My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
CC_Minutes_2012_0813
Roseville
>
City Council
>
City Council Meeting Minutes
>
201x
>
2012
>
CC_Minutes_2012_0813
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/28/2012 11:54:07 AM
Creation date
8/28/2012 11:54:03 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Roseville City Council
Document Type
Council Minutes
Meeting Date
8/13/2012
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
26
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
Regular City Council Meeting <br /> Monday,August 13, 2012 <br /> Page 19 <br /> The presentation included costs for the Fire Station as designed; unanticipated <br /> project costs due to the Fire Station portion of bond litigation and attorney fees <br /> ($194,236); additional project delay costs due to the litigation, including profes- <br /> sional services, supplies and material costs, architectural and construction man- <br /> agement team costs, heating and enclosure for late-start construction, and rebid- <br /> ding the earthwork contract (estimated at $425,072 depending on the upcoming <br /> winter weather conditions). Also included in the presentation and discussion <br /> were the options for geothermal costs, including: <br /> • Option #1 — full distance piping using 8" pipe with stubs for future connec- <br /> tions to the utility garage and city hall: $393,600 <br /> • Option #2 —full distance piping using 4" pipe and eliminate all stubs and 8" <br /> piping for future use: savings $94,000 <br /> Chief O'Neill noted that project costs with geothermal would total $9,013,908, <br /> with additional funding needed estimated to be $1,013.908. Chief O'Neill not- <br /> ed that, without the geothermal component, the total project cost was estimated <br /> at $8,620,308. <br /> Discussion included clarifying the potential net savings for geothermal in rela- <br /> tionship to savings on other bid packages; restructuring of bid package #2; an- <br /> ticipated geothermal payback timeframe of fifty (50) years, with a $21,000 an- <br /> nual savings through use of geothermal; and projected life of the building at fif- <br /> ty(50)plus years. <br /> Councilmember McGehee stated that she had specifically asked for efficiency <br /> numbers related to more effective use of excess heat at the skating center the <br /> last time the team was here; and had yet to receive that information. <br /> In response, City Manager Malinen provided a bench handout, attached hereto <br /> and made a part hereof, detailing that information as requested by Councilmem- <br /> ber McGehee relative to the OVAL and a summary of actual gas/electricity us- <br /> age and $10,000 annual savings in utility costs from use of geothermal. City <br /> Manager Malinen referenced page 2 and conditions, noting that the south entry <br /> was added after the 2007 number, which was a fairly sizable addition using ad- <br /> ditional heat and electricity and not in the initial 2007 projections. City Manag- <br /> er Malinen further noted that prior to geothermal, the City was not realizing <br /> much in ice rental revenue due to the function of ice quality; however, now it <br /> was better than before and generating$20,000 more in revenue. <br /> Councilmember McGehee noted that, since more heat was not being generated <br /> than could be used, if the existing system was hooked up to the Fire Station, <br /> what improved efficiencies were projected by experts for the system already in- <br /> stalled. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.