The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2008-01-16 PACKET 08.E.REQUEST OF CITY COUNCIL ACTION COUNCIL AGENDA MEETING ITEM # �. DATE 01/16/08 a PREPARED BY: Engineerin�_ Jennifer Levitt OF2IGINATING DEPRRTMENT STAFF AUTHOR . �� .�� ,�� ,� COUNCIL ACTION REQUEST: Adopt the attached resolution approving the plans and specifications and estiblish a February 12, 2008 bid date for Bid Package #2 Cottage Grove Ice Arena Expansion Project. Adopt the attached resolution approving the plans and specifications and estiblish a February 26, 2008 bid date for Bid Package #3 Cottage Grove Ice Arena Expansion Project. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the adopting of the attached resolution approving the plans and specifications and estiblish a February 12, 2008 bid date for Bid Package #2 Cottage Grove Ice Arena Expansion Project. Staff recommends the adopting of the attached resolution approving the plans and specifications and estiblish a February 26, 2008 bid date for Bid Package #3 Coftage Grove Ice Arena Expansion Project. BUDGET IMPLICATION: $ $ BUDGETED AMOUNT ACTUAL AMOUNT FUNDING SOURCE SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: � MEMO/LETTER: Jennifer Levitt, January 10, 2008, Ron Hedberg, January 11, 2008, (2) Brian Hook, January 9, 2008, Jennifer Levitt and Zac Dockter, November 15, 2007. � RESOLUTION: Bid Package #2 and Bid Package #3. ❑ ORDINANCE: ❑ ENGINEERING RECOMMENDATION: ❑ LEGAL RECOMMENDATION: � OTHER: Plans and Specifications and Industrial versus Commercial Grade Systems. ADMINISTRATORS COMMENTS: �� City Administrator Date ��.��,��,��,.��,�� COUNCILACTION TAKEN: �APPROVED ❑ DENIED ❑ OTHER �S � ° `�� RESOLUTION NO. 08- RESOLUTION APPROVING THE PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS AND ESTA��ISFiIN(; A BID DATE FOR BID PACFCAGE #2 COTTAGE GROV� ICE ARENA EKPANSION PROJECT WHEREAS, plans and specifications have been prepared in accordance with the City standards and specifications for the Ice Arena Expansion Project; and WHEREAS, the City Engineer has presented such plans and specifications to the City Council for approval. NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Cottage Grove, County of Washington, State of Minnesota, as follows 1. Sealed bids will be received in the office of the City Clerk until 2:00 p.m. on Tuesday, February 12, 2008. Passed this 16th day of January, 2008. Sandra Shiely, Mayor Attest: Caron M. Stransky, City Clerk RESOLUTION NO. 08- RESOLUTION APPROVWG THE PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS AND ESTABLISHING A BID DATE FOR BID PACKAGE #3 COTTAGE GROVE ICE ARENA EXPANSION PROJECT WHEREAS, plans and specifications have been prepared in accordance with the City standards and specifications for the Ice Arena Expansion Project; and WHEREAS, the City Engineer has presented such plans and specifications to the City Council for approval. NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Cottage Grove, County of Washington, State of Minnesota, as foliows 1. Sealed bids will be received in the office of the City Clerk until 2:00 p.m. on Tuesday, February 26, 2008. Passed this 16th day of January, 2008. Sandra Shiely, Mayor Attest: Caron M. Stransky, City Cierk CITY OF COTTAGE GROVE MINNESOTA To: Honorable Mayor and City Council Ryan Schroeder, City Administrator From: Jennifer M. Levitt, P.E., City Engineer Date: January 10, 2008 Re: Ice Arena Bid Package #2 and #3 Approve Plans and Specifications Establish Bid Date Arena Proiect Analvsis Value Engineering Items from 11/2007: All value engineering items in Tier 1 are represented in the plan set being recommended for approval. Gas Dessicant vs fdon-Gas Dessicant Dehumidifier Dehumidification plays a vital role in the overall efficiency of ice arena operations. Being able to maintain low relative humidity levels in an ice arena directly results in the following: 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. Improved ice conditions Elimination of moisture on glass, boards, bleachers, Reduction in chiller electrical consumption Reduced maintenance of chiller system (due to less Reduced building maintenance Reduction and/or elimination of mold and rusting issues associated with a humid environment walls hours of operation) Natural Gas driven dehumidifiers have proven to be the most reliable method of dehumidification over the last 20 years in the refrigeration industry. Due to the steady increase in gas prices the past ten years, manufacturers have been working diligently on designing a competitive dehumidification system that can be operated without gas consumption. Several units have been developed with limited success, but Munters Corporation has developed a unit called "FreeDry" that seems to have hit the target. The FreeDry unit utilizes waste heat from the chiller system as opposed to a natural gas furnace. This results in the complete elimination of natural gas usage for the dehumidifier. However, the FreeDry comes at a price of approximately $50,000 -$60,000 more per unit than the standard gas dehumidifier. The ice arena's natural gas bill for 2006 and 2007 was $33,800 and $37,300 respectively. Assuming that 50% of the gas usage is from the dehumidifier (which is a safe assumption), the City would save approximately $18,500 per year in gas costs. This figure assumes that gas costs remain constant when all indications show a steady increase. it would be anticipated to have a return on investment in approximately 3.5 years on the FreeDry dehumidification unit. The plans are to bid the `FreeDry' system as an alternate for the new rink and establish a second alternate to consider a`FreeDry' system on the existing rink. Lights: The existing lights in the main rink are energy efficient fluorescent lights. However, the maintenance, lamp and ballast costs are much more expensive than standard fluorescent tube lighting. The lighting Ievels are also much poorer than the tube lighting. The replacement cost of this lighting is approximately $30,000. This wili be bid as an Add Alternate; this number is not in the engineers estimate for Bid Package #3. However, the new lighting system would save the arena operations budget approximately $1,000 in direct costs each year associated with lamp replacement. Final decision to include this line item will be made at time of award. Refrigeration: Questions were raised at the November workshop regarding the proposed industrial grade refrigeration system compared to a commercial grade system. Please see the attached Stevens Engineering's evaluation of refrigeration systems. Entrance/Lobby: The current lobby does not function well during the ice arena's prime season due to its small size. The area is very crowded and traffic flow is extremely difficuit as groups of people enter the building, exit, and attempt to reach concessions/restrooms. The current lobby problems would only multiply with the addition of the new ice arena. This element remains in the plans per direction received at the November Workshop to reduce the interior congestion issues and enhance circulation. The ticketing area that was shown has been removed from the plans; this produced a$20,000 savings. Catwalk: The existing walkway from the lobby to the main rink restrooms and concessions currently does not operate well during medium to large events. The walkway is very narrow and it is difficult for traffic flow between the lobby, bleachers, restrooms and concessions. By adding another destination (the new rink) at the end of that walkway, the current "bottleneck" probiem will only increase. With the combination of the lobby and walkway expansion (termed catwalk), traffic flow problems will be minimized, with the exception of a few major events during the year. The expanded warm area wouBd be a positive addition to patrons and could help boost sales at the concession and vending machine areas. This area would also be utilized by students, parents and observers during practices and while waiting for ice time. As directed at the November Workshop this element remains in the plans. Site WorklDrive LanelTeam Entry: A large majority of the site work was completed this summer. The project this summer included storm water pond grading, water main extension, construction of access drives and soil corrections. The value that is in the current budget represents actual costs to date for the soil corrections, pond and water main work. The issue that was raised at the Councii Workshop in November focused on the need for a drive lane on the north side of the building to serve as team entry. The direction Council provided was to minimize or eliminate the team entry. As the design work continued and code review issues were examined, it was determined that an egress point was needed at the team entry location. The original team entry had a lot of glass and an extended overhead canopy. Revisions were made to minimize the expense related to the north entry point, so the amount of glass was reduced, the canopy was reduced and the sidewaik area was reduced. These reductions produced a $30,000 savings. The Planning Commission when they reviewed the ice arena expansion in November felt strongly that the drive lane along the north side of the building was needed to help reduce the congestion problems at the existing front entrance to the rink. Also, when the Fire Marshall reviewed the building site plans the requirement was to have a hard surface access to the northwest corner of the building. A diagram of the minimum requirement is in the packet, this would be the alternate that wiil be bid with the project. The bid alternate for the turn around would have a projected $14,000 savings versus extending the drive lane out to 80 Street. Varsity Locker Rooms: The plans do not call for any finishes to be made in the varsity locker rooms in the new rink. That means the Hockey Association is responsible for painting, benches, floor matting and any other additional amenities. Budaet Review Original Budget 5,900,000 School District Contributions/Fund Raising Efforts: 185,000 Funding Available 6,085,000 Bid Package #1 (Actual) Bid Package #2 (Engineers Estimate) Bid Package #3 (Engineers Estimate) General Conditions Construction Contingency Construction estimate Soft Costs (A/E, CM, Permits, Testing, Commissioning, Printing) Total Project Costs Project Balance (deficit) Aiternates (reductions) additions Remove Stairwell Window Reduce Drive Lane Add Existing Rink Lighting Utilize Gas Desiccant Unit (new rink) Add FreeDry Unit to Existing Rink Operable Wail Project Balance (deficit) SChedule: January 14, 2008 January 16, 2008 February 12, 2008 February 20, 2008 February 26, 2008 March 5, 2008 March 10, 2008 October 1. 2008 805,111 1, 003, 000 3, 601,653 190, 000 200, 000 5,799,764 891,422 6,691,186 (606,186) (7,000) (14,000) 30,000 (60,000) 170,000 16,250 (741,436) Joint Planning & Park Commission Building and Site Review Approve Plans and Specifications Bid Opening for BP #2 Award BP #2 Bid Opening for BP #3 Award BP #3 Construction Starts Certificate of Occupancy Plans and Specifications Plans and specifications have been prepared in accordance with the City standards and specifications. The engineers estimate for Bid Package #2 is $1,003,000 and Bid Package #3 is 3,601,653. Also to note Bid Package #1 was awarded for $805,111 on January 2, 2008. The reason there are two bid packages is to help position the City better in the current bidding market as it relates to the refrigeration system and dasher boards. As other ice arenas are being bid in the Mid-west there are limited suppliers, so it wouid heip to have the bid packages bid earlier to take advantage of the bidding environment. Bid Date Bid Package #2: A February 12, 2:00 p.m. bid date will provide ample time to provide required notification to contractors. Bid Package #3: A February 26, 2:00 p.m. bid date will provide ample time to provide required notification to contractors. Recommendation: It is recommended the Council adopt the attached resolution approving the plans and specification and establishing a February 12, 2008 bid date for Bid Package #2 and establishing a February 26, 2008 bid date for Bid Package #3. City of Cottage Grove MemO Finance and Administrative Services TO: FROM DATE: RE: Honorabie Mayar and City Councii Ryan Schroeder, City Administrator Ron Hedberg, Director of Finance & Administrative Services January 11, 2008 Update to impact of current project cost estimates to annual debt service Introduction At the November 21 City Council meeting the Council discussed a number of options to reduce project costs. Jennifer Levitt wili be presenting an update to the project budget based on current Construction Manager estimates of project costs prior to releasing the 2 and 3 rtl bid packages. Currently the total project cost estimate is $6,691,000 and this is higher than the original projected funding available of $6,085,000, leaving a deficit of approximately $606,000. Jennifer will be presenting possible additional cost reductions that could be obtained in the two remaining bid packages but significant reductions are not expected, but it won't be known until bid out. The total of $6,691,000 also stili includes $200,000 in construction contingency, so it is hoped that final costs will come in with a lower deficit. Discussion The original council direction provided on the project financing was that the annual subsidy (or property tax levy support) would be in the range of $240,000 to $250,000 per year. The 2008 budget was prepared around these assumptions and this level of tax levy support was based on annual debt service of approximately $544,000 per year. Using this amount of levy support would provide construction amounts of $6,085,000 (the original project cost of $5,900,000 plus $185,000 expected in cost sharing for the CGAA booster club share of the locker room costs which is now included in the total project costs). Jennifer has included in her materials a recap of the "budget review" which includes details on the options and related costs. The construction costs estimated by the architect show an overage of $606,000, which would result in an additional $51,000 per year in debt service beyond the original estimated debt service of $544,000 based on original financing terms, 5.5% interest over 20 years. Since we started this project the interest rate environment has changed resulting in expected favorable impacts to total debt service of approximately one percent, 1%. Based on the total project costs of $6,691,000 the average debt service would be $595,000 based on the original terms of 5.5% average interest. It appears that the interest rate environment has fallen by approximately 1% to 4.5%, which results in the average debt service be approximately $546,000 per year or very close to the original projection. If the interest rate prior to issuing increases approximately'/2 of 1°/o t reduce the amount financed by approximately $330,000 to arrive at the by either reducing project costs or redirecting other funding sources revenues would need to be generated from ice rentals or other sources. � 5%, we would either have to $544,000 average debt service Or an additional $36,000 in Action Requested This information is for background information in the Council discussion on Ice Arena project costs. lce:b•encr De,ri�n r�lufruul Sleven,s Engirnera. L�c 3.1.5 ImdustriaV v�rsus Comcnereial Grade �ystecnts. The grade or quality of a refrigeration system can basically be classified into two categories "industrial grade" or "commercial �rade". In general, an industrial grade system (asts longer because higher quality materiat and equipment are used in its construction, the equipment is rebuildable after the it has reached is useful life, the system is lypically stick built on-site, and ihe system operates more efilciency. The f'ollowing is a detailed comparison outlining the differences. A. Capital Costs. An industrial system typically costs more to instal( because of the higher quality materials and equiprnent used to construct the system. Ifowever, the higher quality and operating efFiciency more than makes up for the higher capital costs over the life of the equipment. B. Life F,.rpectunc•y. An industria( grade refrigeration system typically lasts 25 to 30 years or morc before major overhauling is reqttired. A commercial grade system, because of the qu1(ity of the equipment and materials, typically ]asts 15 years belore major overhauling or replacing is required. 'I'he major differences associated with the longevity of the two systems are outlined helo�v. 1. Copper refrigerant piping is used in a typical commerciat grade system versus steel reirigerant piping in an industrial system. Copper is a softer metal than steeL Copper becomes brittle over timc due to harmonic frequcncies caused by minor system vibrations. 2. PVC brine/glycol piping is used in the commercial grade system vs. steel piping in the industrial grade system. When the pipe is cooled to the typical operating temperatures of 17 tu 20 F the pipe becomes brittle and susceptible to breakage. As the system is turned on and off over the years the pipe tends to crack and the glued joints tend to loosen or break apart. 3. A direct espansimi (DX) type chiller is used in the commercial ; rade system vs. a flooded type chi(ler is used on an industrial type system. We discussed the life span of each type of system with a major vessei manuf�eturer who manufacturers both types of chillers. They state thzl they have had zero reporis of flooded chiller failing while approximately 12 failures have bcen reported this year alone with the direct expansion type chillers. Failures in the direct cxpansion type chillers occur because the copper tubes leak, break during freeze up conditions, slugging, etc. There is typically more vibration around a direct expinsion chi(ler because the refrigerant is being forced through the chiller hibes vs. sunaunding the chiller tubes with a flooded type system. The turbulence creatcd in the DX chiller tubes produce vibrations and can lead to tube 1'ailure. 1'his manufacturer has quit mamifacturing flooded chilters with copper tubes because of tlie numerous problems with copper lubes. Steel htbes are typically used in t7ooded chillers. ��St�V�9iS 14 Ice Aretaci Ue,sit>n iLlcrfrtinl �SYevert� .F,n,�i�a�er,r, L�c. 4. There �re two main types of reciprocating cotnpressors used in the ice rink industry, the open type (used in industrial grade systems) and the semi-l�ermetic type (used in commercial grade systems). The open type compressor is generally larger in size with the motor and the compressor jointed together with a shaft. In this design, the motor docs not come in contact with thc refrigcrant. The semi-hermetic compressors are generally smaller in size btit are less eCficient because the motor is exposed to the refrigerant. '1'his arrangement forcing the refrigerant to absorb the heat from the motor. Another down side to semi-hermetic compressors is that the refrigerant must be thoroughiy cleaned through a carbon filter system if problems occur with the compressor motors. 1'he life expectancy of the semi-hermetic compressors (commercial grade system) is approximately I S yelrs. These compressors are not repairable but simply are replaced when they wear out. The cost to replace each of'the compressors range from $12,OOd to $15,000 (2007 dollars). A 300 ton commercial grade system would use approximately 12 compressors. 7'he replacement cost after 15 years would be appraximately $18Q000 (2007) for just ihe compressors alone not to mention the wear on the other system components. Typically semi-hermetic compressors require replacement sooner thnn 15 years because they operate outside the manufacturers recommended operating temperatures. These types of compressors are not recommended for low temperature applications such as ice rink (acilities. Semi-hermetic wmpressors are typically designed for medium and high temperature applications. 13ecause the compressors are operating outside their design ran�e, the capacity is typically less than what the nameplate states. "I'his is oflen the reason why commercial grade systenis can not keep up in heavy loaded conditions because the truc capacity of the system is less thati the nameplate capacity. Open type reciprocating compressors, as used in industrial gr�de systems, are rebuildable. They do require yearly maintenance, such as oil and tilter changes and a major overhaul every 5 years. However, the total estimated cost for this work over a 1 S ycar period is $85,500 (2007). C. System Efficiency. Industrial type refrigerltion systems are typically more efticient than commercial grade systems for the follo�ving reasons: The design of the compressors. As discussed in Item B.4 above, the semi- hermetic type compressors used in cvmmercial grade systems are less efticient than the open reciprocating type compressors used in industrial grade systems. The diff'crence in the power capacity ratio (harsepower/capacity) ratio semi-hermetic and open type is 1.66 and 136, respectively. This means it takes approximate(y 2U% rriore horsepower to operate the semi-hernretic type compressors as it does the open reciprocating �iS$�Ve�15 15 Ice �Irenu Deaizrn hluni�ul �S�l(!VC'11,5 LRf�TAqL'G'!'S', I77C. type. This could account for a substantiat energy savings over tt�e 25 year life span if an industrial type system is installed. For example, the electrical cost to operate a single rink is around $3,000 a month. Which means it will cost approximately $12,000 to operate the Super Rink Expansion. Take 70% for the operation of the refrigeration system =$8400 per month x 20% savings -$1680 per month savings s 8 months x 25 years =$336,000 utility savings over a commercial grade system. 2. Chiller efficiency. As discussed in Item B.3 above a flooded type chiller, a5 used in an industrial type system, is more efficient in transierring heat than a direct expansion (DX) type chiller, used in commercial grade systems. In a flooded chiller all ofthe internal tubes are completely surrounded by liquid refrigeranttherefore providing the mosk efficient heat transfer re�ardless of the number oF compressors that are operating. In a DX chiller the refrigerant turns into vapor as it moves through ihe chiller lessen the ability to transfer heat. Plooded chillers provide much greater flexibility with flowrates and vary loads as will be experienced at the Super Rink Expansion mainly because of the ability to store liquid refrigerant. DX chillers are more dependant on precise des'rgn parameters being met such as the evaporator teinperatures, refrigerant flow, and developrnent of super heat within the chiller as conh•olled by the thermoexpansion valve for proper operation. Brine. Giycol vs. Calcium Chloride Solution. The "brine", as it's typically referred to, is the solution that is circuiated throughout the ice rink Eloors. There are typically two solutions used, ethylene glycol and calcium chloride. Iithylene glycol is less efficient 'rn transferring heat and thereFore requires larger equipment wd costs more to operate the system. Commercial grade systems can only use glycol in their systems because the chiller vessel uses copper tubes. We are proposing to ttse calcium chloridq as is used in the esisting Super Rink facility, to maximize the operating efficiency of the syskem. This is cumpatible with the I3KR "Cechnolo�y dehumidification system that is being proposed. �. Waste Hcat Recovery System (snow me(tin�, subfloor heating, water heating, dchumidification, etc). There is a substantia( difference in the waste heat recovery systems typically supplred with commercial grade systems and the one we are proposing witl� our industrial grade systems. Commercial grade systems typically use a desuPerheater type heat eYChanger to capture the waste heat from the refrigeration system. Typically, a desuperheater is used for pre-heating or higher temperature applications than ice rink applications (35F to 90P) with less wncern over capacity. � �tE1��t8� 16 !re : lr��n�r Desir.rn d/cari�a/ ,S"ievens F;f2,t{ineer.r, (rac. A condenser type heat exchanger (like the one in the existing Super Rink facility) has the lbility to rernove a greater amount of heat from the refrigerafion system because it changes tke state of thc refrigerant (i.e. it removes so much heat from the refrigerant that the entering gas changes or "condenses" to a liquid). A desuperheater, on the other hand, only removes tl�e "superheaY' from the refrigerant gas and thereforc does not change the state of the system limiting its heat recovery capacity. '1'his will affect the operation of the snow melt pit systems and all other systems thal rely on waste heat from the refrigeration system to operate. D. Opercrtinn and Mnintenance. I3ecause refrigeration and ice rink tloor systems are so expensive to operate and maintain, operation and maintenance are are key factars to consider when evaluating types of systems. A cammercial grade sysiem is typically delivered to the site as a package. Access to the equipment and monitoring devices can be difficult. Replacemeni of equipment and materials can also be difficult. We are proposing a"stick builY' system with adequate room around each piece oF equipment tor operatiou and maintenance. T'he room layout is designed lo meet a11 clearances required by mechanicll and building codes. �Stev@ns ] 7 � KRAUS-ANDERSQN� � CQNSTRUC71qN COMPANY January 9, 2008 Ms. Jennifer Levitt Public Works Facliity City of Cottage Grove 8635 West Poinf Llougias Road South Cottage Grove, MN 55016 Re: Cottage Grove Ice Arena Cottage Grove, MN Dear Jennifer: Breaking nevd ground since i$97 8625 Rendova Street NE, P.O. 6ox 15a Circle Pines, MN 55674 O T63.786.7711 F 763.786.265v^ www. krausanderson.com Per our meeting on January $, 2008, we are requesting that Bid Package 2 for the Cottage Grove Ice Arena be issued on January 18, 2008. This Bid Package will consist of two (2} biQ divisions — RefrigerationlRink Floor System and Dasher Baards/Benches. Estimated cost for each of the bid divisions is as foliows: Bid Division #3 Ftefrigeration/Rink Floor System $868,000 Bid Division #4 Dasher BoardslBenches $135,000 The projected bid date for this scope of work would be February 12, 2008. if you have any questions, please feei free to con#act me. Very truly yours, KRAUS-ANDERSON�CONSTRUCTION COMPANY �,.G."'"_._... : Brian L. Hook Senior Project Manager BlHlas cc. Cherles �reiberg, RSR � KFiAUS-ANDER50N� � CdNSTRUCTlpN COMPANY January 9, 2Q08 Ms. Jenniter Levitt Public Works Facility City of Cottage Grove 8635 West Point Douglas Road South Cottage Grove, MN 55016 Re: Cottage Grave !ce Arena Coitage Grove, MN Dear Jennifer: Breaking new ground since 1897 8625 Rendova Street NE, P.O. 8ox 15S Circle Pines, MN 550t4 O 763.786.7711 P 763.7862050 www. krausanderso n.com Per our meeting on January 8, 2008, we are requesting theY Bid Package 3 for the Cottage Grove Ice Arena be issued an February 1, 20d8. This Bid Package will consist of twenty-one (21) bid divisions, listed as follows, for the completion of the !ce Arena project. Estimated cost fior each of the bid divisions is as foilows: Bid Division #5 Bid Division #6 Bid Division #7 Bid Division #8 Bid Division #9 Bid Division #10 Bid Division #11 Bid Division #12 Bid Division #13 Bid Division #14 Bid Division #15 Bid Division #16 Bid Division #17 Bid Division #18 Bid Division #19 Bid Division #20 Bid Division #21 Bid Division #22 Bid Division #23 Bid Divisinn #24 Bid Division #25 ExcavationlSite EarthworWSite Utilities Precast Structural Concrete Concrete and Masonry Structural Steel & Metai Fabrications Suppfy Steel Erection — Structural & Misceilaneous Metals General CanstructsonlDemolitinn Metai Paneis and Standing 3eam Roofing Roofing and Flashing Joint Sealers Holiow Metai Doors, Wood Doors, Finish Hardware, Hollow Metal Frames Overhead Doors Aluminum Entrances, Storefronts and Windows Drywall Geramic Tile Acousticai Ceilings Resilient Athietic FlooringlCarpet PaintNVallcovering Hydraulic Elevator Fire Protection Plumbing and htVAC Electricai The #otai estimated cost for these bid divisions is estimated to be $3,601,653. Ms. Jennifer Levitt Page -2- January R, 2008 City of Cottage Grove The projeoted bid date for this scope oP work would be February 26, 2008. If you have any questions, pfease feel free to contact me. Very truly yours, � KRAUS-ANDER50N�CON57RUCTION COMPANY �l-[�2� ��,�'"'` t'C�-o' Brian L. Hook Senior Project Manager BLFUas ca Charles Freiberg, R3P CITY OF COTTAGE GROVE MINNESOTA To: Honorabie Mayor and City Council Ryan Schroeder, City Administrator From: Jennifer M. Levitt, P.E., City Engineer Zac Dockter, Ice Arena Manager Date: November 15, 2007 Re: Workshop: Ice Arena Project Review Design work for the new ice arena expansion continues and details continue to take shape. Enclosed for review is a preliminary set of plans and various perspective views. At multiple points during the finai design a revised engineer's estimate is prepared to review where the project is in reference to budget. The current estimate has the project over budget by $228,946 that is with the removal of $200,000 contingency. There is some risk in removing the contingency amount from the budget. Throughout detailed final design there are opportunities to reduce costs, but there are also times when a cost increase could occur. Staff sees this as a critical time to review the budget and seek direction on various design elements. Budaet Review Original Budget: $5,900,000 Add: School District Contributions/Fund Raising Efforts: $6,085,000 There are a few key items regarding the budget contributions that should be stated. First, the Booster Club is working on fund raising efforts to provide for a finished locker room, which includes mechanical and electrical systems, finished floor and other amenities sought for enhancement of the locker room facility. The City is also working on fund raising for this project and the value of fund raising has been kept conservative. The next item to note is if costs exceed the revised budget of $6,085,000 then there would be a need to address the proposed fee schedule for ice time. Also to note in the budget number is $74,153 in building permit fees, SAC charges, state surcharge, and connection fees. There are no area charges included with the permit fees or park dedication. The arena project involved creation of a regional storrn water pond to provide for water quality and rate control for the expanded building site and adjacent school property drainage that did not have any storm water treatment previousiy. It is for that reason the area charge for storm water was waived. The ice arena is a park facility and would meet the requirements of the park dedication, so no fee is assessed against the project. The reason for including the building permit fee in the total project cost is so all costs are accounted for and the end-user is contributing toward the value and not a direct City subsidy. Please see attached Value Engineering (VE) Potential Alternate Items. The Tier 1 items are ones in which staff feels can be deleted from the project without compromising the approved schematic design. This enables $153,250 to be saved. The Tier 2 VE items need to be reviewed closely. Staff feels confident with the following reductions: #12 Reduce cost of existing dessicant........$150,000 #11 Delete window in stairwell ..................$ 7,000 #14 Delete floor inserts ............................$ 2,500 #19 $17/sf Precast panel ...........................$ 34,000 Subtotal $193,500 If these reductions take place, the estimated project cost would be $6,313,946 which indicates we are still over the budget amount. The next Ievels of cuts need to be reviewed and direction provided if we are going to bring the project in on budget. The following items are important to review and provide direction on how to proceed. The first line item to consider is the removal of the catwalk and associated items for $155,000 (#9). This item includes removing the increased warm viewing area and expanded warm viewing area as shown on page 2 of the perspective, called `entryway and extended hallway', page 3 'extended hallway and link' and page 4 the 'link'. The next item to review is the removal of the new entrance to the existing arena. This is shown on both page #1's on the perspective sheets. This savings would be $122,380 (#18). Another item to review is the removal of the drive/bus lane and team entry drop off to the north end of facility. The creation of the drive would be a 14' one-way drive lane in which buses and parents could drop off piayers, so entry couid occur at the lower levei and confiicts could be avoided with the main lobby entrance. Also, with the construction of the drive lane, the balifield adjacent to the building would need to be relocated to the north. This is an approximated cost of $15,000 to relocate the ballfield. If the drive lane and drop off was not constructed, $62,500 (#13) could be saved. Arena Proiect Options Analvsis Dehumidification: The existing natural gas desiccant dehumidification unit in the ice arena needs to be replaced. The current unit is beyond its useful life and is not conditioning the air as necessary to sustain a reasonable relative humidity level during summer months. This failure results in periods of condensation on glass, walis and floors. That condensation leads to mold issues, weUslippery floors and bleachers, and fog on rink glass. Also, as the air in the building becomes more humid, the chiiler system exerts more energy to puil that humidity out of the air. Essentially, the more effective and efficient the dehumidifier operates, the less work load is placed on the chiller system. This leads to long term saving in both energy and maintenance. Replacing the desiccant dehumidifier and duct work will cost approximately $150,000. By replacing the dehumidifier but utilizing existing duct work, the cost would be $100,000. However, the existing duct work is on the opposite side of the bleachers and does not distribute air as effectively as it should. Staff would recommend replacing the desiccant dehumidification unit and utilizing the existing duct work to save $50,000. However, future improvements to the duct work may be necessary if we find the existing duct work is not performing. There is also a desiccant dehumidifier unit on the market that utilizes waste heat from the chiller system to aid in the dehumidification process. This unit is approximately $40,000 to $50,000 more expensive than the traditional gas operated unit. However, it does not use natural gas, and that continual savings would result in approximately a 5-year return on investment (dependent upon gas price fluctuation in that period). This item should be considered as an alternate in the bidding process. This element has a net reduction of $150,000 (#12). Lights: The existing lights in the main rink are energy efficient fluorescent lights. However, the maintenance, lamp and ballast costs are much more expensive than standard fluorescent tube lighting. The lighting levels are also much poorer than the tube lighting. The repiacement cost of this lighting is approximately $30,000 (#17). However, the new lighting system would save the arena operations budget approximately $1,000 in direct costs each year associated with lamp replacement. The studio rink lights are metal-halide lights. These lights are more energy inefficient than the fluorescents. This item could be applied for through a rebate program with Xcel Energy. With the rebate and only a small number of fixtures to replace, this is an item that could be absorbed into an annual budget with fairly minimal impact. Currently, staff is in discussions with Xcel Energy on how much that rebate may be; preliminary numbers indicate it will be fairiy substantial for the studio rink. There would also be a fairly quick return on investment on those lights as well. Staff would recommend not including either of the lighting projects as part of the expansion project. A rebate will be applied for to repiace the studio rink lights and the main rink lighting would be proposed for replacement at a future date. Another option would be to bid the main rink lights as an alternate for consideration later. Refrigeration: Refrigeration systems can be operated using ammonia or freon as the primary refrigerant. The ammonia system costs an additional $50,000 to $75,000 to construct. However, the ammonia system will have some return on investment in comparison to the freon system. Ammonia is much more efficient at cooling, which in the long term saves on energy costs. Also, ammonia costs approximately $1.50 per pound to purchase today. Freon costs approximately $4.00 per pound and is scheduled by the Montreol Protocol to be phased out of existence by 2022. By 2012, freon will actually no longer be produced in the worid. Only existing and recycled products will be available for purchase. So, without a replacement refrigerant, the price of freon will dramaticaliy increase in the near future. We estimate the additional expense with the ammonia system will be realized through energy and product savings within approximately 8-10 years. Also, the system is designed to be industrial grade versus commercial grade. When an industrial grade refrigeration system is used, it has a life expectancy of 50 years; if a commercial grade is utilized, major replacement of components will start occurring in 5 to 10 years. Staff would recommend using the ammonia system. This item is an increase in the budget, not previously accounted for in earlier estimates. The approximate addition to the project cost for the ammonia industrial grade system is $150,000. Entrance/Lobby: The current lobby does not function well during the ice arena's prime season due to its small size. The area is very crowded and traffic flow is extremely difficult as groups of people enter the building, exit, and attempt to reach concessions/restrooms. The current lobby problems would only multiply with the addition of the new ice arena. However, we may be able to reduce the scope of the lobby size as presented in the latest designs and still provide the functionality necessary for the entrance the approximate reduction would be $50,000. By continuing to expand the lobby out towards Park High School, but eliminating the north side expansion, we may have a large enough lobby to allow freedom of movement during most events. This is also aided in the fact that the waikway to the concessions, restrooms and new rink will also be expanded and giving patrons additional gathering room in that collector area. If this element was eliminated it would have a cost savings to the project of $122,380 (#18). Catwalk: The existing walkway from the lobby to the main rink restrooms and concessions currently does not operate well during medium to large events. The walkway is very narrow and it is difficult for traffic flow between the lobby, bleachers, restrooms and concessions. By adding another destination (the new rink) at the end of that walkway, the current "bottleneck" problem will only increase. With the combination of the lobby and walkway expansion (termed catwaik), traffic flow problems will be minimized, with the exception of a few major events during the year. The expanded warm area wouid be a positive addition to patrons and could help boost sales at the concession and vending machine areas. This area would also be utilized by students, parents and observers during practices and while waiting for ice time. If this element was eliminated it would have a cost savings to the project of $155,000 (#9). Team Entry/Drive Lane: As discussed above, there are traffic flow concerns existing at the main entry. This becomes of particular concern when vehicles/buses are loading and unloading outside tne front entrance. By supplying a second entry, this will continue to reduce tne congestion both in the lobby area and the street/parking area. That also gives an alternate access and drop-off site during times where parking is an issue for patrons (drop, park and walk). If this element was eliminated it wouid have a cost savings to the project of $62,500 (#13). Elevator: The preliminary concept did not have an elevator. The new design includes an elevator; this is a code requirement. It was deemed necessary to provide equal opportunity to all patrons desiring to use the facility. It was not acceptable to require a handicapped individual to drive around to the north entrance to access the ice level activities. This created a nearly $80,000 increase in project cost. This element cannot be removed from the project, due to code requirement. 3ite Work: A large majority of the site work was completed this summer. The project this summer included storm water pond grading, water main extension, construction of access drives and soil corrections. The value that is in the current budget represents actual costs to date for the soil corrections, pond and water main work. The soil corrections were more extensive then anticipated. Soil borings had been done around the perimeter of the building and in the center of the proposed slab location. The borings did not indicate a large vein of organic, silty material running through the center of the proposed building. This resulted in extra material needing to be removed to a deeper depth and more granular fill imported to the site. This produced an extra $75,000 in the project cost. Conclusion It is necessary to have direction on the value engineering items and what budget values the Council is comfortable proceeding with at this point in design. At the Council meeting on November 21st Council will be asked to authorize an early bid package for the precast panels and long span steel for the new expansion. The reason for the eariy bid package is due to the long lead time associated with these items. The compiete building bid package will be before Council in January 2008. It should be noted the value engineering items and possible reductions do not impact those two bid packages. #1 #2 #3 #4 #5 #6 #7 #8 #9 #10 #I1 #12 #13 #14 #15 #16 #17 #18 VE/Potential Alternate Items Rack System vs Stick Built SDR l7 mains on 8" pipe Reduce brine piping insulation and chiller to 2" Eliminate insulation on waste heating system and piping Eliminate Baltibond corrosion coating on condenser Rack monnted electrical cabinet Replace steel brine piping in mechanics room with PVC Steel frame dasher board system I.L.O. aluminum system Delete catwalk and associated items Delete operable wall Delete wiudow in stairwell Reduce cost of existing dessicant Don't pave bus drive Delete Floor inserts Sealed concrete treads and risers vs vinyl $17/sf Fabcon panel (verify w/Fabcon) Lights in existing (alternate) Dcletc paint in portions Delete front entry modifications Grand total of all Potential VE/Alternate Items unsio� �$ � ( � � ( ( � � ( ( ( � ( � ( ( Deduct 50,000.00) 3,000.00) 6,000.00) 7,000.00) 4,000.00) 8,000.00) 8,000.00) 6,000.00) 155,000.00) 16,250.00) 7,000.00) I50,000.00) 62,500.00) ?,500.00) I5,000.00) 34,000.00) 30,000.00) TBD ( 122.380.00) ( �686,630.00) Ice Arena Budget Review 16-Nov-07 Description Cost General Conditions $ 190,000.00 Construction Contingency $ 200,000.00 A/E Fees $ 347,800.00 A/E Reimbursables $ 20,000.00 Civil Engineering $ 79,885.00 CM Fee $ 271,150.00 Printing Const. Doc $ 35,000.00 Special inspec/Testing $ 50,000.00 Survey/Borings/Geo Report $ 8,434.00 SAC/WAC Fees $ 26,800.00 State Surchange $ 1,500.00 Building Permit & Fees $ 45,853.00 Division VIE # � V/E (Tier 1) V/E# � VE (Tier 2) V/E #) VE (Tier 3) Foundation & Lower Siab $ 98,068.00 Substructure $ 101,402.00 Superstructure $ 815,180.00 Exterior Closure $ �56,662.00 Roofing $ 304,816.00 Interior Construction $ 597,503.00 Conveying $ 65,000.00 Mechanical $ 920,000.00 #7 #1-#5 Electrical $ 265,000.00 #17 #6 Equipment(bleachers,dash) $ 1,191,850.00 #10 #15 #8 ($200,Q00.00) #16 (34,000.00) #18 (�2�,380.Q0) #11 (7,000.00) #9 ($8,000.00) #12 (�70,000.00) ($30,000.00) ($8,000.00) {$16,250.00) #14 ($1 b, 000. (30) ($6,000.00) (150,0OO.Ofl) (2,500.00) #13 (193,500.00) 6,313,946.00 (�2�8,946.00} Site Work $ 468,793.00 Subtotal ($353,250.00) Total Project Cost $ 6,860,696.00 $ 6,507,446.00 BudgetAmount $6,085,000.00 Budget Value Difference {$775,696.00) ($422,448.00) (155,000.00) (62,500.00) (339,880.00) 5,974,066.00 $110, 934.00