Laserfiche WebLink
Regular City Council Meeting <br />Monday, May 19, 2008 <br />Page 18 <br />levy limits yet. While financing may be feasible through bonding or borrowing, <br />Councilmember Ihlan opined that she needed more of a sense of other capital <br />needs, and a clear picture of the overall budget for 2009, prior to making a deci- <br />sion. Councilmember Ihlan noted the need for payment of the debt service under <br />potentially severe inflationary circumstances; and expressed concern in being able <br />to afford replacement at either a conventional or geothermal level. <br />Councilmember Pust reviewed the options outlined in the staff report and costs <br />for the conventional system estimated to be $1.5 million; geothermal option at <br />$2,217,400 for the base bid and alternates; or close the facility, since the items <br />needed repaired, and didn't represent an optional project, but a necessary mainte- <br />nance issue. Councilmember Pust recognized that the cost was much higher than <br />anticipated; however, opined that the City didn't have many options, and needed <br />to determine how the repairs were going to be financed. <br />Mr. Brokke concurred with Councilmember Pust's observations, noting that in <br />2006, a major component was delayed for a number of years, and had gone well <br />beyond its life expectancy for this equipment. Mr. Brokke further noted that steel <br />prices had severely escalated during that time period, in addition to the difficulty <br />in obtaining the steel, and noted the cost estimate of $700,000 just for replacing <br />the steel floor. <br />Further discussion ensued on the various components of the system and facility; <br />cost and future illegal use of R-22 Freon (2010) for the current refrigeration sys- <br />tem; sensitivity of the project timetable versus financing approaches and deci- <br />sions; borrowing rates based on the current market conditions; interest rate risks if <br />delaying a decision beyond year-end; and staff's intent to return on June 9~' for <br />additional budget discussions, at which time details of the recent legislation <br />should be available to assist the City Council in making a decision on funding for <br />this project. <br />Councilmember Ihlan noted that she needed to see the larger picture of other po- <br />tential borrowing needs to balance this project against those and competing areas <br />in the City's 2009 and future budgets. <br />Further discussion ensued on the timing of the project and a decision on funding; <br />work on the contract agreement; mobilization of the contractor; with Mr. <br />Christianson, at the request of Councilmember Roe, estimating contract docu- <br />ments prepared by the end of May, and construction start in early June, with few <br />negotiations required due to the nature of the best value process. <br />Additional discussion included terminology in the contract addressing owner can- <br />cellation provisions, and estimated cost ramifications between $5 - 10,000, based <br />on steel order status. <br />