The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutHEDRA IV a. Proposal For Evaluation of HudsonMay 4, `1009 To: Hastings EDR9 From: John Grossmaxr Re: Evaluation of the benefits to Hodson Spra}•er of relocation to the former Intek facility on 10~' Street. Action: Staff recouunends that the EDRA authorise contracting Sebesta Blomberg for [he evaluation at cos[ of $33,700. The Highway 61 bridge replacement creates a unique opportunity to discuss relocation with Hudson Manufacturing Co. because it impacts their operations during and after conshuction, it brings a second source of fhnding MnDOT, to the table, and the timing coincides with a vacant industrial building. The purpose of the proposed study (attached) is to define for Hudson the benefits of relocation to the Intek plant on l0a' Street. Sebesta Blomberg is the industrial engineering firm hired by MnDOT to quantify Hudson's business disruption caused by the replacement. Staff has met with the project manager, Bob Iulgore, on the subject. This type of work is their specialty and their fanxiliar ily with flte Hudson properly and processes will shorten the time needed to complete a study. Staff has been in communication with Hudson's management. Their officers will consider the results of the study and maybe interested if it makes financial sense for them. Intek placed their 100,000 sq.ft. l0a' Street plant on dte market two weeks ago. Although it is smaller than Hudson may need, there ma} be room for adequate expansion. Intek has consolidated all its manufacturing to their plant in the Industrial Park. This study would be the first step. Assuming it is positive, the next steps may include establishing a purchase price for that part of the Hudson property remaining after right-of way for the new bridge is acquired by 1\InDOT. The EDRA would also pav Hudson for relocation costs under the unifornx relocation act. That cost would be calculated by a consultant. The option of relocation to vacant land in the Industrial Park has been considered. Square foot development numbers indicate that the cost of new construction would substantially exceed the cost of acquisition-expansion of the Intek building. Char Stark the Cit}' Finance Director, and Ehlers, EDRA's financial consultant have reviewed the concept. They would make financing recommendations depending on the progress of the concept and the identification of actual costs. S E B E S j A 2381 Roseate Rno~e: 651-634-o7~s Roseville, MN 55113-0020 Fax: 651-634-7400 April 17, 2009 Mr. Dave Osberg City Administrator City of Hastings 101 Fourth Street East Hastings, MN 55033-1955 Re: Hudson Sprayer Relocation to Intek Facility Evaluation Sebesta Blomberg Proposal No. P09001.59 Dear Mr.Osberg: Sebesta Blomberg & Associates, Inc. (Sebesta Blomberg) is pleased to present the City of Hastings with this proposal for the Hudson Sprayer Relocation to Intek Fact~ity Evaluation. Project Background The Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT) is evaluating options for replacement of the Hastings river bridge. The project will impact the adjacent Hudson Spray facility operations; a manufacturer of gazden spraying products. Specifically, a portion of Hudson Sprayer's warehousing and slopping operations needs to be acquired by MnDOT. Sebesta Blomberg is working with MnDOT and Hudson Sprayer in developing scenarios of how MnDOT can acquire the needed land and the impacts on Hudson Spmyer's operations. The options being evaluated are based on Hudson Sprayer remaining in their current location. Scope of Work: Hudson Sprayer Evaluation and Relocation to Intek Facility Study It is our understanding that the City of Hastings is interested in exploring the option of Hudson Sprayer relocating to the existing Intek facility. If Hudson Sprayer would relocate, the City could then purchase and redevelop the river front property. The intent of this evaluation and study is to work with the City of Hastings to quantify to Hudson Sprayer the benefits of relocating their manufacturing plant. The benefits include: / Operational efficiencies from a redefined and more efficient manufacturing process layout. / Utility savings from occupying a building with potentially less squaze footage. / Lower deferred costs such as re-roofing costs, parking lot improvements, and bullding equipment costs. (~j S F BI= ST,~ ~jJ E3i <~~~1}~F4'e The following tasks aze required to accomplish this evaluation and study: 1. Site VisitrData Gathering: Sebesta Blomberg will visit the Hudson Sprayer site to gather information on facility program needs and the current manufacturing process. 2. Assessment of Current Operation: Sebesta Blomberg will perform a site assessment as well as meet with a representative of Hudson Sprayer to gain a general understanding of Hudson Sprayer's current overall operation as it pertains to the existing Hasdngs facility. Current operafions include; a. Parts receiving & storage b. Mise depamnent operations including; green guazd, spare pazts, show orders and returns c. Metal parts department including; welding, coating and conveying operations d. Metal and plasfic product flow including; assembly, packaging, conveying, palletizing, storage and shipping operations. 3. Evaluation of existing Intek facility. a. Existing drawings and data review. b. On-site review and data collection. 4. Conceptual Design: Based on the gained general understanding of Hodson Sprayers current operations, Sebesta Blomberg will complete a conceptual design layout based on relocating Hudson Sprayer's operations to the Intek facility. a. Conceptual design layout of operations at Intek facility will assume Future operations will be consistent with current operations. b. As part of completing a conceptual design layout of operations at the intek facility, where applicable Sebesta Blomberg will propose modifications to Hudson Sprayers operation andtor equipment layout which could result in increased operational efficiency, reduce capital and/or operaflonal cost, etc. Proposed changes to Hudson Sprayers current operation and/or equipment layout will be accomplished by conducting a design charette with Hudson Sprayer. c. Evaluation of required expansion to Intek facility. S. Review design concepts with the City of Hastings and confirm City Planning requirements. 6. Drawings: Sebesta Blomberg will prepare schematic level Drawings for the new facility including: a. Site Plan i. Building Plan ii. Parking t Paving Plan iii. Green Space b. Floor Plan i. Diagrammatic funeflonal azeas including office, toilet t locker, metal department; mist operational depaztments, pazts receiving, product assembly, packaging, conveying, palletizing, warehouse and shipping. 7. Project Narrative: Sebesta Blomberg will prepaze a written narrative of the proposed building and manufacturing operafions. Ciry of Hastings April 17, 2009 Hudson Sprayer :Evaluation and Relocation Smdy Page 7 Sebesta Blomberg Proposal No. P09001.59 SFI~F~T,~ (3 LCD .M t F 12 C a. The report will contain: i. Space program. ii. Construction scope narrative 1. description of building expansion requirements. 2. description of site construction requirements. iii. Operations design narrative 1. general description of the various departments and operations which will take place at the new facility 2. general description of parts and product flow at the new facility (flow diagram} iv. Capitol cost estimate. v. Opinion of estimated energy savings between sites. vi. Opinion of estimated operational cost savings between sites. vii. Opinion of estimated deferred cost saving between sites. Deliverables As defined above, the deliverables aze the drawings and Project Narrative. Clarifications 1. The City of Hasflngs or Intek will provide a site plan and available existing building drawings for our review. 2. Limited Civil Engineering work is included. !t is assumed that the City of Hastings will provide storm- water management services. 3. Code compliance of the newlexisting facility or facility operations is not included. 4. It is assumed that both Intek and Hudson Sprayer will be cooperative in allowing us to tour their facilities and openly discuss the merits of potential options. 5. Sebesta Elomberg is not involved in negotiafions between the City of Hastings, Intek and Hudson Sprayer. 6. All estimates involving costs are our opinion of probable costs in the Hastings area scheduled to take place in 2010. It is our intent to be within 20% of actual project costs, but we cannot guazantee this accuracy. Schedule We anticipate being able ro start of our work within five business days of notitication of acceptance of this proposal. We anficipate being able to complete this phase of work within six weeks. Fee As part of our effort to evaluatiti, facility and manufacturing modifications for Hudson Sprayer, under the scope of work being performed for MNDOT, we have gained significant knowledge and data regarding Hudson Sprayer. Ciry of Hastings April L7, 2004 Hudson Sprayer : Evaiuanon and Relocation Study Page 3 Sebesta Blomberg Proposal No. P09001.59 SFI3EST (31 C~ i~1 F F 1~ ~, Much of this information will be applicable to the scope of this project, and as such will allow us to perform this work quite efficiently. We propose to provide the services described in this proposal for a lump sum fee of $33,'700 which includes our labor and expenses. Terms and Conditions The Terms and Conditions that this work will be performed under aze based on the attached Sebesta Blomberg Terms and Conditions sheet. Once again, thank. you for the opportunity to present this proposal to the City of Hastings. We look forward to working on this challenging project. Sincerely, Sebesta Blomberg & Associates, Inc. ~ ~.- Bob Kilgore, PE Project Manager Associate Partner Randy J. Lorenz, PE Principal-in-Chazge Paztner Attaclunents: Sebesta Blomberg Terms and Conditions ciryorxa.<nngs Hudson Sprayer :Evaluation. and Relocation Snuly Sebesta Blomberg Proposal No. P09001.59 Apri117, 2004 Page 4 SF B^FAS T7~t~ Terms and Conditions Smmlard of Care: The Engineer shall perform i6 services m xwordam:e with generally accepted engineering pemtices. Savcvc are rendered wi Wout any other wart-anty, expresred or implied and [he Engineer shah berespmsible sole h` for 4s' ovm negligeme. Construcdm Cosa: The CHen shall advise ate Engineer ht wdthrg beinre design commencement of budgetary IimitaEms For [hews[ of wmbmedm. The Engineer shall emieavor in wm~k witltht such -mitazhrns and will, ifrequcsted and etckded within the scope of services, submit to the Ctiem an opinion ofprobabk: wmtrucdm costs. Thisopivim repre.ma the Engmrei chest judgment ass design professimal familiar witht~ crostrtrction itdurtry. The C-en ackmwiedges [ha[ neHler the Chen na the Engireer has cmnol ovur t}e cost of labor, materials, tnadcet mnegodafingwmlhrons, or med.ods bywhich contrae[tas determine prices for crostmction the Engineer does rto[ warrant or represent thII bidsor nelydated prices will art vary from its ophtionr: ofprobahhk emt, roil the Clientezpressly re leases any claim for damages ro Che extent actual vests excred the Engineer's r{rirdmvof probable cast. Compmsatiore Compensation for servicessha-6e in awordance wilt the Proposal Zeta. Inwices will be iscaed mmtltly for services rerdered aril reimbursable expenses andare due and payabE within ten (i ~ dap ofrew~t of the invoice. Interest of 2%per momh w-l be charged m awoma rot paid within dthty (30) days from the daze of invdce. Changes affeding the scope of work indiatedby the C-em or due to mforesem project emdi6mswih rtecesgmte modificazionof the compensation chard. Failure m Make PayrnenC Tf the C-em fails m make paymen when due the Engineer for services and expenses, the Engineer may, upm seven {7) days' written mice m Ste Ciiett4 sospend performance of services under this Agreemmt Unless paymett info-isreceived bythe Enghteer wihtin seven dap d' [he date of ate Waite, [be snyrension shall tare effect withom fudicr mace. h the evm[ of a strspensim of services, the Engineer slta- trove no -ability to ate Client fa delay or damage caused [he C-mt bwanse of such suspensim of servicex. Re-use of Dmnmenx: All documena, imluding Drawings and Spec£tcadms, preparedby the Fnynneer pursuan to this project are instmmmtsof service. Engineer shall 6e deemed rte audtor of Iltese instmmmtsofservice and retain all commm lawavd stamGOry dgha, imludmg Copyright. Trey arena intended or reprexnted robe suitable for reuse hythe Client or others m extensims of [his project a a~ other project. Any re-use withmt written verificadm oradapta[ion by ttte fittginecr fa ate specific putpmes htinnded will be n ate Client's sole risk arxl witltout liabi-ty m the Engineer, ars3 fire Ctcm shall indetmafyand hold hamrbss the Eagiteer from rill claims, damages, losses amI ez~rtses, irx:tudmg adaney's fees, arising rot of arrntu-ing therefrom Aq such verificatims or ad~tlazim wi- ettitle the Engineer tofurdter mmpensazion at rotes to be agreed upm by the Chew and [Fte Enghtea. Mutual Indemnhy. CI ientagrees That it will rkfend htdetmify and 6okl hatmlessthe Engineer, hsoRxers, director and mtploynes,fromand against any andall claims, damage; awards and cos[sof defetne caused by the negligent or dherwise wrongful acts momissim, imltding breach of a specific contractual dtty, of the C-ett a the CHan's indepea3ett wtnracmxs, agena or empkryees Engineer agrees that itwill defend. indemnify, and hold bamdes~t the Client, its officers, rHrwmrs and employees, from and agaim[any aril atlelamts, damages, awatdsand corer of defenre rausa3 bythe oeg-gen[ or nhawise wnngful aca m omission including breach ofaspecific contmcmal dory of the Engitrex, or die Engineer's iNepmdent comractors, agena or employees Hazardous Materials: The Engines and Engineer's convdrvttschall have no respmsibi 6ty for ate diswvery, presetce, handling, removal of disposal ofer exposnm of perms to hararrbus mataiaA in any format [he Projs t site, i>xl W ing 6u[nd Imtited toasbesms, asbestos products, pdychlorinated biplcnyl (PCE)or dher tonic subsrancex the Client agree; [o indemnify and hold harmless the Engineer and Engineer s waxWrana ftom amt aga¢tst all ctaims,)vrbility or costs, meNding reasmable adomey's fees and expenxes, arising out of or in arty way wnnected with tie preserve, handling, removal, abatement or dispaal of hamrdous materials is any format tfie projert site. Tfie Client further agree ro make m eLvm and hereby waives any claims or causer of action daisy type against rte Enghteer andEngineer's cmmlmns whinhmaymire rot of or relate in any way b tte presence of such hazardous materials Limirarinn of i.eral l iahilirv To [he maximum extent penni[ted bylaw, rte Cliem agces m limit the Engireer's liabdhy to ate Client. fa damages, and m all wrstrucdm etnfrae[ors or suhem[mctors m [be project elai~ng through the C-em for damages, m ttre amorist of $SO,ObO m @te Engineer's trial fee for services r®deral on are project, whichever is lM lesser, k is intmded That the 5mha[ian aPP1Y to anY and all fiabihty or causes of action however arising, regardless of the caure of action or legal theory assnaed Terminadm: The obligadm m provide further services order tltis dmamem may be mmimCed by erthe pauy upon seven (7) days wdlCtt Waite in ate evmt of subs[amial faihtre bythe otter party to perform in accadame with the terms hereof thrmgh m fault of Ste terminating party. In the even of any tetminadm, the Engiteer shall he paid for atl services rendered to the date of termination, all reimbarsable expcnws and tertninadm expenses. Successors andAssigre: Neidter the Client nor the Engineer IItaH assign, sublet or uansfer any rigtas miler or imeres[ in (isludhtg, but withmt Ihnievion mmep drat are or may become due} [his documen, or any claims thm may arise form ate performance of services order this agreanem, witMm the written mnsett of ate dhe, except to the extent that the effect of Otis limitation may be restricted by law. Unless speeifxally s[ato3 to the cmhary inany wriaen consent to an asvgnmem,no assignment will release er disthmge the assigmrfrom any dutyorresponsibifity order dts docmnmt Naririrg contained in Chisparagraph shall prevexa [tc Engireer from employing such inlepmdent emsu-ams, assmiams and subeanhac[ms, as i[ may dean appropriate m assist m dte performance of services hereunder.Nahing herein shall he conswed to give any rightx or becefia haeu~er to anyone other than the Client and the Engineer. Ndhing herein shall create acottraemal relationship wkhor causz of action m favor of a [hirdparty against either Ere Client or Ergineec AH claims a~ tarots of acdmsbetwrenthe partiex to this agreement petlairdug toac[s or failnms b ac[ shall be deemed to have awrued and the app-cable stamina oflirnitadms shall commrnce to tun tort {error than either Ste date of substattial completion for sa a failures m act occurring prior m SrdlSattial completion or the date of the issuance of tic final certificain for payment fm~ants or faimres m act accut'tmg after subsramal complain. L_ City of Hastings April 17, 2009 Hudson Sprayer :Evaluation and Reiocation Study Page 5 Sebesta Blomberg Proposal No. P04001.59 Q V ~1 M~~y Y~ G Q 3 _ ~ :. y ~- a is y S = O ~ .~ _ V S J Q % s = N Na ~ 01 S S o O ~ = ~ L 6 0 0 0 0 0 OY ~ 6 E g oou ao o n t i W ~~ <m NQ W O p V W O ? C OO NO O (O p p Y N g ~ ~ o o ov a o ° ' N W O O ti o oo o ~ o o N ° _ m N m o a g L P C o o ~ 6 ~ C O G C O O N ap G s° o° °' m~ ae° g p 5 f s°- ~ $ 4 r ~ u s $ @ e r = ~ ~ ~ o k ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ c u g m $ ~ ~ $ % n ~ g~ = @ ~ o ~ ~ -° g ~ m ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ s ~. 0