Agenda Index City of Vancouver

ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT

TO:

Standing Committee on City Services and Budgets

FROM:

General Manager of Engineering Services in consultation with the General Manager of Community Services

SUBJECT:

Gastown Lighting

 

CONSIDERATION

OR

RECOMMENDATIONS

GENERAL MANAGER'S COMMENTS

COUNCIL POLICY

There is no overall Council policy specifically pertaining to Gastown lighting. However, in reference to incandescent lighting in the context of the Powersmart program, at its meeting of June 8, 1993 Council resolved:

"THAT all other beautifications and historically significant lighting remain incandescent unless appropriate resident or merchant associations request otherwise."

SUMMARY

This report reviews lighting options for the Gastown heritage lighting fixtures. This review began in response to a 1994 Budget Management Program proposal to convert incandescent lighting to compact fluorescent lighting. Since that time considerable community consultation and reviews of lighting alternatives have taken place. On May 6, 1997, Council deferred the lighting conversion to enable the community to seek alternative funding to cover the cost difference between incandescent and compact fluorescent lighting.

The Gastown Heritage Area Planning Committee has identified the BC Film Commission as a sponsor. The Commission is prepared to cooperate in the initiation of a donor program that would raise money from film companies doing filming in the Gastown area. It is expected that $20,000 could be raised from this source. Based on a recent review of lighting alternatives, the estimated savings from the lighting conversion is $27,800. As this amount is close to the amount of funding that could be raised from the film industry, two options are being presented for Council's consideration: retain the incandescent lighting or convert to compact fluorescent lighting.

PURPOSE

The purpose of this report is to seek a resolution on the lighting source for the Gastown heritage fixtures given the alternatives of retaining the original incandescent lighting or changing to less costly fluorescent lighting. Results of the efforts of the Gastown Historic Area Planning Committee to raise ongoing funding to retain incandescent lighting are presented along with technical considerations and economics around the replacement of the lighting.

BACKGROUND

As part of the 1994 Budget Management Program, Council approved a budget reduction of $41,000 based on estimated savings in converting incandescent lighting to a more energy efficient source. Community input was sought from both the Gastown Business Improvement Society and the Gastown Historic Area Planning Committee. A lighting committee made up of community representatives was set up to review lighting alternatives. A number of fluorescent lighting sources were tested, none of which were acceptable to the community representatives. On March 28, 1996 Council directed staff to survey affected property owners to determine whether they would be in favour of paying for the additional costs associated with the incandescent lighting through a local improvement. The survey indicated that property owners were not willing to pay for the increased costs.

On May 6, 1997 Council deferred the conversion of lighting to enable the community to seek alternative funding for the additional operating cost which is required if the current lighting is retained. On April 9, 1998, the Gastown Historic Area Planning Committee presented an interim report to Council on their efforts noting that they had obtained interest, but required staff to assist with possibilities for tax benefits and donor recognition. Sponsor meetings were arranged by staff in May, 1998 to explore these possibilities.

Also in May, staff obtained the assistance of a lighting consultant from a local Engineering consulting firm to investigate the cause of the shorter than expected life of the compact fluorescent lamps in the ½ block test section on Water Street, to present technical alternatives and to confirm the potential savings.

DISCUSSION

1. Review of Potential Donor Funding

As noted in the April, 1998 interim report of the Gastown Historic Area Planning Committee, two potential donors were identified: the BC Film Commission and BC Hydro.

Staff held a meeting with community representatives and a representative from the BC Film Commission to review donor possibilities. The BC Film Commission has expressed an interest in retaining the incandescent lighting and in contributing to heritage efforts in the Gastown area. The Film Commission supports the implementation of a donor program based on the model used in North Vancouver (Youth in Film Program) and in New Westminster (heritage conservation in Queen's Park). In these cities, filming companies are given an opportunity to contribute to community-based programs on a voluntary basis. North Vancouver's program began in April, 1998 and New Westminster's program has been in place for two years. Information from staff in these communities indicates that contributions are received from the majority of film companies for each filming event and that amounts contributed range from $300 to $500.

In Vancouver, there are approximately 50 filming events per year in the Gastown area. If this level of activity continues, and an average of $ 400 per event is received, then $20,000 would be a conservative estimate of the amount of funding that could be raised. However, this amount of funding will vary from year to year and cannot be guaranteed on an ongoing basis. The BC Film Commission notes that this kind of program can only be supported on a voluntary basis. Implementation of this kind of a program in Vancouver would be relatively simple given support from the Film Commission.

A meeting was also held with community representatives and a representative from BC Hydro. BC Hydro has indicated that they are unable to provide funding at this time (see letter in Appendix A. BC Hydro staff advise that the funding request is contrary to one of their prime mandates: energy conservation. The City could apply to the BC Utilities Commission to set up a special energy rate tariff based on Gastown's heritage designation. This is not recommended as it would involve a fairly lengthy process and the chances of getting a lower rate would be small given the precedent it would set for other areas of the Province and the conflict with energy conservation goals.

BC Hydro has provided the services of a technical support person to assist the City and its consultant in evaluation of technical considerations in the lighting.

2. Technical & Economic Considerations

As noted above, staff have obtained the consulting services of a local Engineering firm to assist in the evaluation of technical considerations in the review of the lighting. These include evaluating the reasons for premature failure of the compact fluorescent lamps in the test section on Water Street, other lamp options, lighting level and aesthetic considerations. At the beginning of May, staff also experimented with lower wattage lamps to determine whether the wattage could be reduced and still maintain lighting level standards. The consultant's report "Gastown Street Lighting Option Study" is on file with the City Clerk.
The major findings and recommendations of the consultant are as follows:

- The lamp manufacturer has advised that premature failure of the compact fluorescent lamps in the test section on Water Street is related to heat build up in the ballast of the lamp caused by its base up position (heat from the lamp goes up into the base). Lamps from alternate manufacturers can be expected to perform better in this application. Information from various manufacturers and from experience of other cities indicates that vibration from traffic is not likely to have contributed to the reduced life.

- The wattage of the existing incandescent lamps could be reduced from 150w to 100w with a corresponding reduction in lighting levels from approximately 1 foot candle to just above the minimum lighting level recommended by the Illumination Engineering Society (IES) standards for commercial collector streets (0.8foot candles). However, this is not recommended for streets which rely totally on the Gastown style fixtures. Roadway lighting levels on Water Street are already significantly below those on surrounding streets with conventional street lighting fixtures such as Cordova Street which has a lighting level of approximately 2 footcandles.

- Compact fluorescent lamps are available in a range of different colour temperatures which can be selected to closely resemble incandescent lighting. Compact fluorescent lamps are designed to replace incandescent lamps.

- The appropriate group replacement cycle for the lamps is every two years (compact fluorescent) or every year (incandescent). The glass globes should be cleaned annually in the spring prior to the tourist season, and the relamping should coincide with the cleaning cycle.

- The expected savings of converting from incandescent to compact fluorescent is $27,800 per year and can be expected to increase as the technology improves and energy costs increase.

If the City intends to replace the incandescent lamps with compact fluorescent, the consultant has specified a 23-watt compact fluorescent lamp for its ability to match or better existing lighting levels, closely match the quality of the existing incandescent lighting and meet other technical requirements. Victoria has had success with compact fluorescent lamps installed in a similar configuration to the Gastown fixtures using a lamp from the manufacturer being recommended by the consultant. Therefore, the rated life expectancy would likely be achieved.

The savings of $27,800 is less than the $41,000 savings originally estimated. It was anticipated that the net savings would be the amount of the energy savings since the higher cost of compact fluorescent lamps would be offset by labour savings in not having to replace the lamps and clean the globes as frequently due to the longer replacement schedule of two years. However, based on the accumulation of dirt on the globes in this tourist area, it is felt that the lamps should be cleaned annually even though the relamping cycle will be extended. Therefore, there will be no labour savings associated with longer life lamps. Energy savings of $45,900/yr will be offset by higher lamp costs of $18,100/yr for a net savings of $27,800.

ALTERNATIVES

Two alternatives were evaluated for the lighting as follows and are presented for consideration in this report:

A) Leave the existing incandescent lamps - The first option presented is to leave the existing incandescent lamps in place as requested by the Gastown Historic Area Planning Committee. There is no savings associated with this alternative.

B) Replace incandescent lamps with fluorescent lamps - This option involves replacing existing incandescent lamps with 23-watt compact fluorescent lights except for those in the unit block Alexander Street, where owners have recently agreed to fund the difference in energy costs through a local improvement. The estimated savings in this option ($27,800) is the revised fund raising "target" for the Gastown Historic Area Planning Committee.

ECONOMIC IMPLICATIONS

Option B would result in an annual savings of approximately $27,800. Option A would not result in any savings, but the anticipated revenue from a voluntary sponsor program involving the film industry would likely be close to the amount of savings possible inconverting the lighting to compact fluorescent. If option A is implemented, the revenue from the film industry will be credited to Engineering Services' operating budget for street lighting.

GASTOWN LIGHTING PLAN

On March 28, 1996, City Council approved a recommendation that Engineering Services in consultation with Community Services and the Gastown Historic Area Planning Committee prepare a long range lighting plan for Gastown including measures to reduce operating costs. The Gastown Historic Area Planning Committee has expressed a concern about the ad-hoc manner in which some of the lighting expansions have taken place resulting in different styles of lighting throughout the area. A plan could be developed that would review existing fixture designs, seek community input on the type of lighting desired to provide guidelines for future expansions, and review the mechanisms for how those changes could be implemented.

The Committee has recommended that the City apply to the BC Heritage Trust for a 50% cost shared grant to develop a long-range lighting management plan. Staff feel that this project would best be handled by an outside consultant, and that if cost-sharing can be obtained, this would be good value for the City. Accordingly, it is recommended that funding of $10,000 be allocated for the City share of the development of a lighting plan at a total estimated cost of $20,000. Given the outside assistance, a lighting plan could be reported to Council by the end of 1998. If cost-sharing cannot be obtained, the project would need to be coordinated internally with a lower level of outside assistance and the project would take longer to complete given available staff resources. Given this scenario, a lighting plan could be presented to Council in the Spring of 1999.

COMMENTS FROM THE GASTOWN HERITAGE AREA PLANNING COMMITTEE

The Gastown Heritage Area Planning Committee reiterates its support for maintaining the use of incandescent lighting in the Gastown Heritage Area. In order to fund the additional cost for incandescent lighting, the community has received support from the film industry to achieve that goal in Gastown. It is anticipated that sufficient moneys will be raised to cover the lighting cost. The Committee also wishes to work with the Engineering Department to develop a lighting plan for Gastown.

The Committee therefore supports consideration item A and recommendation D.

CONCLUSIONS

As noted above, the cost savings to the City is expected to be similar for both options identified. In option B, savings will be in the form of reduction in energy consumption as a result of converting the incandescent lighting to more energy efficient compact fluorescent lamps. In option A, the incandescent lighting would remain. The funding that could beraised through the film industry if the incandescent lighting is retained is expected to result in a net savings that would be close to that of the fluorescent lighting conversion option.

As noted in the report, a consistent level of revenue from a film industry sponsorship program cannot be guaranteed as it would be based on the level of filming activity in the Gastown area and the level of contributions film companies would be prepared to make. However, staff feel that a level of $20,000/yr is realistic given current filming activity in the Gastown area.

Since the expected funding contribution from the film industry towards the retention of incandescent lighting makes the two alternatives similar from a cost saving perspective, and given the level of community support for the retention of incandescent lighting, staff support either option.

Whatever option is approved, there is some uncertainty with respect to the ongoing level of savings. This applies to both the funding contribution from the film industry and future advances in lighting technology. As a result, the status of the lighting should continue to be monitored for whatever option is chosen. Staff will report back to Council if the savings for the approved alternative differ significantly from those estimated or if a change in circumstances warrants a reexamination of alternatives. A change in the lighting alternative can easily be made at any time in the future subject to consultation since both options involve lamps that screw into existing fixtures.

Attachments to this Report that do not have electronic copy are available on file in the City Clerk's Office.

* * * * *

Comments or questions? You can send us email.
[City Homepage] [Get In Touch]

(c) 1998 City of Vancouver