HomeMy WebLinkAbout1998-06-24 PACKET 07.A.�
REQUEST dF CfTi' GOUNCIL ACTION COUIJCIL AGENDA
tvtEETING ITEM #
DATE 6/24/98
PREPARED �Y Aciministration Ryan Schroeder
ORIGINATING DEPARTMENT� STAFF AUTHOR
a w r w x w a a a a a n r rt� r t c n a t a a + e�+ r k a c� k a a w e r� a r x a� x n�+
COUNCIL ACTION REQUEST
Consider options relating to Ice Arena repairs.
BUDGET IMPLICATION
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS
BUDGETED AMOUNT ACTUAL AMOUNT
� MEiV10/LETTER: Memo from Ryan Schroeder dated June 22, 1998.
❑ RESOLUTION:
❑ ORDINANCE:
❑ ENGINEERING RECOMMENDATION:
❑ LEGAL RECOMMENDATION:
� OTHER: Bid Tabulations from BRAA
Memos from Dean Muiso
Memo from Liz Johnson dated 6l11 /98
ADMINISTRATORS COMMENTS
� � �'/�
Date
�4«.�.�...��<�4«��.«.��...�.�����.��.��«�.�.¢.tr.
COUNClI. ACTION TAKEN: ❑ APPROVED ❑ DENIED ❑ OTHER
G:V�Ay Documen4sGStuK Por KarenUce Arena Cover-JUne 98.doc
Memo to: Mayor and Coun '1
From: Ryan Schroeder��
Subj.: Ice Arena Repairs
Date: Jeane 22, 1888
Please find enclosed the following exhibits:
1 j Letter from SRAA recommending repair to the Ice Arena with two altemates
(compressor and refrigerant controls) in the amount of $183,900.
2) Memorandum from Arena Manager Mulso discussing options
3) Memorandum from Arena Manager Mulso discussing MPCA guidelines
regarding freon.
4) Memorandum from Finance Director Johnson regarding funding.
Council had authorized an expenditure of $125,000 including engineering to
repair the studio rink. This authorization was based upon preliminary
estimates from BRAA on costs to conduct the work within the base bid (low
base bid of $165,855. As is obvious, the bids came in significantly higher than
these estimates. The issue now in front of Council is whether or not to
proceed with the work.
There is an indication from BRAA that the bids may have come in higher than
expected due to the time of the year. Hence, that begs the question of whether
the City should reject all bids and rebid at a more favorable time of year (say
March}. In a discussion with BRAA it was stated fhat there was no guarantee
that a project delay would result in lower bids. As evidence it seems that both
of the recommended altemates came in much lower than originally estimated.
It also seems that the industry nationwide is fairly busy presently, this is
expected to continue, and that may result in a fairly similar bid experience if
delayed to ne� year.
Mare importantly is the loss of freon and how that impacts the ongoing
aperation of the Arena. According to the information supplied by Dean Muiso
the City can add up to 3500 pounds of frean in a year. We have averaged
about 1600 pounds purchased in each of the past three years. Dean is
estimating a freon expenditure per year of $5500. If we reach the 3500 pound
threshold that increases to about $8,000 in a year. Amortizing the base bid of
$165,855 over 5 years at 5°/o results in an expenditure of $37,559. ff the issue
was that simple the decision shouid be to not go forward with the project from
a purely economic viewpoint.
What makes the issue less than simple is the prognostication of when the
system will fail entirely. If failure occurs we lose the sheet of ice, revenues
�elated to that and the service to the public during that period of time. Further,
it has been stated by BRAA and by Arena staffs that the compressor is not
expected to last, may go down any time, and that occurrence would create an
immediate expenditure demand.
The decision, therefore, as to whether to award the bid comes down to your
comfort level:
A) Can we survive through the 1998-1999 season with the existing system
hoping that rebidding will lessen the cost somewhat at that time, and
B) Are you willing to gamble that the worst case scenario does not happen in
the meantime mandating that the rink be shut down for a period of time?
If you choose the gambie it would be based on the belief that the leaks in the
system have leveled off, which from Deans memo it seems that it may have
and that another several months of use is reasonably possible.
J
�
1
Bonestroo
Rosene
Anderlilc &
Associates
Honesboo, Rosene, AnCeAik and Assocla[es, Inc. ls an Affirma[Ive Actlon/Equzl Opportunity Emptoye�
Principzls: Otm G. Bo�es[roo RE�. • Joseph C Antlerlik, PE � Mzrvin i_ Sorvalz. P.E •
Richzrtl E. Tumer. PE. • Glenn R Cook, PE • Rober[ G. Schu icht PF.. • Jerry A. Rourdon. PE �
Robert W Rosene, P.E an0 Susan M. Eterlln, CPA., Senior Consultants
Associa[e Princlpals' Howartl A. Sanford PE. • Ke�[h A. 6ordon, RE • Rober[ R. Pfefferle, PE •
@ichartl W Fosrer. PE. • David O. Losko[a. PL. � Rober[ C Ruuek. A.I.A. � Mark A. Hzmm�, P.E •
Michael T. Rautmann, P.E. • Ted K Pieltl, P.E � KennetM1 P Anderscn, PE. � Mark R. Rolfs, P.E •
Sidney P Williamson. PE. LS • RoSert P_ Kotsmitb
Offices. SG Paul, Rochescer. Wilimar and St Ooud, MN � Milwzukee, WI
Engineers & Architects
June 12, 1998
City of Cottage Grove
7516 80`" Street Soutb
Cottage Grove, MN 55016
Re: Cottage Grove Ice Arena
Studio Rink Fioor Replacement
BRA File No. 48-98-800
Honorable Mayor and City Council:
Bids were opened for the project stated above on Thursday, 7une 11, 1998. Transmitted herewith
are tei� (10) copies of the bid tabulation for your infonnation and file. Copies will also be
distributed to each bidder.
The following summarizes the results of the four bids received:
Contractor Base Bid
#1 Albers Sheet Metal & Ventilating, Inc. $165,855.00
#2 Ice Pro by C.W. Davis Supply Co., Inc. $168,700.00
#3 Thermex Corp. $177;942.00
#4 Rink Systems, Inc. $242.430.00
Alt. Bid 1 Alt. Bid 2
$17,950.00 $7,500.00
$8,000.00 �8,500.00
$12,731.00 $16,789.00
$7,350.00 $6,450.00
Alt. Bid 3 Alt. Bid
#1 Albers Sheet Metal & Venrilating, Ina $10,990.00 $14,500.00
#2 Ice Pro by C.W. Davis Supply Co., Ina �7,200.00 $16,500.00
#3 Thermex Corp. $12,71'I.00 $17,583.00
#4 Rink Systems, Inc. $5,150.00 $12,900.00
Although prices on the Altemate Bids were at or below preliminary cosf estimates, the Base Bid
was substantially above the estimate. The discrepency is likely due to the small size of the ririlc
and because most ice rink contractors are nearly booked up for this year, and their prices have
risen accordingly.
The bid results have been discussed with City staf£ Although the work of all Alternates will
need to be completed at some time, it was f�lt that only the work oPAlYernates No. 1 and No. 3
(compressor repairs and refrigerant conCrol revisions) needs to be completed immediaYely. In
addition, the bids for those Alternates were particulazly low compared to quotes taken far this
work in the past.
Although Alber SheeC Metal and Ventilating submitted the lowest Base Bid for the project, the
lowest eombined bid for the $ase Bid plus Alternates No. 1 and No. 3(YoYal $183,900.00) was
provided by Ice Pro/ C.W. Davis Supply Co., Inc. The bids have been reviewed and found to be
m order. Therefore, we recommend that the project be awarded to Ice Pro/ C. W. Davis Supply
Co., Inc. for a total contract amount of $183,900.00.
Shouid you have any questions, please feei free to calL My direct number is (612) 604-4877.
Respectfully,
B NESTROO, ROS NE,
G . Knstofitz,
GD jms:enc
ANDERLIIC & ASSOCIATES, INC.
2335 West Hiqhway 3G � St. f'aul, MN SSfl3 � G12-G36-4G00 � Fax: G12-G3G-1311
d ' o
N
� - y � N
v 'y � o �
.5 � Y Z
� �' "' O
b �
h � q O
o A �
� O a
m
�T �
a �
d i
s a
>
r O ^
V
� �
o U
� Q
� �
� U
z "
�
w o
N
0
.�
O
C
�r
�
G
N
�
�-
z
�
�
N
G
.7
h
F
vi
Q
U
�
� O 'C
� a a"a
' e s
�'yu fi
C�t¢ "
C
E
.
� y
O �'
zY
�
U
y M k
7 d
'� z �
� ro d
„ q �
�
1Z W vi
o a >
E y A
a �
� 3 N U
C .�.7 0 �
z
� a
� w M �
p o �-
o '�
� �
�
� �
E'� Y
H �
z�
O
N
� �
� 'E
P.
R
F
"� u
� C,
a
�
g g S g g
O C C C �
M V1 1n u
a �� �
� n b vi y � a� � ..
`" = y z �
a,� � " w
v � .v � g > 9
v „� �n r' O `e c
y x ��� ,, �w ° �,
,' o.k o 0 3 L' ? c
� ,.. 6�n �n rn a� m 2
g
a
F
S8S8 ,,
� N h nt y
r � r � v v
� � � n C h
dz
o m /�' � g v
V a� $ � H
K '� �
� R A N N� C C
C y � P �p a �
N C N��� q �
�+�'i � e�n U a o7 Z
g
g
�ti
g ° o, g g
$ 8 8 8 „
W M h b m G O
N
Q S � �
3 o °'Z
C) U m y
o a,'3 0
Q V
U � = T
�; y
.T.
�
3 � �
9 V O
�cJ 9 Q� N
9
a w a, z
° 0 8 8 S S
� ag�g as ��
� ��°� � >o
.- v m �
� � � �
y N C
N 00 S z �" C' 'O
(7 'C y ' N V '� � c
L' . 'm h � ¢ a °
� � g 4 ' � v ,� �i ;o
¢ � N [A N N � ' 4S1
p o
� o
,5 n
u
w t�
� 9
n �
'p o �
� � 9
� ti W
'� o
M
E a o
a �
.�c � �o �� Q a � A
E�° � rn •• N m v
a1 o d L C 6 ° 3 2 Z 2 Z
'� � � y � 9 �O 9 9 'O
� W � l� C� W Pa 0� P7
8 6 Q y � y y � u y
°" °� � "' �' E E E E E
� u `o X � P3 9 :: :: ::
P�i a c 0 v� Q Q Q 6 Q
� N M V h
d 4 N� T a T u
N O 0.� C co
z a °3� 0. � u �a
€ Q 9 � 3
fi `" ° °
� m �
V 8Q Q
�n m
c
9
<
m
g
ro
rn
o�
v
�-- �
To: Ryan Schroeder, Gity Administrator
From: Dean Mulso, Arena Manager
RE: Studio Rink
ISSUE
On Thursday, June 11, 1998 the City of Cottage Grove opened sealed bids for the
reconstruction of the Studio Rink at the Ice Arena. Bid results received, were substantially higher than
originaily estimated by the Engineering firm of Bonestroo a�d Rssociates. Attached for your review is
a memorandum from Gary Kristofitz highlighting the bid results and comments.
DISCUSSION
In Iight of the bid results, the City has at least four alternatives to consider:
Option 1- Ciose the Studio Rink and re-bid the project in the fall/winter of 1998.
Option 2- Keep the Studio Rink in operation and add additional freon to the system to
keep it operating e�ciently. Per MPCA's guidelines.
Option 3- Attempt to pinpoint location of the leaks, remove concrete and tubing, then
make the necessary temporary repairs:
Option 4- Award the bid and aiternates as recommended by Engineering firm.
Below is a summary of the Pro's and Con's of each option:
•� •
"��
• Less headache for maintenance staff.
• Less worry on the weekends, with part-time sfaff.
CON
• Lost revenue of approximately $63,000.00 per season.
The Arena would dismantie the skating school with over 100 active students and would likely see lost
revenues forever due to students joining other rinks or clubs.
• The Arena could not offer any public skating sessions from October to February.
• The Arena couid schedule the skating schooi and pubiic skating sessions back in on the main rink
in the 1999-2000 season, but not to the extent that we do now. It would affect total revenues of
both programs forever.
• The Arena wouid see lost revenues from private rentais which use the small rink, along with the
CGAA's termite and mite program.
OPTION 2
..�
• The Arena would keep current revenues at the same Ievel.
. The Arena would keep the skati�g schooi with over 100 active students.
• The Arena would keep the public skating sessions year round.
CON
• Wouid need an additional $8,000.00-10,000.00 per year for freon to keep the two ice sheets up
and running efficiently. If MPCA would allow it.
HISTORY
• The City has purchased freon for the Arena in the past. The following is the year, pounds
purchased, and cost; 1993 - 375 Ib. -$ 913.59
1994 - 1,5Q0 Ib. - $2,911.75
1995 - 2,125 Ib. - $4,896.91
1996 - 1,100 Ib. - $2, 381.25
1997 - 1,500 Ib. - $3,115.13
• The Arena staff has consulted with a reputabie Arena service company and their estimate of freon
left in our system is approximateiy 4,500 -5,000 Ib. maximum. Our system is suppose to be at
10,000 Ib. for the most e�cient operation leveis. Most Are�a's see some freon loss, but it may be
100 Ib. in the course of two to three years. With the amount of freon in our system it is hard to
operate without having many problems. From ali the information the Arena staff has the
refrigeration system has not had the full 10,000 pounds of refrigerant for a number of years. We
have put just enough in to get by, knowing that we will lose it.
• Arena staff is trying to contact an actual person with the Minnesota Poliution Control Agency, but
have only gotten voice mails and the run around. I hope to have an attachment available for the
council to review by Tuesday, June 23` which will answer the legal limits of the freon issue.
OPTION 3
�
• The Arena would keep current revenues at same level.
• The Arena would keep skating school with over 100 active students.
• The Arena would keep public skating year round.
CON
• Can be very time consuming and costly, trying to locate exact location of leaks.
• May not get all tne leaks.
• Due to the weakness of the tubing and the fact that aii leaks may not have been repaired, the
pressure in the floor may cause the existing leaks to get bigger and the tubing to form new leaks in
other areas.
HISTORY
• In 1988 the City spent $4,054.25 on rink repairs - this was for approximately 20' of the 2" header
pipe and 20' of the 1" equaiizer pipe. In 1989 the City spent $1,890.00 to finish the work and
another $828.00 for the cement work. This was a total of $7,600.25 nine to ten years ago. An
additional $1,874.00 was spent in 1996 to repair the fioor. The current leaks look to be much
greater in numbers and total volume of repairable tubing, equalizer pipe and header pipe.
• The staff has contacted companies to do a haif cell test of the floor, and the lowest verbal quote
was $6,850.00. This iocates the leaks better than our leak detector, but is not totally accurate
either
OPTION 4
"��
• Wouid eliminate the Ieaking of freon into the atmosphere.
• Wouid eliminate maintenance issues in the compressor room.
• Would make the operation of the ice sheets and compressor system more efficient.
• The Arena would keep the revenues at the current levels.
• The Arena wouid keep the skating school with over 100 active students.
• The Arena wouid keep public skating year round.
• The rink should be good for at least 20 to 25 years before any major repairs or replacements are
needed(with good annual maintenance).
CK�1►
• Cost
OTHER
: In the very near future the improvements that need to be done in the compressor room will need to
be completed. It will cost more to do each individuai project than it would if it was inciuded in the
reconstruction project.
STAFF RECt�MMENDATION
• The Arena staff wouid like to see the studio rink open for the 1998-99 season due mainly to two
reasons. First, we would hate to lose the skating school and pubiic skating, and secondly, we
have firm commitments from renters on the main rink for the season that just began on Sunday,
June 14 This leaves no room to move any studio rink activities over to the main rink. The Arena
staff would like to see the construction proceed as scheduled.
•-• �
To: Ryan Schroeder, City Administrator
From: Dean Mulso, Arena Manager
RE: Attachment to Studio Rink Memo, Freon Issue
The Arena staff has talked with Ronda Land from the MPCA. Ronda has
provided the Arena with information that tells us that the Arena can lose up to 35% of
our total charge in the refrigeration system annually. This would equate to 3,500 Ib.
each year. Under the MPCA guidelines the Arena is considered an Industrial system
with more than 50 Ib. of pressure in the system. Currently, the Arena is losing
approximately 2,400 Ib. of freon per year. Under the MPCA guidelines this is under the
levels in which action is required, but at the current price of freon($2.29 Ib.) the Arena
will need to spend a minimum of $5,500.00 per year on freon.
{ have attached the information from the MPCA.
P�L!_UTICfi �N�F'CIL Jun 13 ':-k� 1�:�3 P.O�
Refrig�rant Lealc Repair Fiow Chart
- s 1 oi 6 " � � �.Go fi py: 2
�.r' . .. S� , . . ��
1 M L
I�O�::�a•:^'I
7a me synlem dacsifKd�u
��1CL� or
�tei?
I Tri�C+�caktateis
I 1594 amnusily,
Faziss<zHS�7
in narn�N phmyc
me retieeruion
ryrrem > t01ba1
riggcr kak ncc is
3S/i umosi�y. .
�[2.E56(Ixl).4
S
��
CelcJaa �oal
Iwk rue.
i}�m is p�lde tLe pwpe ol
Ws euie. No aetion reeuired.
��i�(��r 83.136(f)!3�
' 62.156(i}(A1 �
Is thc Iak rau gcm,er
� lbmtffie trrggrztafcl n .
t�'
. Cormn.rrlsl, Comtort NC, indwirYnt Proc�ss
/�--• a am.r b � xenrao,wo,+
T { � � ► �
Lsik Rrp�h � . HR[rca7i/RRtlIp � LYk ltepaU
�� �� �
Rmmr katz sathcfentm k,.cr � DcddoD. witld�i �06e�a oflealc ,
ink.rax belew l5% tnmully dismvery°. � one.ymr rcaofit M � Follew kak eepev
(35v. fer cemnercia2) within redremnx plte for fne ieaking � �.
30 days of dismvery.• sys.em. f:ecp ptn (m a kgiblc
(S�it56(�il}.82.166(NSi& �OPY)a0wsi�cofthc .
SZ.156Q)(9)1 W�L
faz.s3e(Ix�)
CDmpktePlm.wnLin
Ead � onc ycr of ptne da'o,•
. � (SZiSb@(6)I �
EHd
End
Ne �pt'wn
n9nvsd.
� Dn'elop. wiCfID 30 EayS of
lmk disrlwcry•, a one-yeK
rdtefit or rectemwR ptmi for
thc Itekaig sYnem. K?cD P�
(s e teEibk coyyj s[ thesite
at thc a�pnea: .
��:.IS6(it(6)I
� . � p � �oro�.�
• aslt: Ai7 timevelasad roCaremrnq for tcpairing, revohtto}& or retiAng a Iceking syriem eee teen sus � .
... +s�itemismotbbeUcd.f82.136(qb0).E2LT21 . '�'�Y V�� C„_,�I
�... I
F�L�UTION CONTR�L
cerrify recycling and recovery equipment.
Certifiet� equzpment c�.n be idendfzed by a
tabel reading: "This equipment has been
�rrified by ARUi1L tD mcet EPA's mirsi-
mum mq�ssrement� for recycl:ng and! or
recovery et�uipme�ct zntended for use with �
[aPpropriatP cate.�nry of ajrpli3Txe—e.g..
srrzai3 appliances, HCPC applianccs contain-
ing less ttsan 20f1 pounds of refrigerant, aI1
high-pressure appliances, etc.]." Lists of
certifie� eqttipmenY may be obtained by
contacting ARI ar 703-524-8800 and UL at
70&-261-$800 exz. 42371.
Fyuipmerst ('.rr[urdfizdfCring
. Equipmentrnanu�acturedbeforeNovem-
ber 15, 1493, iacluding home-rnade er�usp-
menY, may be grandfathered if it �ildet� the
standards in t�e fu�st column of Tabie 1.
Third-party tesiing is noC required far e�quip�
ment manufactssrrd bcfore November t5,
I993, but equiprnent manufacturcd on or
afrer that date, ir�tudin$ homc-made equip-
ment, must be testt3 by a third-party {see
Equipmerit CxrrifGCatinn above).
Refiigerant Leakc
Ciwners of equigmeat with chazges of
gr�ater tktazt 50 pounds are required to repair
leaks ftt 'Ctte equi�snent when these leaks
togediec woutd resuit in the' losc ef more
than a cerciin petcenrage of the equipment's
char$e over a year. Fc�r rhe crommercaat aad
induseria( ptncess aGfrigetar3on sectoss, lesks
must be repaited•wtien the appliance leaks az
a rate that would rete�dse 35 percEnt+n more
of die chaz$e aver a year. Far all other
secrazs, incidding comfort cooiing, leaks
must be repaired when the agptiance leaks at
a rate i�at would reIease 15 percens a more
of the d�arrge •over a yeaz'.
Jun 18 '98 15:02 ?.0�
The uigger for repair requirements is
the current Ieak r,� rather khan ihe toral
quantity of refrigerant fos� For 3ns�ance,
nwners of a commercial refrigeration system
conSaining 140 pounds of ci�arge must repalr
feaks if they fznd tEtat the system has lost 10
pounds of charge over the �raet mnr,rh;
alrhough lD pounds ropres�nts only 19
pereent of rhe system chargc in this case, a
leak rate of 10 pour�ds per montti wouid
result in the rekase of over IOp, percent of
ttse charge aver the year: To txack leak
rates, ow�s of air�ondidociing and refrig-
eraaan equipment with mare than SO pounds
af charge must keep records af the quancity
of refrigeram added to their equipment
during � seivici.�g alid maintenance proce-
dut�s.
Qwners xre requized tu r�paiz leaks
withia 30 days of discovety+, 'I'his requir�
ment is waived if, within 30 days of. dixov-
ery, owncn develop a os�-yeaz reirofit or
rcaremeat plan far the leaking equiprnent
t?wners of industriai process refrigerarion
equips�u rnay quatify for additibnal time
under cettain Cir�umsiances. For ezazuple,
� Ff 8A LMILISLR31 �7SDCCSS SIlU11,�OWA AS LGj121ICa ��
tu repair a leak, awners fiave 72f1 days to
regasr t6e leak, ' Owness of' leaky irniusniat
prcrcess refiigeration equiprnent should� see
the Coangiiance Assistance_ Guiifance 17acu-
mern far Ixsie Rep�ir far addirionai iufor-
mation ao�iaruing time ez�ions and
F�erar�ent z�dkeePinB and repomng re-
quiremer�ts.
Tedrnici¢n Ce�tff[caaon
EPA has established a technici3n certifi-
c�tion pzugram foF pexs�+zs ("txhniciatts"}
wh0 p�IfMID 2R3tntCtL'it1CC, SCPV[CE, T2�2tl,
or disposai th�utt oou�d be reasor�ablY exP�t-
ed tn release �'ig,�rants into Lhe aimos-
-5-
To: Ryan Schroeder, City Administrator
From: Elizabeth Johnson, Finance Directo �1�J�
�.
Date: 06/i I/98
Re: Ice Arena renovation
1 have been inforn�ed by 7ohn Fredrickson that Che bids on the renovation project for the Ice
Arena have come in higher than estimated. The base bid t17aT the engineers would
recommend is $168,700 and the alternates eqaal $15,200. The total projectbid is $183,900.
The Council authorized an iuterfund loan of $125,000 from the Park Trust Fund to the Ice
Arena Fund for these renovations. The shortfall between the bid and the loan is $58,900.
T have aYtached a summary oFIce Arena operating resulYs as of May 31 s`. The arena is
currenYly showing revenues under expenditures of $5,800.
The options to fund the shortfall coutd come from the Park Trust Fund or the Ice Arena
Fund ifthe Council approves the bids. The Park Trust cash balance will probably fall to the
range of approximately $50,000 when the approved projects and the interfurad loan is taken
into accounC. Tl�erefore, the funding sl�ouldn't come from Park Trust. Tl�e attached schedule
shows that a portion oP the budgeted general fund transfer wonld have to be used to cover
fhe shortfalL This will also resulT in a continued negative cash balance in the Ice Arena.
ice Arena
Operations to May 31, 1998
Revenues
Expenditures
Personnel
Commodities
Contractual
Capital outlay
Total
Revenues over(under)
expenditures
Beginning
fund balance
budgeted general
fund transfer
ending fund
balance
interfund loan
portion of general
fund transfer
total project cost
Cash balance
at May 31
interfu�d loan
trensfer in
project
ending cash
185,449.26
92,545.83
31,333.46
30,636.96
36,749.73
191,265.98
(5,816.72)
(15,563.01)
81.100.00
59,720.27
125, 000.00
58,900.00
183,900.00
(88,290.57)
125,000.00
81,100.00
(183,900.00)
(66,090.57)