Ypsilanti approves purchase of more than 500 LED streetlights
Ypsilanti will purchase 505 new LED streetlight as it continues an effort to replace all high-pressure sodium and mercury-vapor streetlights in the city.
The Ypsilanti City Council voted unanimously to approve the purchase at its Tuesday, July 23 meeting.
The move also was the next step in the city’s effort to establish a special assessment streetlight district that would impose a flat fee on residents and businesses to pay the city’s DTE bill and conversion to LED lighting.
The city is anxious to convert the lighting in the coming months because it is one of the first cities in the state to complete a full conversion. Because of that, DTE is offering the bulbs and installation at a reduced rate.
A new LED streetlight in Ypsilanti.
Tom Perkins | For AnnArbor.com
The 505 bulbs will cost around $192,000, which includes a $22,000 rebate from DTE. The cost of running those 505 lights is around $121,000 annually, and that figure will be reduced to $81,000, giving the city an annual savings of $40,000.
That means the city will get its return on the investment in 4.8 years.
“In a period of less than five years, you get 100 percent of your investment, then you make a $40,000 dividend for the rest of time. That’s an extraordinary advantage,” said City Manager Ralph Lange. “This is a case where city being innovative is really paying off."
Lange also highlighted that while electricity costs will go up in coming years, the city will be using much less power, so its bill will increase less.
Officials also say the LED lighting is “cleaner” and a better quality light than the current streetlights, and it helps reduce the city's carbon footprint, which is part of Ypsilanti's climate action plan.
“This is a win in a lot of different circumstances,” Lange said.
The city has already replaced 294 lights.
Switching to LED lights will cut the city’s electric bill from $515,000 annually to an estimated $400,000 annually. The conversion from current lighting to LED will take place over the next two years and will cost approximately $555,000.
If the new streetlight fee gets final approval as proposed, a parcel owner will pay an estimated $98 in fiscal year 2014 and $92 in fiscal year 2015. That figure will drop to $84 through fiscal year 2020 and $67.51 through fiscal year 2031.
Tom Perkins is a freelance reporter. Contact the AnnArbor.com news desk at news@annarbor.com.
Comments
r756
Tue, Jul 30, 2013 : 1:16 p.m.
HOW can they approve the purchase of the streetlights BEFORE the public hearing on purchasing the streetlights scheduled for August 6 at 7pm at City Hall?
Ypsi Tax Payer
Tue, Jul 30, 2013 : 1:23 a.m.
We are so fortunate that we have a Council that knows more than the voters. We, the voters, have said NO three times to tax increases or new taxes. Luckily, our elected representatives hired Mr. Lange to show them how to by-pass the will of the people, allowing them to demonstrate they know more than even those who voted them into office; he (Mr. Lange) gave them a path where they (the Council) can just IMPOSE a new tax on the citizens. And then Mr. Lange gave them a rationale to stand behind (1st in the State, good for the environment) that makes it appear our Council (wiser than the voters) are not just doing it for additional revenue to spend in other areas (i.e., Water Street). I'm grateful that I live in a City where the Council has figured out how to do what it wants without needing the approval of the voters - they don't need us to do anything but pay.
@ypsiman
Mon, Jul 29, 2013 : 12:33 p.m.
This is a bypass of the twice defeated income tax. Special assessment means taking all lighting operations costs out of the city budget and placing them on individuals. This is the tip of the iceberg. We told them, manage the budget you HAVE. they are telling us, again, give us more money. Ypsilanti City Council's management of finances is unchecked and terrible. Show up, August 6, 7:00 PM to let them know that you do not approve of their methods and will not stand silently as they "specially assess" every city service.
jayjay
Mon, Jul 29, 2013 : 2:16 p.m.
The power of the vote is your best weapon. Ypsilanti voted these people in; they can also vote them out. Going to LED (or Induction lighting, as an alternative) is the right thing to do. However, not the way Ypsilanti (and Lange) have chosen to do it. I still ask the question -- why aren't the savings 50% or more and thus forgoing the need for an assessment. Let the operating cost savings pay for themselves. But you've got to get DTE out of the equation. Instead of taking a rebate from DTE, go to the commodity markets for Energy Certificates where you can get real money, not the pennies on the dollar DTE offers in rebates. But start by recalling the city council for fiduciary negligence, and put people in place who are competent.
TK2013
Mon, Jul 29, 2013 : 12:51 p.m.
@ypsiman is spot on with his observations and opinions. Be sure to also tell the council that its proposed "flat fee" special assessment for street lighting does not comply with Michigan law.
ypsidog
Mon, Jul 29, 2013 : 2:24 a.m.
This new city manager, Ralph Lange is a really interesting guy. He comes into the city, doesn't even bother to buy a piece of property, but instead rents from one of the biggest city hall lackeys, Joe Lawrence. Then when he meets the other folks employed by thye city, he insists on being called " Mr. Lange", instead of being called by his first name, as all the other city employees address each other! I think this dude is on a power trip and wants to make a name for himself. Ypsilanti doesn't need to be one of the first cities to switch over to LED streetlights, as Lange says is SO IMPORTANT! It is only important to his resume! Leave ANYTIME " MR. LANGE" !!
TK2013
Mon, Jul 29, 2013 : 12:48 p.m.
Isn't this the guy that was fired from almost every job he ever held? What a great choice – you can pay special thanks to Jefferson and Richardson.
Speedy Squirrel
Mon, Jul 29, 2013 : 1:11 a.m.
I find the new LED street lights extremely frightening. They look just like the heat ray shooting things from the 1950's War of the Worlds movie. How will I be able sleep at night!?
RUKiddingMe
Sun, Jul 28, 2013 : 9:36 p.m.
Are there any plans in place to assess the savings garnered at the 1, 3, and 5 year mark? I see lots of tax-funded assurances regarding future savings, etc., and a lot of the time it turns out (surprise surprise) that it was actually not the case. Can anyone in charge at the city confirm that the savings obtained by this specific expenditure are following expectations? This should be VERY easy, and it should also be a given. If I were an Ypsi resident, or an A2.com reporter, I would make sure this is being done. I also agree with the 20 years tax vs. 5 year payoff; what gives?
TK2013
Sun, Jul 28, 2013 : 3:36 p.m.
In the State of Michigan, the method of apportioning the cost of an improvement funded by a special assessment MUST be proportionate to the benefits conferred. The proposed so-called "flat fee" does not pass muster. It is grossly unfair and inequitable for some and a fantastic bargain for others.
beardown
Sun, Jul 28, 2013 : 2:24 p.m.
I think everyone is missing the point. This has little or nothing to do with lighting or a desire to be more environmentally considerate or any of that other jazz. It is an easy and devious way to tax, I mean assess, more money into the city coffers. And, ingeniously, it isn't tied to property values, so if the market tanks again, the city still takes in 40k a year.
Ypsi Tax Payer
Tue, Jul 30, 2013 : 1:26 a.m.
Beardown is absolutely correct; this was a way for the Council to tax without having to put it to a vote of the people (tax increases or new taxes have been turned down three times - they needed a way that didn't involve having to listen to those pesky voters).
Dylanger
Sun, Jul 28, 2013 : 1:40 p.m.
So we as Ypsilanti resadends will be paying for this until 2031, and yet with the city will see a full return in "their" investment in less than 5 years. This is a bad investment for us as resadends.
John
Mon, Jul 29, 2013 : 6:46 p.m.
WTH is a resadend? Oh wait, I get it now....poor Ypsi....
Ross
Sun, Jul 28, 2013 : 4:08 p.m.
Haha. resadends.
clara
Sun, Jul 28, 2013 : 3:53 p.m.
I agree. If it will pay for itself in 5 years why do we need to pay for it with an additional tax and for 20 years?!?!?!
beardown
Sun, Jul 28, 2013 : 2:30 p.m.
2031...where have we heard that year before? Oh yeah, it's when Farmers Folly is supposed to be paid off. This is purely about finding a way to bring more money into the city coffers.
YTownMom
Sun, Jul 28, 2013 : 1:19 p.m.
The arrangement would COST me money every year for eighteen years. There is no mention of how much, specifically, our taxes would be reduced with an anticipated energy savings. (Which involves us trusting DTE, btw). If you're going to force me to pay extra in taxes (that's what this really is, a tax for living in the city), then take down the streetlights and give the $$ to the firefighters and police officers. I'll turn on my floodlight and enjoy living in a city with well-funded emergency services, and we'll call it even.
jayjay
Sun, Jul 28, 2013 : 1:17 p.m.
The real winner here is DTE -- they pulled a quick one on Ypsilanti, but then that is to be expected. The savings on an operating cost basis for LED or for Induction lighting, the two "new kids on the block" should have been over 50% versus High Pressure Sodium (HPS), and perhaps as high as 65%. So let's say the annual cost to Ypsilanti is as shown at $515,000 for all the street lights, the savings should have been at least $200,000-250,000, and not simply $115,000. All you need to do is go to any reputable supplier of either LED or Induction lighting, do the math and you will see savings in excess of 50%. So where is the other $85,000-$130,000 in savings -- DTE gets it in exchange for a one-time $22,000 rebate. Does that sound like the city council you want using your money? Check the facts -- both LED lighting and Induction lighting will use wattage, worst case 50% of what HPS requires plus their lifetimes are much longer, thus maintenance is lower. Do the math. Pat DTE on the back -- the did a great job improving their profits at Ypsilanti's expense. And the city council is likely very happy in its ignorance as it will tax this already hard hit community even more because it it did not do its homework. Voters -- it your choice!!! What will you do next election?
BW114
Tue, Jul 30, 2013 : 9:50 p.m.
JayJay, I disagree that LED loses to induction inherently by the technology in CRI. There are LED fixtures with CRI's in the 90s. They're quite prevalent. And actually, exterior applications are the best for LED at this point. While I think the visual comfort of induction CAN be better, I'm not sure I understand where you're coming from mentioning it's a better option.
jayjay
Mon, Jul 29, 2013 : 10:48 p.m.
BW114 -- yes, lumens do mean something by not by themselves. Do you wish to use Lumens per watt , pupil lumens or lumen maintenance? And let's bring in the color rendering index (CRI). HPS loses badly on these, and for that matter LED loses out to induction lighting if you go down this path. And really for street lighting, induction lighting would indeed be a better choice. My negativism is the fact that we both agree the saving on LED vs HPS ought to be substantially more. Why isn't a debt ridden city like Ypsilanti getting a much bigger savings? The money, I fear, is going into the pockets of DTE. I think the choice to move to the much more efficient LED technology is the right way to go; however, it should not need a special assessment to do so. There are suppliers of both LED and induction lighting out there that will sell the technology to Ypsilanti without DTE involvement, thus allowing Ypsilanti to reap the 50-65% operating savings that they should be getting. At that rate and with proper financing, the financing costs can easily be paid out of the operating savings w/o having to tax the already burdened electorate and taxpayer.
BW114
Mon, Jul 29, 2013 : 8:19 p.m.
@JayJay Lumens/Watt does matter, though. Cree modules are present in many manufacturer's fixtures (some of which are better designed). And they actually has a lower efficacy than you might think across the board for their pole top fixtures (Hubbell, Lithonia, Cooper, etc. all offering cheaper fixtures, similar LED modules, and higher efficacy) , there are extremely efficient LED street lights that would yes, reduce the energy consumption by 2/3. I'm a lighting designer in the area, and a DTE Trade Ally, so I understand the benefit of the retrofit. I saw the cut sheets the city was given by DTE at least the preliminary options and while I understand your pessimism to an extent, the lamp life and supposed lack of maintenance for LEDs will reduce labor costs for the city for relamping. Plus, as the article states, the city will spend less in coming years to run those fixtures. The city could not afford a lighting design firm to be involved in the spacing criteria, optics (glare control, etc. that is inherent to LED technology), but I believe they've done the best they can with what they have. Care should have been taken to go with a reputable manufacturer that can stand by their warranty for at least ten years (something Cree does, actually). If Lithonia or another main manufacturer was selected, here's hoping that at least the innovative technology will be supported. I'm not sure where all the negativity is coming from- what would you suggest the city do? Leave the HPS? Go with induction? Do not assume ignorance on the city's part, if you aren't aware that research WAS done, within their resources.
jayjay
Mon, Jul 29, 2013 : 2:08 p.m.
Widmer, the evidence exists. HPS is old technology and the measure you should use is not lumens. All you need to do is look at the literature that exists. The city council did not do its job, purely and simply. They are wasting taxpayer money by giving it away to DTE.
widmer
Sun, Jul 28, 2013 : 2:32 p.m.
You're going to need to back up those claims with evidence... Current LED fixtures available approach 100 lumens/watt at best, while standard high pressure sodium lamps produce well over 100 lumens/watt (closer to 150 lumens/watt). This means the high pressure sodium lamps are in fact more efficient. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luminous_efficacy LED technology does exist which will push 150 lumens/watt (ie the Cree XM-L series LEDs), but it's not being packaged into consumer/industry products yet.
Dog Guy
Sun, Jul 28, 2013 : 12:39 p.m.
"In a period of less than five years, you get 100 percent of your investment, then you make a $40,000 dividend for the rest of time." So Ypsilanti should have 50,000 lights installed and make 100 times as much. $4,000,000 per year forever could help pay off the Water Street Project.
brian
Mon, Jul 29, 2013 : 12:29 a.m.
What?
YpsiGreen
Sun, Jul 28, 2013 : 12:33 p.m.
And now the city is starting to add "fees" just like the airlines do?
David Frye
Sun, Jul 28, 2013 : 12:32 p.m.
Trying to figure out the math here: "The cost of running those 505 lights is around $121,000 annually, and that figure will be reduced by $81,000, giving the city an annual savings of $40,000." Should this read: "reduced to $81,000"?
jayjay
Mon, Jul 29, 2013 : 10:54 p.m.
When I say it should be reduced to $60,000, that is what the savings ought to be, or MORE! Who is getting the other $21,000 -- do I hear DTE singing songs of felicity all the way to the bank? Yeh, a savings of $40,000 sounds beautiful -- until you realize it should be another 50% higher, and maybe more. Come on guys, let's get Ypsi its money!
Pete Murdock
Sun, Jul 28, 2013 : 2:34 p.m.
Again should be reduced TO $81,000 not by $81,000 @JayJay The error was due to a typo by AnnArbor.com
jayjay
Sun, Jul 28, 2013 : 1:22 p.m.
It should read reduced to $60,000 (or less). An enlightened electorate is needed for democracy to work. When the people elect an ignorant city council, this is what you get. They ought to go back to DTE and demand the rest of their money. What could have been a "win/win" turned out to be a "win/lose", and as usual, it the tax payers who lose. Government at its finest!
YpsiGreen
Sun, Jul 28, 2013 : 12:34 p.m.
That's what I just posted, too. Made no sense.
YpsiGreen
Sun, Jul 28, 2013 : 12:27 p.m.
"The cost of running those 505 lights is around $121,000 annually, and that figure will be reduced by $81,000, giving the city an annual savings of $40,000." So are they paying $81,000/yr. or $40,000/yr?
dading dont delete me bro
Sun, Jul 28, 2013 : 9:19 p.m.
ann arbor news math...
Pete Murdock
Sun, Jul 28, 2013 : 12:33 p.m.
Should be reduced TO $81,000 not by $81,000