2004_1018_Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Roseville City Council Page 3 of 5 B. Re�lace the Chiller Vessel Itself, to include all N�vv Tubes Pre-Loaded within a New Vessel, at a Yet Undetermined Cost but Probablv Com�eti- tive with Option A above. It may be less or equally costly just to replace the entire chiller vessel, tubes and all. This would entail removing enough of the existing building that houses the chiller vessel to allow removal of the current vessel and insertion of a new vesseL (An estimate of that removal and installation cost is included when I say the cost of a new vessel will probably be competitive with Option A above.) As part of both of the foregoing two options, staff or a city consultant would probably investigate several critical questions. For example, we probably ought to consider using a different cooling medium than brine. Plainly, the existing chiller is suffering from serious corrosion problems much earlier than antici- pated. There are other cooling media such as glycol. Other media were inves- tigated 12 years ago when the current system was designed. But now we have the benefit of 20-20 hindsight. Environmental, cost, and engineering issues would need to be addressed in considering whether the City could or should change the cooling solution. Similarly, the specifications of the chiller's cooling tubes need evaluation. Es- pecially � we stay with a brine solution, we need to explore using a chiller tub- ing material less vulnerable to corrosion, such as stainless steel. C. Reevaluate Whether the Citv Council I s Still Committed to the OVAL. More fundamentally, maybe the Council wishes to reconsider operation of the OVAL. As the Council is aware, the OVAL has run operating deficits of $100,000 to $300,000 per year every year of its operation. (Larger deficits around $300,000 in the early years of the OVAL's operation; smaller deficits around $100,000 more recently.) In addition to that inherent operating subsidy, the current problems with the OVAL chiller suggest the City can expect on-going maintenance and periodic replacement costs at the OVAL to be higher than expected. Given what the Council knows now about OVAL operating revenues, and about the operating and maintenance/repair costs we can expect, is the Council still committed to the OVAL or would the Council prefer to see public money spent differently? I s the Council willing to go the distance with the OVAL knowing what you now know about its financial condition? If the Council wants to reevaluate the OVAL in this kind of comprehensive fashion, there are many considerations. These include the wishes of user groups (especiallyspeedskating and bandy),the wishes of the Parks and Rec- reation Commission, and input from any other interested residents. We would want to look at the fate of events that focus on the OVAL such as "Roseville Glows" and the annual N�v Year's Eve party there. Another consideration would be to look at what options exist for the OVAL if it were no longer to serve