Date: 01/16/2009

Capitol Lighting Project


Votes: View--> Action Taken:
Moved that the committee accept the capitol lightiPASS

01:33 PM -- Capitol Lighting Project

Lance Shepherd, Office of the State Architect, came to the table to talk to the committee about the capitol lighting project. The purpose of the lighting project is to enhance the view of the building after dark, as well as to enhance security. Mr. Shepherd introduced the consultants on the project and provided a handout (Attachment A). He explained the scope of the project, which keeps energy efficiency and security in mind. He said the project has been approved by the Colorado State Patrol.

Attachment A.pdf

Rachel Petro, designer with RNL, described the development of the capitol lighting project. Melissa Friedland from Greenlight Engineering described her part in the project. Tim Flanagan, also from Greenlight Engineering, talked about the lighting in the House and Senate legislative chambers, explaining that lenses for light cans in the legislative chambers would be custom designed to keep shattered glass from raining down when a light bulb blows. He said some of the cans would be changed out, and their direction adjusted, but that the controls would remain the same. Mr. Flanagan talked about exterior security lighting, noting it would not change the look of the building. He said the current stadium lights would be replaced by much smaller fixtures in the same locations. He said that lights in the entryways would be changed to function better. He said the new lighting would look better, be more maintainable, and be more energy efficient. Mr. Shepherd noted that the new exterior dome lighting could be turned off at night.

Ms. Friedland referred the committee to a photo in the handout showing how the capitol might look at night with the new lighting. She walked the committee through the handout, showing examples of different lighting schemes that might be employed. Ms. Petro talked about how the light-emitting-diode (LED) lights could be blended to utilize color. Ms. Petro talked about each layer of the lighting project, providing details about maintenance and efficiency of each fixture. The committee discussed maintenance issues, suggesting a maintenance schedule be developed for new fixtures.

Representative Weissmann talked about the state's budget issues and asked how the projects would be funded. Mr. Shepherd explained that the project is on the table for cuts. Ms. Petro said the work would be done on a priority basis. She spoke next about the light in the crow's nest, which is a low wattage, low maintenance, low energy usage fixture. The next layer she described is light within the dome that would glow out the windows at night. Ms. Contiguglia asked if that layer would be done after the structural improvements would be made to the dome. The committee discussed how many lights would be needed to accomplish the desired effect at this level and about the possibility of exterior light on the dome.

Ms. Petro continued her discussion, talking about the current up-shining stadium lights, and explaining how new lower-wattage lights would perform. In response to a question, Ms. Petro noted that the lights would be moved in somewhat, so that they would no longer be hanging off the side of the roof. Mr. Lombardi commented on the safety issues with changing the lights as they currently exist. The committee discussed the security lighting and need for it to remain where it is due to needs around the security cameras.

01:55 PM

Ms. Petro continued by discussing the layer of lights around the exterior balcony. Next, she described LED fixture that would be recessed into the floor and explained how they would be installed. Mr. Flanagan provided further clarification to this issue, describing in more detail how the fixtures would be installed. Mr. Shepherd clarified that the concrete on that level is original to the building. The committee discussed how power would come to those fixtures. Ms. Friedland said the fixture, which is LED, would need to be replaced very infrequently, so the need to remove the fixture to change the light should be minimal, noting that they would only need to be changed approximately once every ten years. Ms. Petro explained why the decision was made to put fixtures in the floor, noting that they would not interfere with future work on the structure of the dome. Ms. Friedland talked about safety issues, saying having the fixtures at the level proposed would negate the need for someone to get up on a ladder to perform maintenance. The committee talked about the difference of the effect of down-lighting as opposed to up-lighting and the possibility of water penetration. Committee discussion about the fixtures continued, focusing on water penetration issues.

The flagpole light was discussed next. Ms. Petro explained that the fixture would be more efficient than the current fixture. Below the flag, Ms. Petro said, there would be a linear LED fixture on the pediment. This fixture would light upwards. These fixtures, she said, would be on the west facade, which has the highest visibility. The committee discussed this, talking about the possibility of more lighting on the other facades.

Ms. Petro next described the LED flood lights that would be placed at the base of the columns, saying it would be a tight beam angle showing the depth and prominence of the balconies. Finally, she talked about the security lights, saying they would be replaced with lower-wattage lights, which would put more light where it is needed. Mr. Nichols asked about savings in operating costs, and whether the savings would pay for the installation. Mr. Shepherd talked about possible funding sources for the project, saying they are looking at different funding levels. Rachel said each level could be prioritized into an a la carte list.

Ms. Contiguglia asked that the designers follow up on the water issue.
BILL:Capitol Lighting Project
TIME: 11:14:54 AM
MOTION:Moved that the committee accept the capitol lighting proposal, with a caveat that the designers study the up-lighting on the observation deck to ensure that water penetration would not be an issue. The motion passed on an 8-1 vote.