Services: N/
Estimated starting date of project: Upon approval
Estimated completion date of project: 8 weeks from approval d
Project will be for: New Airport Existing Airport
Is land to be leased or purchased? N/A
Description of land and cost per acre: N/A
Provide the Federal AIP Grant Number (if applicable): N/
State Legislators for your area:
State Senator: Uvalde Lindsey
State Representative: Charlie Collins
ref
State Airport Aid Application — Page 3
The sponsor agrees to furnish the Arkansas Department of Aeronautics a copy of the legal instrument
affecting use of the property for an airport. In, application for a new landing site or expansion of existing
facility, the FAA Form 7480-1, Notice of Landing Area Proposal, must be approved by the FAA before
review for grant can be made by the State. Applications for hangar construction or renovation funds
must include a signed lease agreement. This agreement must be in compliance with all FAA grant
assurances. The application must be based on bids and include a calculated return on investment.
No land, hangars, or buildings purchased with State Grant funds may be sold or disposed of without
State Aeronautics Commission prior approval. All requests for sale or disposal of property will be
considered on an individual case basis. No hangar (funded by a grant from the Department of
Aeronautics) shall be used for non -aviation purposes without State Aeronautics Commission prior
approval. All requests for non -aviation use will be considered on a case-by-case basis. Failure to
receive prior approval from A.D.A. concerning land and/or building use could result in the commission
requesting grant refund from the Sponsor. Additionally, all hgr/building grant applications must include
proof of insurance coverage.
No airport accepting State Grant funding may issue an Exclusive Rights lease.
All applications for navigational aids (such as NDB or ILS) must have FAA site approval before a state
grant can be approved.
All Grant applications involving Federal Airport Improvement Program (AIP) funding must be
accompanied by the approved FAA grant agreement with grant number assigned.
If this project is approved by the Arkansas Department of Aeronautics, and is accepted by the sponsor, it
is agreed that all developments and construction shall meet standard FAA construction practices as
outlined in the specifications of this agreement. Runways, Taxiways, Parking Ramps, etc. shall have a
base and a thickness that will accommodate the weight of aircraft expected to operate at this airport.
All grant applicants Ci and/or Cour are totally responsible for com fliance with all Federal
State County, and City laws Statutes. Ordinances Rules Regulations, and Executive Orders
concerning contracts and purgbases for which this grant is approved and issued.
It is understood and agreed that the sponsor shall start this project immediately upon award of grant. It
is also agreed that this project shall be completed within one year from the date of acceptance of this
grant by the Arkansas Department of Aeronautics. Applications for extension will be entertained if
circumstances beyond the sponsor's control occur. Amendment requests are to be made only under
extraordinary circumstances.
Funds will be disbursed according to Department procedures and final inspection of completed project
(See payment instruction page). Pa >>7?ej7t ofg�°cn I z t cis arc c) I Int i non the Department 's annual
a) )ro )riatIon.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the sponsor has caused this Application for State Airport Aid to be duly
executed in its name, this 18th day of September , 2018 .
City gfTayetteville
• 1�lfilne orsponsord
(/ I C71 5iput urc
Mayor
Title
7.3 -! 8
APPLYING FOR PAYMENT OF APPROVED GRANT FUNDS
After your grant has been approved and you are ready for a partial or final payment of an amount up to
the grant award, please provide the following documents to our office:
FOR 50-50%, 80-20%, 90-10% AND 100% STATE AIRPORT AID GRANTS, YOU MUST
PROVIDE:
Letter requesting Payment (partial/final) stating completion of the project with the total amount
of the project and the state share of the grant. Must be signed by City/County official or Airport
Commissioner.
Invoices for all cash expenses (copies). Engineering estimates/payment requests or contracts are
not acceptable to auditors and cannot be accepted by our agency.
Canceled checks to match all invoices — front and back of checks.
Copy of Deed, Title Insurance, Legal Fees (Land Purchases Only).
Daily time sheets for ALL in-kind work used as match for grant. The auditors will accept only
ONE day of in-kind services on ONE Daily Report Form. The form must be filled out
completely and signed by Supervisor and City/County Official. —No Exceptions!
An expense sheet outlining expenses/or a tape showing how the amount requested for payment
was totaled.
FOR GRANTS MATCHING FEDERAL FUNDS, YOU MUST PROVIDE:
Letter requesting payment (final only) stating completion of the project. Must be signed by
City/County Official or Airport Commissioner.
Copy of final Federal Aviation Administration Reimbursement Form (FAA form 271 or
computer generated form accepted by the FAA).
NOTE: All City/County Airports participating in Block grants with the ADA must submit all payment
requests to our office. The FAA will not process your payment of these grants.
WHAT YOU NEED TO RETAIN FOR YOUR FILES FOR AUDIT PURPOSES:
Original signed application requesting funds.
Letter of approval from State Office.
All amendment request/letter granting approval or denial of amendments.
Letter requesting payment (partial/final) or extension of time request for project.
All documents (originals) submitted to State office for final payment of grants.
Copy of State Warrant — Warrant is presented on final inspection and payment of grant.
A copy of plans, deeds or any documents submitted to State Office used for approval of grant.
If you have any questions concerning the process of submitting documentation for payment of your
grant, please call our office at 1-501-376-6781. Ask for Jerry Chism.
ARKANSAS DEPARTMENT OF AERONAUTICS
STATE AIRPORT AID GRANT CLASSIFICATIONS
CURRENT JUNE, ,2017
SAAG 95-5% or 90-10% MATCH (FAA -STATE) FAA AIRPORT IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
* Available to airports approved for Federal funding by FAA (NPIAS Airports)
* Limit of 5% or 10% (depending on FAA grant type) of total project cost — State share not to exceed $250,000.
FAA federal grant number required and all FAA Grant Assurances apply.
State Grant Application (5% or 10%) reviewed after Project completion and AIP (95% or 90%) paid. SEE REMARK BELOW.
SAAG 50-50% MATCH (STATE - LOCAL)
Available to all public owned / public use airports
Limited to 50% of total project cost - State share not to exceed $200,000.
* Limit of one 50% grant per airport per fiscal year
* Cash and/or In-kind Match required (in-kind requires pre -approval)
SAAG 80-20% MATCH (STATE - LOCAL)
Available to all public owned / public use airports
* Limited to 80% of total project cost - State share not to exceed $250,000.
Limit of one 80% grant per airport per fiscal year
Cash and/or In-kind Match required (in-kind requires pre -approval)
SAAG 90-10% MATCH (STATE - LOCAL)
* Available to all public owned / public use airports
Limited to 90% of total project cost - State share not to exceed $150,000.
Limit of one 90% grant per airport per fiscal year
x Cash and/or In-kind Match required (in-kind requires pre -approval)
SAAG 100% GRANT (STATE ONLY)
Available to all public owned / public use airports
* Emergency requests only — limited to disaster areas — declared by the Governor
* Application must be based on Governor's Disaster Declaration. Insurance payments and other financial help will be reviewed before
awarding grant.
REMARKS:
All requests submitted must be based on actual need and will be prioritized by Staff/Commission. Safety projects being priority # 1!
Sponsor must have current CIP on file at ADA before grant application will be considered
Sponsor is limited to one AIP-matching grant per project per fiscal year. (i.e.: FAA "phased" projects receive one grant per fiscal year)
* Sponsor must notify ADA BEFORE submitting application to FAA for AIP grant. This notification will outline the scope and cost of the
proposed Fed -funded project. ADA will issue a letter stipulating agreement/disagreement with the project. This letter MUST be included
in the ADA grant app. If ADA does not agree with project, sponsor may still continue but without expectation of receiving ADA
funding.
All in kind match requires Pre -Approval ( LO in-kind on buildings) All buildings funded must certify insurance coverage.
* Source of local match funds must be reported on `The State Application Form' and will be reviewed by Staff & Commission
for approval during the Application Process. (Normally local match• finding will come from city or county budgets.)
All Insurance, FEMA and other similar funding sources must be used before Department of Aeronautics Grant Funds.
To comply with FAA Grant Assurances (and State) all revenue generated at or by the Airport must be accounted for and
used by the Airport for improvements and Operations. All Public Owned Airports are ey cted o irrake ever effort to be
self sustaining.
REMINDER:
*� The FY2018 $15,000,000.00 Grant Program is authorized for one (1) year, July 2017— June 2018 . The one year Appropriation,
set at $15,000,000.00, allows the agency to disburse that amount only if revenue is available.
State -only funded projects should be started immediately after Commission approval and completed within one year. _Atter prolect
co1111) 1 et i On and req uired documentation is submitted sp onsor will be reimbursed u 12 to Ilie apnroved granI amount.
x Read application instructions carefully to make sure all required documentation is included in submittal.
* Required payoff documentation includes invoices as well as the front AND back of cancelled checks along with as -built
drawings if applicable.
A 50% payment may be requested only after 50% of TOTAL PROJECT is completed.
JUNE 1, 2017
Fayetteville -Drake Field
Energy Assessment
AI P No. 3-05-0020-045-2017
f..
�V
l
Prepared For:
City of Fayetteville and
Fayetteville - Drake Field Airport (FYV)
July 2018
GarverUSA.cam
FYV Energy Assessment
City of Fayetteville
Fayetteville - Drake Field (FYV)
FAA AI P No. 3-05-0020-045-2017
Prepared by:
2049 E Joyce Blvd
Suite 400
Fayetteville, AR 72703
July 2018
Garver Project No.: 17041212
CITY OF FYV Energy Assessment
FAYETTEVILLE
ARKANSAS City of Fayetteville and Fayetteville — Drake Field
Engineer's Certification
hereby certify that this FYV Energy Assessment was prepared by Garver under my direct supervision for
the City of Fayetteville.
Bart Gilbreath, PE
State of Arkansas PE License 13836
Lee Suggs, PE
State of Arkansas PE License 11074
Garver Project No. 17041212
[Insert State Certificate]
Page 2
CITY OF
FAYETTEVULLE
ARKANSAS
Table of Contents
FYVEnergy Assessment
City mfFayetteville and Fayetteville - Drake Field
1.0 Introduction .......................................................................
................. ........... ...... ............................... 5
2.0 Background ................................................. -................................................................................
5
3.0 Site investigation ................................ --- ......................................................
-....... ... .............. ...... .... 5
31 Terminal Building .............................................................
................................................................ G
3.1.1 Heating and Cooling System .......... .-....................
.~.... .... .... ^...... ... ... .......... -........ 6
3.1.2 Windows ........................................ ..... ..............................................................
.................... 7
3.1.3 Lighting .................................................... -......
........ .^.~—~,°.~°.~~'.^~_-^'--.7
82 City Owned Corporate Hangar ...................... '..............
,'... _.................................................... ...... 8
3.3 Airfield Electrical Equipment ................ ............ ^.^~-.........
~-._.~..... ...................... ............... 1O
4.0 Utility Data Review ....................................................
_...... ....... __................. ...... ................ 1O
5.0 Equipment Evaluation ~--'_.--^...^-~..�~.~.~.~...°..~^__.-_'��'_�
.... .... 11
51 Terminal Building ........................................ .._..........
...... ........ ____.-...~~..................... 11
5.1.1 HeoUngandConingSyotem-----.
........... _-.-.----___'_---........... .11
5.1.2 Windows ...................... .................. .....................................
.~-'~."~"°...................... ^......... 12
51.3 Lighting ..............................................................................
-.......... ....................................... 13
5.2 City Owned Corporate Hangar ...........................................
_................ ................... ......... ............ �14
5.3 Airfield Electrical Equipment .................................................................
-~--_-.......^---'14
6.0 Proposed Improvements .................................................................
...... ..... .... ._...... ......... A5
5.1 No'CooULow-CootImprovements ...................................................................................................
13
6.1.1 Terminal Building HVAC ......................................
........ ~........ .--..^............... .i ....~-..13
0.12 Terminal Building Windows ................................................................................................
--19
6.1.3 Terminal Building Lighting ....................................
......................... .............. 15
01/4 City Owned Corporate Hangar Lighting ................
a ............... ......... '............. ~................ .1S
6.1.5 Airfield Electrical Equipment ..................................................
........ ...~..................... ............... 1G
6.1.6 No'ConVLov+CostImprovement Summary ........
.... ........ ..... _..... ...... _.................. 18
62 Substantial Improvements ...............................................................
........... ...... ...... ~............... -1O
6.2.1 Terminal Building HVAC ---------------~_-_..'._-.-''----------.10
6.22 Terminal Window Replacement .....................................................
........ .............. ................ 17
62.3 Terminal Building Lighting ..........................................
............. .-....... ............................... 17
62/4 City Owned Corporate Hangar Lighting ...........................
............................................. -....... 1B
62.5 Airfield Electrical Equipment ............................................
..---1Q
7.0 Recommendation and Improvement Priority .................
.............................. __._,-...... ,...... ... 2U
Garver Project No. 17041212 Page 3
CITY OF
FAYETTEV ILLE
ARKANSAS
FYV Energy Assessment
City of Fayetteville and Fayetteville — Drake Field
List of Figures
Figure 1: Main Mechanical Room ............................... .............. .,.....,.....................
.................. ................... 6
Figure 2: Mechanical Controls ................................................ ................. .. .7
Figure3: Terminal Lobby Lighting ............... ...........................................................................................:8
Figure 4: Terminal Exterior Canopy Lighting ....................,...,................ ...._.............. ............ .............,....,...9
Figure 5: Corporate Hangar Interior Lighting .................... :::.................:.:.::.::.:......,............................. 9
Figure 6: Terminal Building Gas Usage 2009-2016 .... .. I ... I ..........................10
Figure7: Aged Pumping System.................:..........................::,................................ ..11
Figure 8: Fogging at East Lobby Windows ...................................... .. ..................................................12
List of Tables
Table 1: Summary of Low/No Cost Improvements.....................:::.:.:.:;...r.::......::::::::...................;...::.........16
Table 2: Substantial Improvement Priority..............................................,.....,....,..........................................20
Table 3: Potential Project Funding Summary ............................. :..::................ ..:........... I—— ....... :...... .:........ 21
Appendices
Appendix A — Photographs
Appendix B — HVAC Life Cycle Cost Analysis
Garver Project No. 17041212 Page 4
CITY OF
IFAYETT V L E
ARKANSAS
1.0 Introduction
FYV Energy Assessment
City of Fayetteville and Fayetteville — Drake Field
Fayetteville — Drake Field (FYV) is a tower controlled, Part 139 (Class IV) general aviation airport located
in Fayetteville, Arkansas. The airport serves the general aviation needs of the Northwest Arkansas region
including the University of Arkansas and the US Forest Service.
The City of Fayetteville places high priority on implementing sustainable efforts through many outlets and
is currently rated as a 3 STAR community by the STAR communities Rating System that is used to help
benchmark their sustainability progress by setting goals and reporting on improvements. Additionally, the
City of Fayetteville implemented an Energy Action Plan that went into effect January 2018. The goal of this
plan was to "build a framework and energize action around the City's efforts to be a resource and energy
efficient community." Many of the improvements outlined in this report would assist the city in achieving the
goals and strategies found in the energy action plan. In an effort to cooperate with the City's sustainability
efforts, the Fayetteville — Drake Field Airport initiated the development of an energy assessment report for
the terminal building, terminal parking, airfield lighting, and airfield vault at the airport. The purpose of the
assessment was to evaluate the existing equipment and identify projects that would improve the overall
energy efficiency at Drake Field. The airport staff was presented with the 2018 FAA Southwest Region
Airports Conference environmental award for their efforts in pursing the energy assessment report and
sustainable projects at the airport.
2.0 Background
The Drake Field terminal building was originally designed and constructed in 1978 to provide a commercial
and civilian air travel terminal for Fayetteville and the surrounding area. The original terminal building
provided a large public lobby for ticket counters and passenger waiting, a commercial kitchen / restaurant,
a baggage handling area, and various office spaces for rental car and airline offices.
In 1998, Drake Field ceased handling commercial air traffic (other than charter aircraft) due to the
construction of the Northwest Arkansas Regional Airport. After this change in operation, many changes
were made to the existing building to accommodate its new role as a primarily general aviation airport. The
baggage handling area was enclosed and made into a meeting room, the commercial kitchen and
restaurant removed, and a large portion of the original open lobby enclosed to make additional offices for
airport personnel and outside business which moved into the facility. An additional pilot lounge was also
added on the east side of building, adjacent to the airfield. The exact timing and extent of these renovations
is unclear since no plans or specifications for this work were provided to the assessment team for review.
3.0 Site investigation
A site visit was conducted by the Garver team on December 6, 2017 to investigate the existing conditions
at the terminal building, and to identify potential modifications, repairs, and upgrades to some of the building
systems to improve the facility's energy efficiency and overall operational efficiency. The following sections
summarize the results of the investigation.
Garver Project No. 17041212 Page 5
CITY OF
J+ FAYETTEVILLE
ARKANSAS
3.1 Terminal Building
FYV Energy Assessment
City of Fayetteville and Fayetteville — Drake Field
3.1.1 Heating and Cooling System
Based on the site investigation, it was determined that the bulk of the existing building HVAC system is
largely original to the initial construction of the facility, circa 1978. The existing systems have been modified
extensively to accommodate the changes to the facility over the years, notably the enclosing of the luggage
area to create a meeting room and the creation of additional office space in portions of passenger waiting
area. This report will address primarily the visually identifiable aspects of the existing systems and their
functionality.
Based upon the original plans and confirmed via field observation, there are multiple HVAC systems serving
this facility. There are two large air handlers located in the main mechanical room, one of which is a constant
volume unit that serves what is now the meeting room (formerly the baggage handling area) and also
provide airflow to floor mounted diffusers installed along the perimeter of the passenger waiting area and
entryways. The second air handler is a constant volume unit that provides air to main passenger lobby and
the secondary lobby on the south end of the building, which has now been converted to an office area. A
third large air handler creates a variable air volume system that serves variable air volume boxes with hot
water reheat coils that serve office area primarily located in the southern wing of the building. There also
appear to be at least 2 additional air handlers installed above the ceilings of various office area to provide
conditioning to areas that were added after the original construction of the facility, but there is no
documentation of these modification to determine the exact capacity or design of these systems.
The main heating system in the building
consists of two 1,260 Mbh natural gas fired
hot water boilers located in the main
mechanical room adjacent to the meeting
room on the north end of the building. These
boilers generate hot water that is distributed
throughout the building by a single end- # r
suction floor mounted pump located in the
mechanical room. The cooling system
consists of a single air-cooled chiller located
outside the northeast corner of the building "~ a
next to the airfield apron. Chilled water is
circulated throughout the building by a single }I
end -suction floor mounted pump located in
the mechanical room, shown in Figure 1. The
boilers and both pumps appear to be original Figure 1: Main Mechanical Room
to the facility. The chiller appears to have
been replaced at some point during the building history, but is still quite old, and the nameplate was
sufficiently weathered to prevent gathering of make/model/capacity information on the chiller to determine
its age.
Garver Project No. 17041212 Page 6
Ia
CARVER
CITY OF
�® FAYETTEV LLE
ARKANSAS
FYV Energy Assessment
City of Fayetteville and Fayetteville — Drake Field
The HVAC controls, shown in Figure 2, appear to
have been updated partially to electronic controls,
with electronic thermostats to control the equipment.
There are also remnants of the original pneumatic
control system present on the major pieces of
equipment such as air handler, so a full conversion
was not completed. Based on discussion with on-
site personnel, there was at one point a Java based
front end that allowed control of the system via
internet connection as well as a user interface
computer, but these appear to have been removed
at some point in the past. This makes the control
system very difficult to monitor and control without
significant on-site presence of service personnel.
3.1.2 Windows
Figure 2: Mechanical Controls
The windows currently in the facility appear to largely be original to the construction of the facility, with a
few windows in the south wing of the building having possibly been added at a later date as these areas
were converted to office use.
The existing windows are predominantly storefront type, hollow metal frame windows with 1" double pane
glass. In addition, the windows contain a sealed air gap of approximately 1/2" between the panes and a light
solar tinting. These windows are mostly located on the east and west elevations of the passenger lobby,
facing the parking lot entry and the airfield. These large windows span the entire elevation of lobby with
heights of approximately 14 feet on the east side and 10 feet on the west side.
There are also additional storefront windows installed on the east side of the large meeting room, where
the original baggage handling door openings were infilled around 1998. Entryways on the east and west
sides are %" tempered and tinted sliding glass doors.
3.1.3 Lighting
During the site visit all lighting within the terminal spaces was documented with fixture type, wattage, and
control methodology. Where wattages were not obtainable, these were requested from the airport or
assumed based on comparable fixture types and light output. In addition, light measurements were taken
for most spaces. The measurements were taken after dark so that daylight would not interfere with the
results. The light meter used was an Extech Instruments LT300. The spaces where measurements were
unobtainable included spaces where fixtures or lamps were inoperable or the space was occupied by a
private tenant and inaccessible during after-hours.
Garver Project No. 17041212
Page 7
CITY OF FYV Energy Assessment
FAYETTEVIILLE ARKANSAS City of Fayetteville and Fayetteville — Drake Field
It should be noted that many fixtures were not fully operative: entire fixture inoperative, partial lamps
inoperative, fixture lacking any lamps, fixture lacking some lamps, or partial lamps intentionally delamped
as discussed in Section 4.0. For the purpose of this report it is assumed all fixtures are operational and the
maximum number of lamps that could operate in a fixture were present and operational. This is primarily
due to the fact that it was not possible to discern exactly which fixtures were intentionally delamped
compared to those simply lacking maintenance attention.
The terminal ramp lighting and the recent upgrades to it are not evaluated as part of this report, as neither
are emergency lighting nor exit signage lighting.
3.1.3.1 Interior Lighting
Generally, seventy-one (71) different space types were found to be evaluated during the investigation for
the interior lighting of the terminal building and adjoining spaces. These space types roughly covered
25,281 square feet. It should be noted that this square footage value may exceed the recorded square
footage of the facility since some of the areas evaluated are open space areas with closed office spaces
within the open air area. Within the facility 455 individual fixtures were counted, excluding any decorative
rope or Christmas lighting found in a meeting space. These 455 fixtures resulted in a total potential interior
lighting load of 42,162 watts (W). Common fixture types found are can downlights of varying wattages; 2x4
lay -in fluorescent fixtures using 2-25W T8 lamps; 2x4 lay -in fluorescent fixtures using 4-25W T8 lamps; 2x2
lay -in fluorescent fixtures using 2-30W lamps; and 2x2 lay -in fluorescent fixtures using 4-40W lamps.
The majority of the lights for the interior of the facility are controlled in one of two ways: wall knife switch or
circuit breaker only control. However, some spaces do include occupancy sensors or occupancy
sensor -enabled knife switches. Figure 3 illustrates the lighting found in the lobby of the Terminal Building.
Figure 3: Terminal Lobby Lighting
Garver Project No. 17041212
Page 8
CITY OF
FAYETTEVE
ARKANSAS
3.1.3.2 Exterior Lighting
FYV Energy Assessment
City of Fayetteville and Fayetteville — Drake Field
Generally, eighteen (18) different exterior locations,
canopies, or wall segments were evaluated during the
investigation of the terminal building and adjoining spaces
exterior lighting. In these locations seventy-one (71)
individual fixtures were identified resulting in 22,325 watts.
It should be noted that many of the exterior building
fagade downlights were unidentifiable. Airport staff noted
that they were 40OW lights. Some identifiable ones were
100W; but where unidentifiable, 40OW was used in the
totaling of the exterior lighting wattage. Common fixture
types found are the metal halide or mercury vapor 40OW
can downlight and the 10OW mercury vapor can
downlight. Figure 4 shows the exterior canopy lights leading from the terminal to the Terminal Apron.
Figure 4: Terminal Exterior Canopy Lighting
The majority of the exterior lighting is photo -electric cell (PEC) controlled; however, a few spaces are
controlled by wall knife switches or circuit breaker only.
3.1.3.3 Parking Lot Lighting
The parking lot evaluated included approximately 240,000 square -feet of parking and drive space located
west and north of the terminal building. Within this space are twenty-two (22) 40OW mercury vapor fixtures
mounted on roughly 20 -foot tall poles, as well as one inoperative flood light fixture. The total parking lot
lighting load is approximately 8,800W. The flag pole lights and business signage lighting is not included in
this evaluation.
The parking lot lighting is all PEC controlled.
3.2 City Owned Corporate Hangar
The city owned corporate hangar, shown in Figure 5,
evaluated is approximately 125' x 80' (approximately
10,000 square -feet) with non -full -height office, restroom,
and storage closet spaces. Since these spaces are
individually enclosed and do not receive benefit of the
overall hangar area lighting, they - are considered
separately and therefore the total square footage exceeds
that of the hangar's exterior walls. Within the hangar
space are twenty-three (23) 2x4 lay -in fluorescent fixtures
using 4-32W T8 lamps and one 60W compact fluorescent
(CFL) light. Outside of the hangar are five fixtures: three
assumed 40OW high-pressure sodium flood fixtures for
the aircraft door and two assumed 250W high-pressure Figure 5: Corporate Hangar Interior Lighting
sodium wall packs for the rear pedestrian door. The total hangar lighting load is approximately 4,624W. All
interior and exterior lights are knife switch controlled.
Garver Project No. 17041212 Page 9
CITY O F FYV Energy Assessment
AYETTEVIL LE -
ARKANSAS City of Fayetteville and Fayetteville — Drake Field
3.3 Airfield Electrical Equipment
The existing airfield electrical equipment room contains three active constant current regulators (CCR), one
spare CCR, a Generac generator and Generac automatic transfer switch (ATS), and ancillary equipment
for airfield lighting control and general space needs (lighting, receptacles, panels, etc.).
4.0 Utility Data Review
Existing electric utility data from July 2005 through September 2017 was provided by the City for review.
Along with the electric utility data provided, the City also provided a list of recent terminal improvement
projects as well as a Monthly Energy Benchmark Report for July 2015 and Light Level Analysis and
Recommendations report, both conducted by Viridian. The projects will be discussed further in the
Equipment Evaluation section. However, it should be noted that the two reports from Viridian will not be
taken into account during the evaluation. This is due to the fact that the results of the benchmark report are
indicated by Viridian to be "extremely inaccurate", and the lighting analysis and recommendations report
discusses existing and proposed illumination levels, but not what levels are recommended by the
Illuminating Engineering Society (IES) to be kept.
From reviewing the electric utility data, the following information can be deduced for the past five years
(2012-2017):
Terminal Building
• Average Annual Electric Energy Usage: 750,277 kW -hr
• Average hourly electricity load: 85,648W
Corporate Hangar
• Average Annual Electric Energy Usage: 5,056 kW -hr
• Average hourly electricity load: 577W
When reviewing the past five (5) years of electricity energy usage for both the terminal and the hangar, no
trends in energy consumption are discernable nor is there an apparent correlation between total energy
variations and lighting loads and/or delamping.
Looking at gas consumption as
illustrated in Figure 6, it appears that the
deteriorating condition of the boilers is
contributing to increased natural gas
usage and cost. In year 2009, the total
yearly usage of natural gas for the
building was 24,222 ccf. By 2015, the
total yearly usage had risen to 41,692
ccf, an increase of 72%. Looking at the
airport fire station, which should
experience the same general weather
patterns, we see it had a much more
Garver Project No. 17041212
45000
40000
35000
30000
uMi 25000
20000
C7 15000
10000
2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
z
Year
Figure 6: Terminal Building Gas Usage 2009-2016
Page 10
a-
CITY OF
FAYETTEVIL.LE
ARKANSAS
FYV Energy Assessment
City of Fayetteville and Fayetteville — Drake Field
consistent gas usage over the same period of time, largely eliminating weather as a primary cause of the
jump in usage. It stands to reason that the cause of this increase gas usage is a result of the gas boiler
system becoming more and more inefficient with age which is largely impacting the operating cost of the
facility.
The 15% drop in gas consumption observed for the terminal building in 2016 was not mirrored with the gas
consumption of the ARFF facility. Weather data was evaluated for 2014, 2015, and 2016 to determine if
this drop in consumption was a result of average temperatures during winter months (October -March).
While small temperature variances were noted, notable changes in gas consumption during these months
were observed. A 5% increase was noted between 2014 and 2015 and a surprising 20% decrease was
observed between 2015 and 2016.
5.0 Equipment Evaluation
The State of Arkansas Department of Energy has adopted ASHRAE 90.1-2007 as its state energy code.'
Also, industry standard lighting levels are determined by recommendations published by the IES Lighting
Handbook and associated publications. These two documents, in addition to information provided by the
City and data collected during the site visit will be utilized in the evaluations made below.
ASHRAE 90.1-2007 states in Section 4.2.1.3 Alterations of Existing Buildings, "Alterations of existing
buildings shall comply with the provisions of Sections 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10, provided, however, that nothing
in this standard shall require compliance with any provision of this standard if such compliance will result in
the increase of energy consumption of the building." Section 6 addresses HVAC systems; Section 9
addresses Lighting systems.
5.1 Terminal Building
5.1.1 Heating and Cooling System
In general, the existing heating and cooling
system is in poor condition, and has little
remaining useful life. All major components of
the system are either original to the building,
making the almost 40 years old, or, as in the
case of the chiller, are clearly aged beyond their
useful life. One of the existing boilers is in such
poor condition that inspections have deemed it
dangerous to operate, leaving it permanently
disabled for life safety reasons. None of the
existing equipment or systems meet current
ASHRAE 90.1 energy efficiency standards. The
HVAC pumps, as seen in Figure 7, are leaking
fluids on the mechanical room floor, and pipe
insulation, is missing in locations.
' 11tt s:Ilwww.ene cedes. ov/ada tiorrlstateslarkansas
Figure
7: Aged Pumping System
Garver Project No. 17041212 Page 11
CITY OF
- FAYETTEVILLE
ARKANSAS
FYV Energy Assessment
City of Fayetteville and Fayetteville – Drake Field
The air handling system are serviceable, but inspection of the visible components shows aging and the
presence of dust and dirt in the ductwork system, as well as numerous undocumented alterations that are
most likely impacting system efficiency and performance.
The chiller is of an unknown age, but based on the exterior condition and appearance of the unit, probably
dates at least to the 1998 conversion of the building to primarily civilian usage, and maintenance personnel
indicated the unit functions poorly and has multiple failed condenser fans, which reduces unit efficiency and
capacity.
Due to the multiple modifications and reconfigurations of the building layout over the years, the efficiency
and ability of the HVAC to provide comfort for the occupants has been negatively impacted. Occupants of
the office areas added to the lobby area complain of poor comfort, as do occupants of the former restaurant
area that was enclosed to make additional office space. The pilot lounge was added onto the existing air
handling system with minor modifications and no increase in capacity, resulting in poor temperature control.
The ventilation effectiveness of the existing systems is unknown due to modifications, but is very likely
inadequate in relation to current ventilation requirements due to system age and configuration.
Due to age of the boilers, chiller, and pumps, these components are currently operating much less efficiently
than new components would be. For instance, the current boilers are estimated to be currently operating
at 80% of peak efficiency, where a modern condensing boiler could produce peak efficiency in the 95%
range. The exact chiller efficiency is unknown, but based on a 20 year age a new chiller would be at least
10% more efficient that the current unit if it was operating at peak efficiency, and likely even more due to
the poor condition of the existing unit.
5.1.2 Windows
The existing windows appear to be in good condition
overall. The frames and glass of the existing windows
did not exhibit significant physical wear and tear, and
no broken glass or damage was noted. It was noted on
some of the larger storefront windows on the east side
of the terminal that there was some slight fogging in
some of the windows closer to ground level. There was
no noted physical damage to these windows, so it may
be that the seals on these windows have failed and
allow outside air into the air space between the panes.
It would be beneficial to do an inspection on all windows
for seal failures and repair as necessary. Further, the
airport has had consistent trouble with leaking from the
Figure 8: Fogging at East Lobby Windows
skylight that is believed to be caused by failed sealing of the windows. This seal failure found throughout
the terminal has resulted in the loss of R -value
It was also noted that even though the bulk of the windows face either due east or west into the morning
or evening sun, the tinting was fairly light. It is unclear if this is due to aging or if this was the original tint,
but additional tinting would decrease the solar load on the building interior and increase energy efficiency.
Garver Project No. 17041212
Page 12
�I
CITY OF
�-
FAYETTEVILLE
ARKANSAS
5.1.3 Lighting
FYV Energy Assessment
City of Fayetteville and Fayetteville — Drake Field
ASHRAE 90.1-2007 requires certain maximum power levels for specific areas not be exceed for lighting.
These are commonly calculated as power (W) per area (square feet, sq -ft) or length (feet), are based on
the specific use of the area or building type, and are known as lighting power densities (LPDs). The general
compliance of the building will be discussed in the sub -sections below. It should be noted that two paths
for compliancy exist: calculating the LPD by the "building area method" or the "space -by -space" method.
The space -by -space method is what is used in this report with general mention of the building area method
to qualify conclusions. In addition to power densities, ASHRAE 90.1-2007 also has mandatory provisions
for lighting control methodologies.
The specific LPDs and control requirements for each space will not be discussed; but rather useful general
conclusions and trends will be evaluated.
5.1.3.1 Interior Lighting
As previously mentioned, it was identified that the lighting power utilized for the terminal building and
adjoining spaces is approximately 42,162W through seventy-one (71) individual areas totaling 25,281 sq -ft.
When evaluating each of the seventy-one (71) spaces for the existing LPD versus the ASHRAE maximum
LPD, fifty-seven (57) (80.3%) of the spaces have a lighting load that exceeds that of ASHRAE 90.1-2007
mandatory provisions. Only fourteen (14) (19.7°/x) of spaces comply with the ASHRAE standard for lighting
power density. For comparison, if each space's individual LPD is evaluated with respect to the space's
area, the total building interior lighting load would be capped at 28,718W. The existing load exceeds that
by 13,444W. Trade-offs between spaces is permitted as long as the total is not exceeded.
In comparison, if the building area method was used rather than the space -by -space method, the maximum
LPD would be 1 W/ftz. For the 25,281 sq -ft space evaluate, the lighting load would be capped at 25,281 W
— even a greater deficit (16,881W) than when using the space -by -space method.
It should be noted; however, that the 2014 lighting terminal delamping job does reduce these deficits
somewhat, but the overall building is still significantly behind meeting ASHRAE 90.1-2007 lighting power
density requirements.
In addition, ASHRAE 90.1-2007 requires lighting control to automatically shut off lighting for all spaces
within a building (with some exceptions) where the total building area exceeds 5,000 sq -ft. The terminal
qualifies for this mandatory provision. This control can be accomplished through either a master lighting
control system, individual space occupancy sensors, or relay control from another system such as an alarm
system. As previously mentioned, some individual spaces within the terminal include occupancy sensor
control, but for the large majority most spaces have no automatic control at all.
Garver Project No. 17041212
Page 13
CARVER
CITY O F FYV Energy Assessment
F,A ETT VILLE
..............
ARKANSAS City of Fayetteville and Fayetteville — Drake Field
5.1.3.2 Exterior Lighting
As previously mentioned, it was identified that the lighting power utilized for the terminal building exterior
and fagade spaces is approximately 22,325W through eighteen (18) individual spaces. When evaluating
exterior spaces, ASHRAE allows the LPDs to be calculated based on fagade length, door width, or canopy
area depending on the space type. The exterior lighting of the terminal has areas that fit each type.
Therefore, when evaluating the calculated existing LPD for the terminal exterior light versus the ASHRAE
maximum LPD for the same space, seventeen (17) (94.4%) of the spaces have a lighting load that exceeds
that of ASHRAE 90.1-2007 mandatory provisions. Only one (1) (5.6%) space complies with the ASHRAE
standard for lighting power density. For comparison, if each space's individual LPD is evaluated with respect
to the exterior allowable total LPD, the total building exterior lighting load would be capped at 7,358W. The
existing load exceeds that by 14,967W.
It should be noted that in 2015 the airport completed a project that replaced eighteen (18) 400W metal
halide fixtures illuminating the apron area with 140W LED fixtures for a cost of around $11,500. For this
report's evaluation of equipment the apron lighting is not considered, but this project is mentioned to
communicate the reason for omitting this lighting from the evaluation.
5.1.3.3 Parking Lot Lighting
As outlined in previous sections, it was identified that the lighting power utilized for parking lot is
approximately 8,800W over 240,000 sq -ft. This results in a parking lot LPD of 0.04 W/ftz, under the ASHRAE
cap of 0.15 W/ftz. It should be noted that only twelve (12) of the twenty-two (22) fixtures were operative,
and the fixture coverage is only about half of the parking lot.
5.2 City Owned Corporate Hangar
As previously discussed, it was identified that the lighting power utilized for the corporate hangar is
approximately 4,624W. Of that total, 2,624W is related to interior spaces and 2,000W related to exterior
spaces.
When evaluating each interior space using the space -by -space method for the existing LPD versus the
ASHRAE maximum LPD, two (2) spaces have a lighting load that exceeds that of ASHRAE 90.1-2007
mandatory provisions and two (2) spaces comply with the mandatory provisions for LPD. However, if we
utilized the building method for the transportation category we are allowed to have an LPD of 1 W/ftz. The
existing building LPD is 0.25 W/ftz — compliant with ASHRAE 90.1-2007 mandatory provisions for LPD.
With respect to lighting control; however, the corporate hangar still lacks in meeting automatic shutoff
mandatory provisions as no occupancy sensors or lighting control system are installed in any space.
5.3 Airfield Electrical Equipment
No significant evaluation was performed on the airfield electrical equipment; however, recommendations
are made in the Proposed Improvements section.
Garver Project No. 17041212
Page 14
CITY O F FYV Energy Assessment
FAYETTIEVILLE ... ...
ARKANSAS City of Fayetteville and Fayetteville — Drake Field
6.0 Proposed Improvements
6.1 No-Cost/Low-Cost Improvements
6.1.1 Terminal Building HVAC
In general, due to age and condition, the HVAC system is likely to not be responsive to low cost
improvements. However, replacing the missing control system components such as the operator interface
and the web interface would allow better control of the building at a relatively low cost, approximately
$10,000. This would help maximize what potential the system has remaining, but is only recommended if
the funds for a complete HVAC replacement cannot be allocated.
6.1.2 Terminal Building Windows
A few windows in the terminal lobby do exhibit some signs of leakage, which is causing fogging of the glass.
It is recommended that on these windows, the outside glass be removed and replaced along with the
window seals to prevent fogging.
There is a potential for energy savings with the windows by additional tinting being applied to the terminal
windows to reduce the solar load on the space and increase energy efficiency, especially on the west side
of the building which gets large amounts of heat load in the summertime due to solar radiation. Energy
savings on west facing rooms could reach 3-5% and reduce glare for occupant comfort. The estimated cost
to complete window tinting on the west side of the terminal building along with partial window replacement
in the lobby is $10,000.
6.1.3 Terminal Building Lighting
Through sixty-five (65) interior spaces where lighting measurements were able to be collected, forty-three
(43) (66.2%) of these exceed IES light level recommendations by more than 10%. One potential no-
cost/low-cost improvement would be to determine if these spaces could be delamped further to reduce
energy usage without falling below the IES recommended light level. It is not anticipated that delamping
harms the fixtures as long as the ballast is rated to handle the delamping or the ballast is replaced. In
contrast, however, fourteen (14) (21.5%) of the interior measured spaces fall short of IES light level
recommendations.
Another low-cost solution would be to make sure existing delamped fixtures are matched with ballasts rated
for the lamps used. This would ensure greater efficiencies.
The delamping is assumed to be completed by airport staff and is assumed to have a cost incidental to
standard maintenance and therefore negligible.
6.1.4 City Owned Corporate Hangar Lighting
Similar to the terminal building, half of the spaces in the corporate hangar exceed IES light level
recommendations by more than 10%. These specific spaces are the restroom and closet. It could be
advantageous to further look at lower wattage lamps or delamping to reduce energy usage without falling
below the IES recommended light levels.
Garver Project No. 17041212
Page 15
c� r Y OF FYV Energy Assessment
FAYETTEVILLE
KANSAS City of Fayetteville and Fayetteville — Drake Field
6.1.5 Airfield Electrical Equipment
Currently the lights are only controlled by the air traffic control tower and PEC. When the tower is unmanned,
the lights operate continuously. Adding new control equipment and a pilot controlled radio receiver will allow
pilots to operate the airfield lights as they are needed. It is reasonable to assume that pilot controlled airfield
lighting would reduce the energy usage of the airfield by half. This project would require an upfront cost of
approximately $50,000.
6.1.6 No-Cost/Low-Cost Improvement Summary
Table 1 below is a summary of the no-cost/low-cost improvements previously discussed. As local funds
become available, the airport will work toward completion of these project. The pilot controlled lighting
improvement will be included with the airfield electrical improvement project discussed in Section 6.2.5.
Table 1: Summary of Low/No Cost Improvements
j HVAC Control Upgrade $10,000
C Terminal Building Window $10,000
Upgrade
Terminal Building Delamping i Negligible
City Owned Corporate Negligible
Hangar Delamping
Pilot Controlled Lighting $50,000
6.2 Substantial Improvements
6.2.1 Terminal Building HVAC
Easier and more convenient system controls
Energy savings, improve occupant comfort
-- Energy savings __-...
Energy savings
Approximately 50% reduction in Airfield
energy consumption
The terminal building HVAC system is in need of a complete replacement in the very near future, both for
comfort and for energy efficiency. The equipment is old and difficult to maintain, and the system layouts are
not suitable for the building layout and occupancy. The following are assumptions considered for the two
alternatives discussed below. Each alternative assumes complete replacement of the existing HVAC
system. It should be noted that utility incentives were not included in the ROI evaluation of the two HVAC
units. The City of Fayetteville has extensive experience with the local utility incentive programs. In general,
documentation will be submitted to the utility with an energy consumption summary of the existing
equipment and the equipment that will be installed. Based upon the information provided, the utility
company will determine the rebate that will be provided to the City. Once a final design of the system is
completed, the airport will submit the appropriate documentation to the utility to determine what incentive
could be received for the system upgrade. Any rebate received as part of the incentive program will be
applied to the City's share of the project.
Common Assumptions:
• Approximate Maintenance and Repair Saving: $29,400
o Airport Labor @ $20/hr and 60 hr/month: $14,400
o Materials &Service Cost lump sum / year: $15,000
Garver Project No. 17041212
Page 16
CITY a F FYV Energy Assessment
FAYETTEVI '
ARKANSAS City of Fayetteville and Fayetteville — Drake Field
It is estimated that a complete HVAC replacement for this facility would cost approximately $750,000 for a
standard chilled water / hot water HVAC system. Based on utility bill analysis it appears this replacement
would save at least 50% on the current gas usage of the building and approximately 10-15% on the
electrical usage. This equates to about $2,000 per month energy savings based on the supplied utility
information (approximately $1,500 per month on gas and $500 on electrical). This yields a simple payback
of approximately 14 years. It should be noted however that delay in replacing the HVAC system will soon
lead to a non-functional facility given the condition of the existing equipment.
During this investigation it is noted that the facility operators have interest in the potential of utilizing a
ground source heat pump (geothermal) system in lieu of the existing chilled water / hot water HVAC system.
Ground source heat pumps tend to provide increased heating and cooling efficiencies and reduced
maintenance over traditional HVAC systems, but at an increased first cost for wellfield installation. It is
estimated that a new geothermal based system for this facility would add approximately 20% to the cost of
a standard system, increase installed cost to $1,000,000. This system would cut gas usage by 80% and
electrical usage by 15-20% over the existing system, for a monthly savings of $2,800. This yields a simple
payback of approximately 16 years.
While operating costs and ROI provide a comparative insight into the annual costs savings for each unit,
they do not provide detail regarding the life of the systems. Assuming good maintenance practices are
implemented, it is expected that the traditional HVAC system would have a life expectancy of 30 years.
After 30 years, significant equipment replacement, including boiler and or chiller, would be required.
Appendix B contains a life cycle cost analysis for both the boiler -chiller HVAC system and the geothermal
system. Similar to the traditional HVAC system, the mechanical equipment for the geothermal system would
need to be replaced after 30 years. However, because much less equipment is required, the cost is
significantly less. While the wellfield for the geothermal system has an expected life of 50+ years, it would
be advisable to perform an evaluation and address any concerns when the mechanical equipment is
upgraded at year 30.
6.2.2 Terminal Window Replacement
While minor repairs to the terminal windows would provide benefit to the efficiency of the terminal building,
the performance of the original windows will continue to decline. As such, replacement of all storefronts,
sky light, and windows with low E, tinted, high efficiency glazing and thermal break frames could result in a
20-30% decrease in solar load of the facility which would translate to approximately 5-10% reduction in
energy savings forthe terminal building. It is estimated that the costfor replacement would be approximately
$150,000. Because the energy savings resulting from window replacement is difficult to quantify, ROI
calculations would likely be misleading and were not included in this report.
6.2.3 Terminal Building Lighting
For both the interior and exterior of the terminal building, a facility -wide LED upgrade would be a substantial
improvement. A total of 549 fixtures were identified. Without taking into account of the addition of any
fixtures to compensate for lower than recommended IES light levels or areas of the parking lot not covered,
it would be anticipated that an LED upgrade project would significantly lower energy usage and lighting
power densities. A reasonable reduction in power usage would be approximately 70%, but may vary
depending on the fixture type. A quick return on investment (ROI) can be approximated as follow:
Garver Project No. 17041212
Page 17
Z
CITY OF
W4W
� °ETTEV LLE
ARKANSAS
FYV Energy Assessment
City of Fayetteville and Fayetteville — Drake Field
Assumptions:
• Approximate average LED fixture upgrade / replacement cost: $500/ea
o 549 fixtures to be replaced
0 1:1 replacement: $274,500
Approximate total power reduction: 70%
o Initial terminal lighting power load: 73,287W
o Proposed terminal lighting power load: 21,986W
o Assume $0.08 per kw -hr energy rate: $12,000 approximate annual savings
• Hours based on half of average operating times of FBO
Assuming average of 2 total lamp replacements of each fixture per year and maintenance labor:
o Material @ $10/fixture for 549 fixtures: $10,980
o Labor @ $20/hr for'/2 hr per fixture: $10,980
Based upon the assumptions listed above, the reduced energy consumption and reduced maintenance for
the terminal building would produce approximately $34,000 in annual savings and would result in an ROI
of approximately 8 years.
A faster ROI may be achieved by taking advantage of energy reduction rebate program incentives through
the airport's electric utility. Although these programs may provide additional rebate opportunities that will
reduce the ROI, their magnitude is not able to be estimated until the projects are taken into the design
phase. The size of the rebate depends on the type of fixture being replaced, its wattage and source, as
well as the type, wattage, and source of the replacement fixture — even to the point of needing to know the
manufacturer and model of the replacement fixture. It is our recommendation to pursue these rebate
programs during design, and we anticipate the ROI being improved as a result.
In addition to the cost savings outlined above, many areas vary greatly from their IES illuminance
recommendations. There variances can result in either wasted energy, potential inefficiency in work of the
employees in these areas due to not having adequate light, reduced security around the building perimeter,
or safety in the parking lot. By going to LED fixtures or changes in fixture layouts, light levels may be
increased to recommended levels while still overall reducing power consumption.
Garver Project No. 17041212 Page 18
FGARVER
CITY OF
WOO FAYETTEVILLE
ARKANSAS
FYV Energy Assessment
City of Fayetteville and Fayetteville — Drake Field
6.2.4 City Owned Corporate Hangar Lighting
Similar to the terminal building, an LED upgrade would be the major substantial improvement to consider.
Using the same assumptions as above the following ROI can be calculated:
Assumptions:
• Approximate average LED fixture upgrade / replacement cost: $500/ea
0 28 fixtures to be replaced
0 1:1 replacement: $14,000
Approximate total power reduction: 70%
o Initial hangar lighting power load: 4,624W
o Proposed hangar lighting power load: 1,387W
o Assume $0.08 per kw -hr energy rate: $540 approximate annual savings
■ Based on 8 hours per day on working days
• Assuming average of 2 total lamp replacements of each fixture per year and maintenance labor:
o Material @ $10/fixture for 28 fixtures: $280
o Labor @ $20/hr for '/z hr per fixture: $280
Based upon the assumptions listed above, the reduced energy consumption and reduced maintenance
would produce approximately $1,100 in annual savings for the airport and would result in an ROI of
approximately 8 years.
Similar to the terminal recommendations, the hangar would also be available to participate in the utility
energy savings rebate incentives program. We would evaluate this during design and determine the
anticipated savings at that time.
Additional improvements to consider would be adding daylight level sensors for the hangar to improve
energy savings. This addition may also help in complying with the ASHRAE 90.1 lighting control
requirements.
6.2.5 Airfield Electrical Equipment
Significant improvements to the airfield electrical equipment can include the following
• Upgrading the existing generator and ATS to improve efficiency
• Upgrading the existing CCRs to improve efficiency
• Upgrade the existing runway lighting to LED
It should be noted that the airport has identified the electrical upgrades listed above on an upcoming airfield
lighting project that has been submitted on the most recent FAA Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) and, if
approved by the FAA, would be completed in 2021. As shown in the most recent Capital Improvement Plan
the total estimated construction cost of these improvements will be $1,100,000. No confirmation from the
FAA has been received as to whether this project will be officially programmed as part of future FAA grant
funding.
Garver Project No. 17041212
Page 19
a
CITY OF
PATTEIL.E
ARKANSAS
FYV Energy Assessment
City of Fayetteville and Fayetteville — Drake Field
7.0 Recommendation and Improvement Priority
As demonstrated in Section 6.0 above, the terminal interior and exterior lighting offer the most economical
and financially feasible improvement alternative. However, based upon the current state of the terminal
heating and cooling system, the airport is an equipment failure away from being unable to condition the
facility. As such, it is recommended that the City pursue the complete replacement of the HVAC system as
their highest priority. Both HVAC replacement alternatives will provide the airport significant decreases in
energy consumption, and if the City can obtain the additional capital to implement the geothermal system,
it would provide a better long term benefit to the airport terminal. Table 2 below contains a priority ranking
of the substantial projects that were evaluated as part of this report.
For both the terminal building (interior, exterior, and parking lot) and the corporate hangar, it is
recommended to perform a complete lighting rehabilitation. The majority of spaces evaluated do not meet
ASHRAE 90.1-2007 mandatory provisions for lighting power densities or automatic control. There are
significant areas where improvements can be made in energy efficiency and these have a reasonable ROI
for an LED upgrade as indicated above. Many spaces throughout the terminal utilize lamps that contain
mercury. The reduction or elimination of mercury is accomplished by reducing or removing the use of
fluorescent or some high-intensity discharge types of lighting. By reducing or eliminating use of these lamp
types, the harmful mercury content the airport disposes of into the waste system and requires to continue
purchasing for those types of fixtures is inherently also reduced. Additional utility incentive rebates may be
available to assist in shortening this ROI. The impact of these rebates would be calculated during a greater
lighting rehabilitation effort. In alignment with the City of Fayetteville's sustainable practices reducing the
energy usage, complying with ASHRAE, and eliminating the need for mercury based lamps is
recommended.
Table 2: Substantial
$24,000-S33,600
Terminal Lighting
Garver Project No. 17041212
Traditional: $750,000
Page 20
GA'ROm
CITY OF FYV Energy Assessment
FAYETTEVIL
A A A - City of Fayetteville and Fayetteville — Drake Field
As outlined in the airport's most recent CIP and included in Table 3, the only projects identified above that
will receive FAA funds are the HVAC Replacement and the Vault Upgrades. All projects not receiving FAA
funds will be funded through local or state funds. Further, it is expected that the funding for the planned
FAA projects will require both non -primary entitlement (NPE) and discretionary funds. In general, FAA Order
5100.38D Airport Improvement Program Handbook identifies the priority for discretionary funded projects
as being from the runway centerline moving out. This results in only a small portion of terminal improvement
projects being funding with discretionary funds. However, the project priority included in Table 2 was
developed based upon the current needs of the airport. In an effort to minimize the amount of discretionary
funds needed to fund an HVAC replacement project, the Airport's annual NPE funds will not be utilized for
other projects on the airport until the project is planned for completion in 2021.
Table 3: Potential Protect Funding Summary
$750,000
$1,000,000
$275.,000
$14.000
11100,000
$150,000
$187.500
$250.000
$68,750
53,500
$275,000
$37.500
$937,500
$1,250,000
$343,750
$17,500
$1,375,000
$187,500
$843,750
51.125.000
-
-
$1.237,500
-
578,750
$110,000
-
-
$122.500
-
-
-
$250,000
515,750
-
$150,000
$15.000
$15.000
$93,750
$1,750
$15,000
$37,500
Garver Project No. 17041212 Page 21
GM VER
CITY OF
WOO FAYETTEVIL LE
ARKANSAS
FYV Energy Assessment
City of Fayetteville and Fayetteville — Drake Field
APPENDIX A
Project Photographs
Garver Project No. 17041212
GI
CITY OF
FAYETTEVILLE
ARKANSAS
FYV Energy Assessment
City of Fayetteville and Fayetteville — Drake Field
Figure B-1 — Terminal Building Boilers
Figure B-2 — Terminal Building Chiller
Garver Project No. 17041211
Page A-1
CITY O F FYV Energy Assessment
�� FAYETTEV LLE
ARKANSAS City of Fayetteville and Fayetteville - Drake Field
Figure B-3 - Terminal Building East Facing Lobby Windows
Figure B -4 -Terminal Building Interior Lighting
Garver Project No. 17041211 Page A-2
CITY OF
hm FAETTELLE
ARKANSAS
FYV Energy Assessment
City of Fayetteville and Fayetteville — Drake Field
Figure B-5 — Terminal Building Interior Lighting
Figure B-6 — Terminal Building Exterior Lighting
Garver Project No. 17041211 Page A-3
CARVER
CITY a F FYV Energy Assessment
AYETTEVLLE
ARKANSAS City of Fayetteville and Fayetteville — Drake Field
Figure B-7 — Airfield Electrical Vault and Generator
s
01
44
i
Figure B-8 — City Owned Corporate Hangar Interior Lighting
Garver Project No. 17041211 Page A-4
r y -
C
Iw;s FPA O G i 9 G Y 5,
ARKANSAS
FYV Energy Assessment
City of Fayetteville and Fayetteville — Drake Field
APPENDIX B
HVAC Life Cycle Cast Analysis
Garver Project No. 17041212
CITY O F FYV Energy Assessment
FAYETTEVILLE -
ARKANSAS City of Fayetteville and Fayetteville- Drake Field
LIFE CYCLE COST ANALYSIS
FYV ENERGY ASSESSMENT
ALTERNATIVE A - TRADITIONAL HVAC SYSTEM (BOILER -CHILLER)
HVAC System Cost $750,000.00
Life Cycle (Years): 40
Year
Description Cost
Present Worth
Present Worth
$
Factor (4%)
Cost
0
Initial Construction $750,000.00
1.0000
$750,000.00
2
0.9246
$0.00
4
0.8548
$0.00
6
0.7903
$0.00
8
0.7307
$0.00
10
M&R $15,000.00
0.6756
$10,133.46
12
0.6246
$0.00
14
0.5775
$0.00
16
0.5339
$0.00
18
0.4936
$0.00
20
M&R $25,000.00
0.4564
$11,409.67
22
0.4220
$0.00
24
0.3901
$0.00
26
0.3607
$0.00
28
0.3335
$0.00
30
Major M&R (Equipment Replacement) $200,000.00
0.3083
$61,663.73
32
0.2851
$0.00
34
0.2636
$0.00
36
0.2437
$0.00
38
0.2253
$0.00
40
M&R $25,000.00
0.2083
$5,207.23
$838,414.10
Salvage Value
1.0000
$0.00
$838,414.10
TOTAL PRESENT WORTH DOLLARS: $839,f]00.90
Garver Project No. 17041211
Page B-1
CITY ° F FYV Energy Assessment
V4V
- FA ETTEVILLE -
ARKANSAS City of Fayetteville and Fayetteville - Drake Field
LIFE CYCLE COST ANALYSIS
FYV ENERGY ASSESSMENT
ALTERNATIVE B - GEOTHERMAL HVAC SYSTEM
HVAC System Cost
$1,000,000.00
Life Cycle (Years):
40
Year
Description Cost
Present Worth
Present Worth
$
Factor (4%)
Cost
0
Initial Construction
$1,000,000.00
1.0000
$1,000,000.00
2
0.9246
$0.00
4
0.8548
$0.00
6
0.7903
$0.00
8
0.7307
$0.00
10
M&R
$15,000.00
0.6756
$10,133.46
12
0.6246
$0.00
14
0.5775
$0.00
16
0.5339
$0.00
18
0.4936
$0.00
20
M&R
$15,000.00
0.4564
$6,845.80
22
0.4220
$0.00
24
0.3901
$0.00
26
0.3607
$0.00
28
0.3335
$0.00
30
Major M&R
(Pump Replacement) $50,000.00
0.3083
$15,415.93
32
0.2851
$0.00
34
0.2636
$0.00
36
0.2437
$0.00
38
0.2253
$0.00
40
M&R
$15,000.00
0.2083
$3,124.34
$1,035,519.54
Salvage Value
1.0000
$150,000.00
$885,519.54
TOTAL PRESENT WORTH DOLLARS: $886,FFF00
Garver Project No. 17041211
Page B-2
GARVER
A
I
ELITE Elite Building Solutions
g U I L O I N G 446 North 40th St.
SOLUTIONS Springdale, AR 72762
FOR ALL OF YOUR COMMERMALHVAC NEEDS
HVACR License # 2115416
Office: 479-770-5566
Fax: 479-927-1881
Date: August 16, 2018
City of Fayetteville
113 W. Mountain St.
Fayetteville, AR 72701
Reference: Drake Field Airport
4500 S. School Ave, Fayetteville
Boiler Replacement
Quote Number: TPQ18000042
To whom it may concern,
Elite Building Solutions is pleased to provide service to remove and install
new Lochinvar Crest Condensing Boiler FB -1501. Included - one Lochinvar
Crest condensing boiler, one 100 -gallon expansion tank (bladder type), feed
water regulator, pvc boiler flue out roof, fresh air intake out west wall, gas
regulator, hydronic, gas, condensate and feed water piping, piping insulation,
corrosion inhibitor in heating loop, dismantle existing boiler and remove from
building, boiler start up, and one-year parts and labor warranty, ten year heat
exchanger warranty. Price for replacement $73,740.00. Please add $8,520.00
for high efficiency Aerco BKM1500 boiler, to replace the Lochinvar boiler. All
materials and labor to complete the job is included. Price excludes all
applicable taxes, and electrical work. Work to be performed during normal
business hours. Prices firm for (30) days. Please allow 14-21 days, upon
approval for logistics.
1 I Page
Regards, Tony Price
Elite Building Solutions
Cell: 479-287-8285
Fax: 479-927-1881
Office: 479-770-5566
Execution by Authorized Representatives:
SUBMITTED BY: Tony Price
CUSTOMER ACCEPTANCE:
City of Fayetteville
Customer Acceptance (typed/printed name)
Title ----
----------------------------------------
Customer Acceptance (signature)
DATE: August 16, 2018
EBS APPROVAL:
EBS Approval (typed/printed name)
Title ----------------
------------------ --------
Date EBS Approval (signature) Date
2 1 P a g e
From: Fallen- 5UMM
To: Uma -Tam
Subject: FW: Boiler Replacement
Date: Thursday, August 23, 2018 9:18:15 AM
Attachments: LrDAQ 003,pin
From: Abernathy, Waylon
Sent: Thursday, August 16, 2018 3:02 PM
To: Fallen, Summer <sfallen@fayetteville-ar.gov>
Subject: RE: Boiler Replacement
Estimate to remove freezer and build new exterior wall.
Materials and Labor
Demo/haul off freezer. 1500
Wall framing. 750
Exterior Hardi-board 800
Insulation 350
Sheetrock 300
FrP wall panel 350
Ceiling tie-in 500.
Electrical relocate/cap off 650
Total $52.00.00
Wade Abernathy
Facilities and Building Projects Manager
City of Fayetteville
wabgr iat#Z I _ go_v
T 479-575-8361
10 c!'rY O
FAYETTEVILLE
ARKANSAS
From: McCoy, Dee
Sent: Thursday, August 16, 2018 11:16 AM
To: Abernathy, Waylon <rz a ernathy o)fll s. -'' ;Q>
Subject: FW: Boiler Replacement
From: Tony Price [r7saift }:.fir:,.,%o •_ I:r_:rci:#.+`t :]1]
Sent: Thursday, August 16, 2018 10:53 AM
To: McCoy, Dee <dl,icco:,/@faye :twill-,ir.gov>
Subject: Boiler Replacement
Dee, please see attachment. Thank you.
Tony Price
Service Manager
Elite Building Solutions
Ebscominercial-corms
Cell: 479-287.8285
Office: 479-770-5566 Option i
Fax: 479-927.1881