ARC Board approves roofing project bid specs
May 16, 2021
With the Alva Recreation Complex (ARC) not being able to hold tournaments last year due to the pandemic, revenue is lower than expected for the fiscal year. Alva City Business Manager Angelica Brady said although financials are “not where we wanted to be”, the expenses have been kept in line.
She smiled as she told the ARC Board that she took a $5,000 deposit to the bank following the Mother’s Day weekend tournament.
The annual operations budget through June for the ARC is $132,168.00. Through April the ARC has taken in $83,737.83. Revenue for April was $15,221.00.
The ARC has also received $8,336.50 from interest on investments, $95.21 in refunds and $405,477.58 in sales tax for the year to date. This adds up to $497,647.12 revenue for the year to date compared to $696,259.00 for the total expected income in the budget through June.
ARC Board members approved the financial statement. Present for the meeting were Dr. Troy Smith, Gregg Glass, Matt Tucker, Chad Fisher and Brandon Sherman. Absent were Jaci Heaton and Shane Hansen.
ARC Director Courtney Nesseralla said they had a great tournament over the Mother’s Day weekend with 35 teams of 8’s, 10’s, 12’s and 14’s. The ARC is doing sign-ups for coach pitch, T-ball and other summer sports with excellent response.
Nesseralla said an organization had approached her about using the ARC property for a tent revival. Last year, they held the revival at the fairgrounds but would prefer a grass surface instead of gravel.
Nesseralla said if it was located on the soccer field, those attending could use the bathrooms located nearby. Sherman asked if any ARC staff would need to be on hand, but Nesseralla said no. Glass asked about liability insurance. Brady said the ARC insurance should cover it since it covers rental of the gym.
Tucker asked which church was involved. Nesseralla said it was Nathan Gaisford. Tucker said he wanted to make sure it wasn’t something like a satanic group. None of the board members were against the tent revival being held on the property.
ARC Roof Project
Next on the agenda was the proposed budget. After beginning on the budget review, Brady realized decisions on the roof project would impact it. The board tabled that item until after working on the roof project.
Both the insurance adjustor and the city engineer did thorough inspections of the building. The insurance adjustor determined that building damage was not from storms but was from lack of maintenance. Insurance will cover only roof replacement with the same type of roof. Anything else done will need to be paid from the ARC budget.
The board looked over the tabulation of bids from four companies. All the bids were rejected because the ARC wasn’t ready to act on them with the question of insurance coverage undetermined, and the time period for the bids to be effective would expire.
It will be necessary to rebid the project, but Brady wanted direction on bid specifications. The February bids included a base bid for roof replacement with comparable roofing. These ranged from $206,824.50 to $254,000.00. There were also four alternates.
Alternate 1: Furnish and install a new Superlok roof system. If selected, this would replace the base bid. These ranged from $268,900 to $373,000 in the rejected bids.
Alternate 2: Remove exhaust fans and louvers and enclose opening. Those bids were from $4,950 to $31,000.
Alternate 3: Furnish and replace all windows on west side of building. Bids for this alternate were from $7,500 to $11,160.
Alternate 4: Furnish and install new exposed fastener wall panels on side of building. The totals for this were $27,500 to $143,100.
The insurance payment on the roof would only cover the lowest and best bid on the base bid specs.
Nesseralla asks if the ARC could accept one bidder for the roof and another on an alternate. Sherman said the bidders are basing their prices on the expectation of getting the base bid so they can’t be separated out. Fisher said it is best to have all the work done by one company. That way they can’t try to blame each other for any problems.
Discussion indicated the board members want the Superlok roof and all the other work done.
After more discussion, Sherman attempted to put their decision into a motion, and it was seconded by Glass. Other board members protested that this was not what they had discussed. A vote was called and the vote was unanimous against that motion.
After some more discussion, Glass made a motion seconded by Sherman and approved by a unanimous vote.
The board decided to go out for the base bid, alternate 1 for the Superlok roof, and combine alternates 2, 3 and 4 as alternate 2.
Looking at the proposed budget, Brady added $206,000 as revenue from the insurance settlement for the roof. That’s the lowest bid received in February. New bids could be more or less.
After some quick tabulation, under capital outlay she added $353,000 for the Superlok roof and $82,000 to cover the remainder of the project.
The proposed budget includes sales tax revenue at the same amount as the projected year to date actual tax received. Revenue from field hay was left the same although Brady said the lease expires this year so that could change.
The main change in expenses, other than the roof project, is in personal services. The city is including a 2.5 percent cost of living increase for employees along with step increases.
Brady assured the board that the budget can be amended later in the year if needed.
Sherman made a motion to approve the proposed budget, seconded by Fisher. It was approved unanimously.