Loading...
HomeMy Public PortalAbout20141105 Admin Commmittee PacketNOTICE OF MEETING & TENTATIVE AGENDA Council Committee on Administration Wednesday,November 5th,2014 –8:00 a.m. Boone/Bancroft Room (City Hall) –320 E McCarty St Tentative Agenda 1.Call to Order 2.Roll Call 3.Approval of Minutes 4.Personnel Policy Changes requested by FTA in the Triennial review (Strope) 5.Police Department HVAC (Morasch) 6.Appointment Review (Strope) 7.Public Comments 8.New Business 9.Adjournment NOTES Minutes of Meeting Jefferson City Council Committee on Administration Wednesday, October 1, 2014 City Hall -320 E. McCarty Street Large Conference Room ATTENDEES- Committee members present –Larry Henry, Jim Branch, Laura Ward, Ken Hussey, Glen Costales Staff:-Drew Hilpert, Steve Crowell, Gail Strope, Bill Betts, Sheila Pearre Guests:Madeleine Leroux Meeting came to order at 8:00 a.m, the minutes were approved with a motion by Costales and seconded by Ward. Motion passed 5-0. Ordinance eliminating references to primary elections in chapter 12.Hilpert presented a bill which would eliminate references to primary elections found in chapter 12. After discussion Branch made a motion to move the bill onto the Council. The motion was seconded by Ward. The motion passed 5-0. Financial Procedures Ordinance.Bill Betts presented an ordinance on financial procedures that will be before the Council at the next meeting. The Commission members discussed the bill and asked questions of Betts. No action was requested and no action was taken. Presentation on the Transit Committee.Gail Strope presented an update on the Transit Commission. Ordinance changing the late fee for sewer charges.Hilpert presented a bill which would change the late fees for sewer charges to a 5% charge if the bill is late more than 5 days. After discussion Branch made a motion to move the bill onto the Council. The motion was seconded by Hussey. The motion passed 5-0. Ordinance changing the due date for tax liens.Hilpert presented a bill which would allow the Clerk to submit tax bills to the Collector at a date set by the Collector. After discussion Costales made a motion to move the bill onto the Council. The motion was seconded by Hussey. The motion passed 5-0. APPOINTMENTS REVIEW:None PUBLIC COMMENTS:None. Meeting adjourned at 8:35 a.m. BILL NO:2014- SPONSORED BY COUNCILMAN:________ ORDINANCE NO: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF JEFFERSON, MISSOURI, AMENDING SECTION 3-3 ALCOHOL, DRUG, AND CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE ABUSE POLICY OF THE PERSONNEL POLICY MANUAL. BE IT ENACTED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF JEFFERSON, MISSOURI, AS FOLLOWS: (f) Prohibited Conduct 1. Use, possession or being under the influence of any illegal or unauthorized drug, while on the City's premises or during working time or during a meal break when an employee is expected to return to work is strictly prohibited. 2. Use, possession or ingestion of alcohol including any medication with any alcohol component during working hours, including lunch hours or while on City premises when associated with working hours, is strictly prohibited. No employee shall be allowed to perform a job function for the City within four hours of using alcohol. An employee involved in an accident which requires an alcohol test may not use any alcohol until after the test is completed or eight hours have elapsed. The use of alcohol containing solvent, cleaners and other chemicals for the purpose for which they were manufactured is excluded from this prohibition. 3. It is a violation of this policy for employees to report to work, or to enter onto the City premises while being in a condition impaired for work due to effects, symptoms or side effects of alcohol, illegal or unauthorized drugs. 4. Failure to submit to any drug or alcohol testing required under this policy, including but not limited to failure to provide a urine specimen for any drug test required by the DOT, FMSCA, or the City; failure to report in a timely manner to a collection site; sign any required consent form or otherwise failure to fully cooperate in with any part of the collection of any breath or urine specimen testing process (e.g. refusing to empty pockets or wash hands when directed, or behaving in a confrontational way that disrupts the collections process), inability failure to provide sufficient quantities of breath or urine to be tested without a valid medical explanation; failure to undergo a medical examination if directed by an MRO as part of the verification process; failure or declining to take an additional drug test the employer or collector has directed; tampering with or attempting to admitting to the collector or MRO that the specimen provided was adulterated or substituted; possessing or wearing a prosthetic or other device that could be used to interfere with the collection process; or collection procedures; or leaving the scene of an accident without a valid reason before that test(s) have been conducted failing to remain at the testing site until the testing process is complete; or in the case of a directly observed or monitored collection, failure to permit the observation or monitoring of a specimen or failure to follow the observer’ s instructions concerning raising or lowering clothing or turning around to determine if a prosthetic devise is being used is also strictly prohibited. If any employee refuses to be tested, the refusal shall be treated as constitute a verified positive test and the employee shall be subject to disciplinary action. (s) Test Results 1. Drug Tests. The MRO will review drug test results with the employee before they are reported to the City. The MRO will report to the City whether an employee's drug test was positive or negative. If positive, the substances for which the test was positive will be identified. The MRO may advise the City of a positive test result without having communicated with the tested employee about the test results if the employee expressly declines the opportunity to discuss the results of the test, or the employee cannot be reached after reasonable effort by the MRO. If the MRO determines there is a legitimate medical explanation for the positive test result, the MRO will report the test result to the City as negative. I f the MRO informs the City a negative drug test was dilute, the employee will be directed to take another test immediately. This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect from and after the date of its passage and effect November 17, 2014. Passed:Approved: Presiding Officer Mayor ATTEST:APPROVED AS TO FORM: City Clerk City Counselor Department of Public Works Memorandum 320 East McCarty Street .Jefferson City, Missouri 65101 • P: 573.634.6410 . F: 573.634.6562 • www.jeffcitymo.org Date: November 3, 2014 To: Administration Committee Through MattMorasch, P.E. From: Britt E. Smith, P.E. Subject: HVAC System Evaluation for JCPD Building City Staff recommends the acceptance of the report prepared by MECO Engineering outlining options and recommendation for improvements to the police HVAC system as well as moving forward with a design services contract for the project at a cost of approximately $57,200 (phase I only). Staff proposes funding the design work from "gleaned sales tax monies", which currently has $100,000+ available. As the Committee may remember, Public Works staff has been working with MECO to develop a scope of work and cost estimate to upgrade the HVAC system within the building. Various issues exists with the current system ranging from outdated units well beyond their service life, limited availability of repair parts and issues related to air quality caused by flacking of particles from the duct work insulation. The consultant recommends the replacement of the current HVAC system with a Variable Refrigerant Volume (VRV) system as well as the replacement of duct work to eliminate the air quality issue. Project costs are outlined on page six of the report (attached). Page six also notes costs to replace the basement level HVAC system in the building. The consultant indicated that the system is currently functioning separately of the main levels and should be replaced as funds are available with a similar system. Staff believes that this system along with the remaining HVAC components in the City Hall building should be replaced in a future sales tax project or as other funding allows. Once the design is completed and a more detailed cost estimate is produced, staff will then request the Council fund construction of the project through some type of supplemental request. The most likely source of financing is the fund balance of the general fund. If you need any information concerning this report please feel free to contact Matt or myself. Thanks Attachment(s): Draft HVAC System Evaluation for Jefferson City Police Department C:\Users\mmorasch.JCMO\Desktop\police HVAC.docx PROBABLE CONSTRUCTION COSTS The following are probable total project costs for this work: Main Floor and Classroom Space: • Demolition of existing equipment and ductwork • New VRV system to replace existing air -handling units • Fresh Air Rooftop Unit • Ductwork replacement to serve ventilation air requirements • Electrical and Controls work $ 650,000.00 • 10% Contingency Main Floor Construction Cost Basement Level: 65.000.00 $ 715,000.00 • Demolition of existing split system equipment • New VRV system to replace (5) existing split systems • 100% Outdoor Air Processing Units • New fresh air ductwork only • New heating units for storage area • Electrical and Controls work $ 265,000.00 • 10% Contingency Basement Construction Cost Building Total Construction Cost The following is a proposed Engineering Scope of Work and related fee: Scope of Work: • Field Work to Establish Existing Conditions • Preparation of Construction Documents Suitable for Bidding • Construction cost estimate • Bidding Services • Equipment Shop Drawing Review • Construction Administration Services Estimated Engineering Fee Main Floor Additional Fee to Include Basement Floor Total Proiected Proiect Cost 26, 500.00 $ 291,500.00 $1,006,500.00 57.200.00 25, 000.00 $1,088,700.00 MECO Engineering appreciates the oppwtun4ty to present this report for consideration. Please do not hesitate to contact our office with any questions, or concerns. Page 6 of 6 DRAFT HVAC SYSTEM • 401 MONROE STREET JEFFERSON CITY, MISSOURI • - 1 BOONVILLE, MISSOURI INTRODUCTION This report has been prepared following a review of the original building design drawings, and an evaluation of the existing HVAC system serving the Jefferson City Police Department Facility located at 401 Monroe Street, Jefferson City, Missouri. The HVAC system has been previously evaluated by an engineering firm, and a performance contracting firm with widely differing opinions for upgrading the facility. MECO Engineering has been asked to evaluate the building HVAC system and provide additional commentary and recommendations as to the best solution for future system upgrades. HISTORY The Jefferson City Police Department was constructed in 1979. This 37,600 square foot facility includes (2) levels which includes administrative office space, training and evidence rooms and utility/mechanical space located in the lower basement level. Cooling is provided from a nominal 60 Ton McQuay chiller located in the basement with a remote air cooled condensing unit located outside the building. The chiller is original to this building and is increasingly becoming unreliable. Presently, it has a refrigerant leak at the chiller barrel that has been repaired in a temporary fashion that has added a sense of urgency to implementing improvements to the entire system. Heating is provided through a gas-fired boiler which replaced the original electric boilers in the early to mid -1980's. Since the original design included electric boilers, combustion air provisions were added to serve the gas-fired equipment, however the combustion air is very marginal and wouldn't meet today's code requirements. Four large air -handling units (AHU's) located in the basement distribute heating and cooling to serve various zones as follows: AHU-1 is a heating only unit that originally served the basement, but is presently not in use. A series of residential split systems have been installed to condition this area. AHU-2 is a multi -zone heating/cooling unit serving (2) zones on the main level. AHU-3 is a single zone heating/cooling unit that serves classroom space on the main floor AHU-4 is a multi -zone heating/cooling unit serving (4) zones on the main level. Two large exhaust fans located in the basement were included in the original design to purportedly meet ventilation requirements for a laboratory and evidence storage. These fans are interlocked with two of the large AHU's (AHU-1 and AHU-4) to start, and run, simultaneously with each respective unit. A laboratory is not presently utilized in the facility, but the exhaust fans (and associated make up air) remain operational which needlessly exhausts large quantities of tempered air from the building through a discharge louver in the basement level. It was noted that these fans must run to prevent pressurization problems within the building with doors being held open. This creates a large waste of energy due to continually tempering outside air and then exhausting it from the building. This situation needs to be corrected with any upgrade to the building. The existing temperature control system is pneumatic, and no longer functions properly. This type of temperature control system was widely used at the time that this building was originally designed, and constructed. Any improvements should include upgraded building controls. Pagel of 6 The existing sheetmetal duct system serving the building has become a source of air quality concern for the building occupants due to dirt and debris in the ducts finding its way into office spaces. The original duct design included fiberglass duct liner which is now coming loose within the duct. The Owner contacted a company in an attempt to clean the duct system, but they were unsuccessful in this effort. It was noted through review of existing drawings, and meetings with the building occupants, that the original duct system design mixes interior and exterior spaces on the same zones, and results in inadequate comfort for the spaces served. It was note that the return air system design utilizes large transfer grilles and ducts to return air to the basement mechanical room. The air -handling units do not include direct duct connections to the equipment, but rather the room is actually used a common plenum to serve each unit in the space. This type of design would not meet current codes due to the return air being drawn through corridors (means of egress) in some instances. Finally, we would like to reiterate that the existing equipment has reached its useful life and is in need of replacement. The existing chiller has a temporary repair of the heat exchanger that will require a costly repair, or equipment replacement in the near future. PAST SYSTEM EVALUATIONS Henderson Engineers Report In 2008, Henderson Engineers prepared a report for The City of Jefferson that outlined options for upgrading the HVAC system in the facility. The report included replacement of the existing HVAC system with one of the (3) options listed below: Option 1: Variable Refrigerant Volume (VRV), including a dedicated outside air rooftop unit to provide building ventilation. Probable cost was noted as $445,000.00. Option 2: Multiple Rooftop Units (RTU's). Probable cost was noted as $244,000.00. Option 3: Rooftop Units with By-pass Variable Air Volume (VAV) Terminal Units. Probable cost was noted as $282,000. Construction documents were subsequently prepared by Henderson Engineers that included the work outlined under Option 3 for RTU's and VAV terminal units. Subsequent cost estimates for this option had the total project cost at between $300,000 and $500,000. This work was limited to the main level, but did include the replacement of the ductwork serving this floor. Ultimately, this approach was not deemed to be a viable solution and was not implemented. M360 Feasibility Study More recently, a Performance Contracting Firm, "M360", prepared a feasibility study dated December 2013 outlining energy upgrades and improvements for the HVAC system. The recommended improvements included, but were not limited to replacement of the existing system equipment with a new higher efficiency chiller, condensing style boilers, (2) new variable air volume (VAV) air -handling units and VAV boxes, new DDC temperature controls and revised building exhaust fans sized for current building ventilation requirements. Page 2 of 6 The estimated initial costs for this work were as follows: • VAV System for Both Floors: $1,069,500.00 • VAV System 151 Floor Only: 730,050.00 An additional option included a less complex system, variable volume & temperature system (WT) to serve the first floor only with a reduced cost of $518,100.00. Typically, performance contracts offer a guaranteed savings where there are no upfront costs to the Owner. The energy savings that are realized from the improvements are used to pay for the upgrades. Again, these upgrades were not implemented. DISCUSSION Following review of the existing HVAC system, and meeting with the building user, it is recommended that any HVAC system improvements include the following goals: • Revised zoning for better individual comfort. • Lower operating costs. • Complete ductwork replacement to address ongoing air quality concerns. • Address the unnecessary building exhaust air quantities to conserve energy. • Upgraded temperature control system. • Provide the ability to phase construction to minimize disruption to the operation of the facility and accommodate the available project budget. The preferred recommendations from Henderson Engineers and M360 each address these goals (with the exception of a complete ductwork replacement), but differ in methodology. Both firms also offered lesser cost system options, but they each compromise the goals listed above The preferred Henderson Engineers recommendation included demolition of the existing HVAC system equipment, and the installation of a VRV system with a dedicated outdoor air unit mounted on the roof. It is assumed that this work only included the main level. Their recommendation would utilized the existing ductwork system for the distribution of fresh air from a rooftop mounted fresh air unit, so it does not address the dirt and debris that has been noted as an air quality problem. If properly implemented, it does seem to address the other concerns with the system performance. As previously noted, the probable cost noted in their 2008 report was $445,000.00 for the proposed VRV system and fresh air unit installation. The preferred M360 recommendation included the replacement of the existing chiller, boiler, new VAV air -handling units, VAV boxes with hot water reheat, revised exhaust air quantities and replacement of the pneumatic temperature control system with a new direct digital control (DDC) system. This approach would utilize the existing heating and chilled water piping in the basement, but would require a heating water loop to be installed in the building to serve the re- heat coils. Again, if properly implemented this recommendation addresses concerns with the existing system with the exception of the ductwork replacement and related air quality issues. Their probable cost listed in their 2013 study for equipment replacement, controls upgrades and the installation of a VAV system for the entire building was $1,069,500.00, while their estimated cost for the main floor only was $730,050.00. In comparing the costs of these two options, it should be noted that the probable VRV system costs noted in the Henderson Engineers report are somewhat dated, while the proposed VAV system costs from M360 are more current. Past MECO Engineering projects utilizing VRV equipment and dedicated outside air units in school renovation projects have been running in Page 3 of 6 the $26.00 per square foot range. An office setting will likely require more individual zones than a classroom building, so we would estimate the probable cost to be more in the $30.00 per square foot range. We do not have historical costs for a chilled water VAV air -handling system with hot water re- heat available. However, the costs noted in the M360 estimates do not seem out of line considering the scope of work that is included in their project description considering the amount of large equipment that would be replaced. CONCLUSION After careful consideration, it is our opinion that a Variable Refrigerant Volume (VRV) system with a roof mounted outside air unit is the best solution for this facility. If the budget is not available to renovate the entire building, the work could be limited to the main level and classroom space at this time. This system upgrade on the main floor would not impact the split systems that presently serve the basement level. The basement area could be retrofitted with the same system if the budget allows along with the main floor, or in the future. Retrofitting this system to the basement at a later date would have no adverse effects on the main floor. In this instance, it may be possible to utilize the existing ductwork to distribute supply air from the existing split system zones by replacing the (5) existing furnaces with a ducted fan coil unit connected to the refrigerant system serving the main floor of the building. This concept would be explored during design after determining if the existing zoning in the basement is satisfactory. It has been noted that there was once plans to expand the existing facility. One method that has been considered to accomplish this expansion is through the addition of a second level to the existing facility. If this were the case, the existing equipment could be relocated to the new roof surface at minimal expense. Alternatively, the condensing unit could be ground mounted in a suitable location and would not require relocation. This would leave only the ventilation unit to be relocated. This scope of work would include the following: • Appropriately configured Fan Coil Units (FCU) zoned to accommodate the present day building zoning requirements. • Refrigerant piping located above the corridor ceilings to serve branch selector boxes and FCU's. • Roof mounted condensing units. • Roof mounted dedicated outside air unit. • New insulated sheetmetal supply and exhaust ductwork to provide proper ventilation throughout the main level. • Redesign of building exhaust system. • Integrated temperature controls. • Demolition of all obsolete HVAC system elements. We have based this recommendation on the following benefits: • Less first cost over a comparable Variable Air Volume (VAV) system with hot water re- heat. • Less equipment intensive. • No boiler and related periodic boiler inspections. • No pumps. Page 4 of 6 • Excellent energy efficiency. • Ability to provide good zoning and space temperature control. • Integrated temperature control system included with the system. • Ability to phase the work so as to maintain an acceptable level of space comfort during construction. (The existing system may be able to remain operational during construction.) • Reduction in the size of replacement ductwork since it only delivers ventilation air. • Increased floor space in the basement. The existing air -handling unit room can be repurposed once the existing equipment is demolished. ENERGY EFFICIENCY The proposed VRV system will result in better efficiencies and less operational costs over the existing chilled/hot water multi -zone HVAC system. A VRV system was installed in Belair Elementary School in Jefferson City, Missouri as part of a 2011 renovation of this building. The VRV system (with dedicated outside air units) replaced large multi -zone air -handling units serving the building. The original system was very close to the system presently serving the Police facility. Bob Weber, Facilities Director at Jefferson City Public Schools, reported that the utility bills for this building were reduced by approximately 33 percent following the installation of the new VRV system and related upgrades. As an additional benefit, the old mechanical spaces were repurposed into usable space following demolition of the obsolete equipment. Statistical data for various other projects compiled by one of our manufacturer's representatives support these savings. It is their assertion that a VRV system will result in utility billings in the $1.00 per square foot range, or in some cases less. The reason that VRV systems can realize this degree of efficiency is that they are most efficient at "part load" conditions, rather than at maximum load conditions. Typically, a HVAC system is operating at somewhat less than its maximum capacity. (i.e. a "design" day) A graph included at the end of this report shows various HVAC system types, and how they compare at various load conditions. Only water source heat pumps exceed VRV system efficiencies, but only as they each approach full load conditions. But again, VRV excels at the part load conditions where all HVAC systems normally operate. We have included two examples at the end of this report that show VRV systems retrofitted in the High School at Fredricktown, Mo and Bayless High School in St. Louis, Mo. Each of these examples show a drastic improvement in operating costs over the system that was replaced. In the Bayless High School example, it should be noted that they are now heating and cooling the building for slightly less than they were paying for heating only prior to the upgrade. The operation of a police facility is on a 24/7 schedule, whereas the school examples noted above are largely unoccupied during the night, weekends and holidays. In this case, one could expect a somewhat higher operational costs since the building cannot be placed into an "unoccupied" mode of operation during those periods. However, we anticipate that due to the increased equipment efficiencies and correction of the excessive exhaust air condition that the City will see an appreciable reduction in energy usage. Page 5 of 6 PROBABLE CONSTRUCTION COSTS The following are probable total project costs for this work: Main Floor and Classroom Space: • Demolition of existing equipment and ductwork • New VRV system to replace existing air -handling units • Fresh Air Rooftop Unit • Ductwork replacement to serve ventilation air requirements • Electrical and Controls work $ 650,000.00 • 10% Contingency 65.000.00 Main Floor Construction Cost $ 715,000.00 Basement Level: • Demolition of existing split system equipment • New VRV system to replace (5) existing split systems • 100% Outdoor Air Processing Units • New fresh air ductwork only • New heating units for storage area • Electrical and Controls work $ 265,000.00 • 10% Contingency 26,500.00 Basement Construction Cost $ 291,500.00 Building Total Construction Cost $1,006,500.00 The following is a proposed Engineering Scope of Work and related fee: Scope of Work: • Field Work to Establish Existing Conditions • Preparation of Construction Documents Suitable for Bidding • Construction cost estimate • Bidding Services • Equipment Shop Drawing Review • Construction Administration Services Estimated Engineering Fee Main Floor 57,200.00 Additional Fee to Include Basement Floor 25,000.00 Total Projected Proiect Cost $1,088,700.00 MECO Engineering appreciates the opportunity to present this report for consideration. Please do not hesitate to contact our office with any questions, or concerns. Page 6 of 6 *_0 O O > 0� > m a4z C) co 51 Em LIM S, *_0 O O > 0� > m a4z C) co *_0 LO rL __O isuo t, tugnway r/ Fredericktown, MO 66,000 Square Feet '2,000 sqft. classrooms, offices, library Daikin VRV .1,000 sqft. hallways Daikin VRV .,000sqft. cafeteria, kitchen 15 ton RTU and 5 ton RTU ,000sqft. band room, art room 15 ton RTU .2,000 sqft. gym, locker rooms (2) 20 ton RTU, 3 & 4 ton RTU's ,000sgft. commons 12.5 ton RTU based on an electricity rate of $0.10 per kWh Total Electric Cost .:$0.84/sgft./year Total cost per year of old system was $101,640 to condition 40,000 sqft. Total cost per year of new system is $55,440 to heat and cool all 66,000 sqft. That means a savings of $46,200 per year or 55% of the operational cost while increasing the amount of space conditioned by 65%1 That's an average of over 3 times more efficient cooling! All while providing better comfort, quiter operation, and less maintenance hassle 4532 Weber Road St. Louis, MO 63123 Built in 1957 110,452 square feet 24,000 sgft. heated and cooled by boiler/chiller/air handler, 7,000 sgft. heated and cooled by packaged rooftop. Remaining 79,000 sqft. was heat only. Utilities for one year time span totalled $69,992.24. Installed in 2008. System brought up to current ventilation code utilizing neutral air units at total of 19,090 cfm. Other components include: MPS packaged rooftop units (one 40 ton and one 50 ton) serving gym and auditorium, and Daikin Variable Refrigerant Volume system for heating as well as comfort cooling operation. Utility cost for the entire building after a year of operation with new config- uration came to $68,761.15 Through more efficient equipment and intelligent controls system, Bayless High School was actually able to save $1,231 over a one year span. Even more incredible than the raw savings, the new system yielded these savings while providing comfort cooling to 10056 of the space over a system that only had minimal cooling capabilities previously. Bayless High School has earned the EPA's Energy Star for 2010! 1