Laserfiche WebLink
2 <br />� <br />_� <br />r. <br />n <br />_ �� <br />-� <br />-� <br />r <br />�' 3F <br />�1 <br />i� <br />nt <br />� .� <br />i� <br />a� �� <br />i ;. <br />�- <br />1 `� <br />1 �? <br />�t; <br />REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION <br />DATE: <br />10115107 <br />ITEM NO: 7.c <br />i�epa ��p��� I: _ �}I�r����r ��viev��ed= A��rrd� �#ioe�. _ — <br />� { _ �� � — <br />Itern �}es�ri�tiQ�i: A�:��pi ���rbllii� R��f# �r�d �i-��r�ss ���rti�rrs for t�he �n�c+�-r <br />Ice Arena Refrigeration Replacement <br />BACKGROUND <br />On September 25, 2006 the City Council authorized staff to enter into an <br />agreement with Stevens Engineering for engineering services for the <br />replacement of major components of the direct conventional refrigeration system <br />�t ihe Roseville ��:� Arena. TE�e project was planned for 2007 but was delayed <br />until 2008 in order to further study the feasibility of the geothermal technology. <br />�_ <br />�� At the May ����', 2007 City Council meeting authorizationwas given to enter into <br />�:: an agreement with Geo-Xergy to conduct a feasibility study for the geothermal <br />�� conversionlretrofitin the Roseville Ice Arena and a further study involving the <br />� 5 entire City Hall Campus. The study was expected to rule in or out the practical <br />� k application of the geothermal conversionlretrofit in the �iose�ille Ice Arena. <br />�� <br />� r At the October ��', 2008 City Council meeting representatives from Geo-Xergy <br />��� presented the feasibility study findings. As it was clearly pointed out, proceeding <br />3�� with the geothermal option at this time would be more of a public policy decision <br />}1 and not a financial advantage decision. Specifically, the potential risks can be <br />3� quite substantial vs. the rewards at this time. <br />3� <br />3� <br />3 :7 <br />� �. <br />:3�� <br />'� �s <br />� �� <br />� ,, <br />s <br />�� <br />�� <br />�3 <br />�� <br />On October �`h you requested further information. Attached please find the <br />following: <br />1. Chart 1= a direc�Iindirect/g�c�thermal cost comparison (with the <br />exception of the partial geothermal with numbers TBD) <br />2. Chart 2= payback scenarios of all options (with the exception of the <br />partial geothermal with numbers TBD) <br />3. Information on the State of Minnesota "25 x 25" renewable energy <br />standard <br />