Phase 1
The scope of Phase 1 includes:
- LED lighting and select energy measures at seven parks (see parks below)
- Improvements at Montavilla Community Center.
- Replacement of irrigation well pump at East Delta Park.
In 2017, City Council approved a pilot ESPC approach for PP&R which became an initiative in our 2017-2020 Strategic Plan. In addition to achieving environmental goals, Phase 1 will save $45,000 per year in utility costs and reduce the maintenance gap by over $100,000 per year. Appendix B includes Council filing documents for the Ordinance and Summary on the issue.
This initiative is expected to:
- Lower our costs at 9 PP&R sites;
- Address critical maintenance issues; and
- Set a model for other Bureaus to use this alternative contracting approach to advance our City Climate Action Plan.
ESPC Phase 1 Sites and Measures
| Location | Equity Score* | Measures |
|---|---|---|
| Bloomington Park | 5 |
|
| Ed Benedict Park | 5 | |
| Raymond Park | 5 | |
| Ventura Park | 5 | |
| Knott Park | 4 | |
| Brentwood Park | 3 | |
| Kenton Park | 3 | |
| East Delta Park | 4 |
|
| Montavilla Community Center | 3 |
|
*1 to 5 scale, with 5 indicating more vulnerable sites based on three metrics for the Service Area exceeding City of Portland Averages:
- Percent of People of Color
- Percent of Youth
- Percent of People Below Poverty Line.
Energy Savings Performance Frequently Asked Questions
Why is Parks doing this project?
Our utility bills continue to climb and are expected to exceed $6 million this coming year. We also need to reduce our deferred maintenance while meeting the goals in the City’s Climate Action Plan. This pilot will demonstrate a new contracting approach to make progress on these issues in a single project.
What work are you doing and when?
Efficiency retrofits at nine (9) locations. Complete details at "Portland Parks & Recreation’s commitment to sustainability continues" February 19, 2020
How did Parks decide which sites to include in the pilot?
We initially analyzed 50 locations and selected these nine due to funding availability and based on: 1. urgency of maintenance issues, 2. cost saving opportunity, and 3. equity considerations. We intend to eventually accomplish this kind of efficiency work at all 150+ locations it is applicable.
How did Parks decide which technologies to use?
Relying on expert staff and consultant knowledge and modelling the tradeoffs for each alternative. Generally, lighting converted to energy-efficient and longer-lasting LEDs while pumps, motors, fixtures and other equipment were selected to be durable, maintainable, and energy-efficient.
What changes can I expect in the pathway lighting?
The box-style pathway light fixtures at many parks are obsolete, with spare parts difficult or impossible to obtain, inefficient, and leak light beyond the park boundary and upwards. The multi-discipline team weighed options ranging from: a) the lowest cost of just replacing the luminaire (bulb) with an LED in the same fixture; b) highest cost of redesigning the entire pathway lighting system, including poles; and c) replacing the fixtures but keeping the poles.
This project will replace them with efficient, long-lasting, 3000K Correlated Color Temperature (CCT), LED fixtures with no uplighting. The intent is to be consistent with DarkSky practices while reducing operating costs.
Additionally, the new lights will be optimally oriented and some missing light poles will be replaced during the project. A picture of the new fixture follows. It was chosen to blend with the existing park aesthetics as best as possible, be consistent with the lighting we use on new parks, and minimize costs by using a commercial, off-the-shelf product:
