Decatur’s First Project Using Energy Efficiency Grant: Glenlake Tennis Center
Decatur Metro | October 19, 2011 | 11:25 amBack in March 2010, Decatur announced it was awarded $500,000, through the Energy Efficiency and Conservation Block Grant (EECBG) program through the State of Georgia. The award would be shared with Dunwoody and Chamblee.
At Monday’s City Commission meeting, Decatur’s Resource Conservation Coordinator Lena Stevens approached with the commission with the first capital improvement project that Decatur would under take utilizing this grant: Glenlake Tennis Center.
According to Ms. Stevens letter to the City Manager (page 48 of the meeting materials PDF)…
The Glenlake Tennis Center was built in 1998. Except for minor repairs, the building has not been altered since it was first built. As they are original to the facility, the mechanical systems will likely be in need of replacement in the near future. The proposed work includes replacement of the HVAC equipment, installation of an electric tankless hot water heater, additional insulation, weatherstripping, sealing ductwork, lighting replacements, and other energy-saving measures.
The $57,000 suggested project budget was unanimously approved by the commission and the project was awarded to Sol Construction, the only bidder on the project.
The Energy Efficiency and Conservation Block Grant is also currently funding the DecaturWise energy efficiency rebate program, which Ms. Stevens mentioned at the commission meeting, had met its quota of 55 projects and was was already deemed one of the most successful programs of its type throughout the country.
Related Posts:
-
July 19, 2010 Decatur City Commission to Vote on New “Green” Policies (14)
-
March 15, 2010 Decatur Joins “Atlanta Urban Area Partnership” In Hopes Of Luring Google Fiber (2)
-
August 18, 2011 Decatur Recycling Now Accepting Some Pizza Boxes (19)
57k? They might have saved some $$$ if they procured more than 1 bid… someone knows someone at Sol…
In this economic climate, how could there be only one bid? One would think contractors would be fighting over any opportunity.
I’ll try to clarify that. Thanks.
The question should be “was it competitively bid in accordance with the state of Georgia public works construction law requirements”.
Here’s Lena Stevens reply…
“The Request for Proposals on the Glenlake Tennis Center energy efficiency improvements was open to all interested bidders. The RFP was posted on our website on September 7th, and bids were due on September 27th. We also emailed several contractors directly in an effort to solicit as many bids as possible.
The project may not have been attractive to contractors due to its relatively small scale and the numerous restrictions related to stimulus funding. Even with a single bid, references and experience were evaluated and we are excited about the opportunity to make significant energy improvements to the tennis center at little direct cost to the City. “
There’s no line item for the project that I can see, so how can you judge the cost?
You can’t judge it for certain, but the list they gave seems to include major items (new HVAC, water heater, sealing ductwork) and then most of the rest is “other.” And I’m not an expert, but the price strikes me as pretty darn high for what they are doing to a relatively small building.
All that is on top of the question of whether the federal government has any business paying to fix up a tennis center in a wealthy suburb of a major city. What’s next, stumulus funds to overseed the fairways at East Lake?
The work you mention may be proven to save a tremendous amount of utility money in the long run. Why would you oppose that?
I don’t have any opposition to Decatur deciding to undertake the project, and since I am not a ciry resident, it’s not really any of my business what Decatur decides to do with its own money. The problem is that it’s not using its own money. I oppose using federal money to renovate the tennis centers of wealthy cities. There is no question that Decatur can afford to undertake the project from its own budget if it so chooses.
We did not pay federal taxes?
The issue is how federal money should be spent. That Decatur residents paid federal taxes doesn’t distinguish them from any other town and doesn’t justify the project. If the federal fisc was overflowing with excess cash, that might be one thing, but we’ve run a deficit of $1 trillion plus for each of the last two years. In that environment, it seems to me that prudent use of federal money would exclude renovating a tennis center that local residents can easily afford to renovate if they so choose. Not trying to single out Decatur here; I live in Avondale would object just as much to the federal government paying to upgrade our pool house, for example.
This is theoretically admirable. But in reality, federal funds will be spent and local taxpayers who pay federal taxes lose out if their local officials do not apply for them. Unspent allocated federal funds either get spent in another locality or go back into the black hole of the Treasury. It seems like cutting off one’s nose to spite one’s face to not apply for offered federal funds for a good local project or program.
We’re talking about multiple levels of politics here. DEM’s got a completely reasonable point that our national system and the way we’re operating it is nuts. If enough people come to share that view (and it seems entirely likely), that system may get shaken up. Dramatically.
But here in Decatur, we’re operating on a different level. It’s not the job of our elected officials to reform national policy. Their job is to leverage the current system, whatever it is, to the greatest advantage of their constituents. So long as national policy operates the way it does right now, it will involve local competition for dollars and, in that arena, vision and leadership win.
The best part is, if Federal money dries up, local vision and leadership will still win. So we should never fault our officials for showing it. Whatever happens, we’re gonna need it.
Agree with DEM, and also agree with Scott. But I feel compelled to add that as a non-tennis player, I wish the City had found something to do with the money that would directly benefit more of us. I know it’s indirectly beneficial for me as a homeowner for any of our facilities to be as nice as we can make them. But I do get tired of having to live on that.
Agreed. It’s hard to fault the Decatur city officials here, and that’s not my point, though I do think it would show exceptional leadership and public spirit to turn down the money. That’s completely pie-in-the-sky, I know. The bigger issue is that the fed government dangles this money out there, and of course localities are going to take it and use it for very questionable projects that the localities themselves should be budgeting and paying for.
You may have the “feds” paying to rebuild the fire station in Avondale. Do you object to that?
Absolutely. The city should pay for it. Lord knows our taxes, though not quite as high as Decatur’s, are plenty high enough to take care of that kind of basic function.
Not saying this is the issue in this case but, at my company we’ve seen a decrease in the number of bidders on ARRA funded projects. The federal/state reporting requirements were considered by some contractors to be too much of a hassle, especially for smaller projects.
That seems to have been exactly the case.
Very interesting, thanks DM and 20%er.
Depending on the fixtures, the tennis court lighting could take up a huge chunk of the overall amount.
As I recall, the original Glenlake tennis center, a wood frame structure, was completely torn down and replaced with the present structure. It seems to be a very modern facility and a big improvement over the previous building. I find it hard to believe that it is in need of such a major upgrade.
It’s not an upgrade, amenitites-wise. They’re redoing the mechnical systems and stopping all the air leaking in/out. (Lena Stevens rattled off all the loss measurements readings vs what they should be– major discrepancies!) Lena, Greg White, and Jabori Cole worked together on determining what was needed. To their credit, they also considered replacing the ball fields’ lights, but felt that the expense (due to the regulations hoops) was too high to pursue. Lena also pointed out (in response to Patti Garrett’s question on what other projects were being considered) that some of City’s facilities needing upgrades– the Rec Center, the Fire Station– are already planned and budgeted.
My impression is that Lena is looking for opportuntities to improve Decatur’s properties, but she’s not rushing to just spend the money.
* Jabari Cole (Rec Superstar!)
As a Decatur tax payer, I think they should do it, where they can get the money from. It is a good investment.
I agree with DEM – this is not something the federal government has any business doing. I’m curious if anyone actually calculated the ROI on the project? There’s a reason I still have single pane windows and no solar panels. I’m also curious what the bids would have looked like if the project had not required the onerous reporting that came along with that “free” money.
I would like some detail on the “onerous reporting” requirements that seem to be conventional wisdom around here. I have real life experience with federally funded public works construction (including ARRA) and I cannot identify any additional reporting requirements that involved reporting by the selected contractors enough to inflate bids or lead to only one bidder. So what are you talking about Josh and others?