CC_Minutes_2012_0813 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Regular City Council Meeting Monday,August 13,2012 Page 20 The project team was unable to respond to that question without further re- search. Councilmember McGehee noted that in 2008, $3 million of taxpayer dollars had been spent to begin the Master Plan process for the City campus (e.g. utility building, public works, fire station, city hall, skating center) for them all to be included on the geothermal system. To-date, Councilmember McGehee noted that only the skating center had been brought into the system; and opined that since the system was too large to realize additional efficiencies and savings, connecting to other buildings would improve those efficiencies if properly done. Councilmember McGehee opined that, if the Fire Station was put on the system to further balance the load to achieve those efficiencies, it would seem that ex- pectations could be for improved efficiency of the original geothermal invest- ment. Councilmember McGehee expressed frustration that she was unable to obtain a clear answer to whether or not this was accurate. Further discussion included projected additional savings at the Skating Center if the system was expanded (estimated at $21,000 annually); potential added effi- ciencies gathered from the OVAL and potential reduction in the payback period as well; and recognizing that the return on investment would be broader through savings for other facilities beyond that of the Fire Station. Councilmember McGehee opined that, even though a piecemeal approach to make connections, the City Council should look at the original $3 million in- vestment and Master Plan to connect all buildings to avoid short-sightedly jeop- ardizing that $3 million investment. Councilmember McGehee further opined that the information provided to-date did not provide that detail to her satisfac- tion. At the request of Mayor Roe, the Project Team confirmed that the $8 million cost, without geothermal, did not include the debt service on the bonds. Mayor Roe observed that those costs were already outside the budget; but should be in- cluded in the litigation and bond cost category, not construction costs. • At the request of Councilmember Johnson, Chief O'Neill addressed the varia- bles from the original project to the delayed project and implications and addi- tional costs for the architectural and management teams and their retainers for their services, including rebidding portions of the work. Councilmember Pust expressed her concern with how the geothermal issue was presented, specifically the total project cost with and without geothermal and the additional funding needed if geothermal was considered. Councilmember Pust opined that it seemed short-sighted to not to include the geothermal por- tion; and further opined that the extra bond, litigation and project costs should be directly related to the events surrounding that bond process, not how the pro-