Wright County Board Minutes
OCTOBER 10, 2006
The Wright County Board met in regular session at 9:00 A.M. with Heeter, Sawatzke, Mattson, Russek and Eichelberg present.
Eichelberg moved to approve the minutes of 10-03-06, seconded by Russek, carried 5-0.
Petitions were accepted to the Agenda as follows: Aud./Treas. Item #4. “Claim Reimbursement To Gloria Gooler For Postage Costs” (Hiivala); Aud./Treas. Item #5, “Schedule Meeting Date To Discuss Tax Forfeited Properties” (Hiivala); Item For Consid. #1, “Reschedule Parks Committee Of The Whole Meeting” (Asleson). Russek moved to approve the Agenda as amended, seconded by Eichelberg, carried unanimously.
On a motion by Russek, second by Mattson, all voted to approve the Consent Agenda:
1. Performance Appraisals: G. Stonelake, Hwy.; S. Kolbinger, IT; R. Borell, Parks.
B. INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY
1. Refer To 10-25-06 Building Committee:
A. Securing Video Conferencing Equipment In Room 153.
2. Refer To 10-25-06 Personnel Committee:
A. Policy On Monitoring Use Of Technologies.
B. 24/7 Support Requirements & IT Personnel Plans.
1. Refer To 10-25-06 Technology Committee:
A. Storage Area Network.
B. Phone Switch Items For 2007.
C. MCCC-Nazca Contract.
D. Record Management Workgroup Report (From 9-13-06 Technology Committee).
E. Use Of Portable Devices (From 9-13-06 Technology Committee).
C. PLANNING & ZONING
1. Accept The Findings And Recommendations Of The Planning Commission For The Following Rezonings:
A. Cary Hourscht (Marysville Township). Planning Commission unanimously recommend rezoning of appx. 27 acres from AG to A/R.
B. Ken Beise (Rockford Township). Planning Commission unanimously recommend rezoning of appx. 14 acres from AG to R.
Bob Hiivala, Auditor/Treasurer, requested the Board approve a Plat, “Bay View Second Addition,” Southside Township. On a motion by Russek, second by Mattson, all voted to approve a plat, “BAY VIEW SECOND ADDITION,” as submitted by Jerome J. Kiehn, fee owner, of the following property described in part as: Part of Gov. Lot 6, Sec. 26, Twp. 121, Rge. 28; com at NW corner of Gov. Lot 6; on assumed bearing to the Nly line of dedicated road of BAY VIEW FIRST ADDITION and thence Ely; with all outstanding taxes, including green acre liability, if any having been paid; there is no park dedication fee involved; Southside Township has a written agreement on file to accept any new roads; and the BOA order creating the subdivision, and the title opinion prepared by Jan C. Larson, attorney, have been reviewed by Thomas C. Zins, Assistant Wright County Attorney, who finds the plat to be ready for recording.
Hiivala presented a petition from Terri L. Johnson for repairs to County Ditch 34. Russek provided photographs of the area reflecting four blowouts. The tile is at least 2’ in diameter and the repair length is estimated at 50’ to 100’. The repair locations are downstream of the recent request by the City of Delano to discharge water into Ditch 34. The repairs will need to be completed despite the action requested by the City. Russek felt the City may elect to discharge through a storm sewer rather than through the Ditch. Sawatzke moved to authorize Russek and Hiivala to review the repairs needed with contractors and to obtain quotes for repair. The motion was seconded by Russek and carried 5-0.
Hiivala requested that the Board schedule a meeting to review tax forfeit properties. The Assessor has reviewed the listing extensively. The goal of the meeting is to review and potentially eliminate 90% of the properties from the list. The remaining properties would be viewed at a future date. Mattson and Russek serve on the Forfeited Tax Sales Committee. Mattson moved to schedule the meeting for 10-16-06 at 2:00 P.M., Auditor/Treasurer’s Conference Room. The motion was seconded by Russek and carried 5-0.
Hiivala requested approval of a claim to Gloria Gooler for $63.84 for reimbursement of postage costs incurred to mail absentee ballots to military service people and those US citizens temporarily stationed overseas. Gooler, Elections Supervisor, said the extra postage was used to expedite the mail. In the past, complaints were received that ballots were not received in a timely fashion. Once the ballots are received by those voting by absentee ballot, it is up to the voter to add extra postage to return the ballot in a timely manner. The remainder of absentee ballots will be mailed today. Russek moved to approve payment of the claim to Gooler, seconded by Eichelberg, carried 5-0.
The claims listing was discussed. Mattson referenced claims on Page 18, Lake Superior College ($800.00) and Page 19, University of Minnesota ($935.00) for payment of staff training for the Highway Department. Wayne Fingalson, Highway Engineer, stated that with State and Federal projects, training is required (grading and base, bituminous, concrete and erosion control). The classes are for new employees and current employees who need license renewals. This training is typically handled through Lake Superior College and held in St. Paul. The University of Minnesota coordinates the training so the Commissioner of Transportation is involved. On a motion by Mattson, second by Russek, all voted to approve the claims as listed in the abstract, subject to audit.
Gary Torfin, Jail Administrator, presented the FY 08 and FY 09 Contract for Sentence-To-Service. He requested the Board approve written commitment to the DOC requesting renewal of the Contract. The proposed Contract reflects a 3% increase for each year of the two-year Contract. Mattson moved to approve the Contract, seconded by Sawatzke, carried 5-0. Torfin was directed to draft the letter to the DOC with signature by the County Board Chair.
Wayne Fingalson, Highway Engineer, presented for approval two draft resolutions for CSAH 19 authorizing expenditure of Road & Bridge funding for ROW Plats for improvement Projects (SP 86-619-29 & SP 86-619-30). Eichelberg moved to adopt Resolution #06-62 authorizing expenditures from the Road & Bridge Fund for the CSAH 19 ROW Plat in Albertville (SP 86-619-30), seconded by Russek, carried 5-0 on a roll call vote. Eichelberg moved to adopt Resolution #06-63 authorizing expenditures from the Road & Bridge Fund for the CSAH 19 ROW Plat in St. Michael (SP 86-619-29), seconded by Russek, carried 5-0 on a roll call vote.
Fingalson requested approval of Maintenance Agreement No. PW-44-73-05 with Hennepin County. This Agreement confirms Hennepin County’s willingness to accept ownership of the east half of CR 139 and a portion of CSAH 17 in the SE corner of Wright County. The County has a Maintenance Agreement with Hennepin County for the Berning Mill Bridge Project. As part of the proposed Agreement, Hennepin County will credit Wright County for five years of routine maintenance on CR 139 & CSAH 157/CSAH 17 in lieu of payment. Thereafter, Hennepin County will pay Wright County on an annual basis. Russek moved to approve Agreement No. PW-44-73-05 with Hennepin County, seconded by Eichelberg, carried 5-0.
Brian Asleson, Chief Deputy Attorney, said a Joint Meeting with the City of Monticello is scheduled for 10-24-06 at 1:00 P.M. As several members of the City Council are unable to attend at that time, they have requested the Joint Meeting be rescheduled to 10-23-06 at 5:00 P.M., Monticello City Hall. The County scheduled this meeting as a Parks Committee Of The Whole Meeting. The reason this was placed on today’s Agenda was to provide public notice of the date change. A portion of this Meeting may be held in Closed Session. Richard Norman, County Coordinator, requested that the City provide clerk service for the Meeting and recording of the Closed Session since it will be held at their location. Sawatzke moved to cancel the Parks Committee Of The Whole Meeting on 10-24-06 at 1:00 P.M. and to reschedule it for 10-23-06 at 5:00 P.M., Monticello City Hall. Those attending from Wright County will be Board members, Asleson, Mattice, Hiivala and Norman. The motion was seconded by Russek. There will be no formal action taken by the County at that Meeting. Norman said the County will distribute a revised Agenda and post it as a Parks Committee Of The Whole Meeting. The assumption is that the City will post notice as well for their City Council members. The motion carried 5-0.
At 9:30 A.M., Heeter closed the bid process for Contract #0612, Silver Creek Township Bridge #86J12 (SAP 86-599-25). This project involves culvert replacement at 127th St. NW in Silver Creek Township. The Engineer’s estimate is $50,000. Town Bridge Account funding is being used on the project. Fingalson said Highway Department staff had been contacted by a potential bidder requesting approval to fax in a bid. As this bidder did not have a bid security, they were told they were not allowed to fax their bid. Another bid was received by fax this morning from a different bidder. Fingalson requested direction on whether this bid should be accepted. The bid did include a faxed copy of the bid security. Asleson reviewed the advertisement for bids which calls for bids to be placed in an envelope and securely sealed. The County normally includes language which indicates the County can waive technicalities to accept bids if it is in the best interest of taxpayers. The advertisement was completed by the Township and did not include this language. It was the consensus to reject the bid. Sawatzke noted that the bidder is jeopardizing their bid by not sealing it. Fingalson opened and read the bids. It was the recommendation to lay the bids over for review and recommendation at the next meeting as there are issues with State bonding. Russek moved to lay the bids over for one week, seconded by Eichelberg, carried 5-0.
Bidder ; Bid Security; Total Bid
Sundlbad Construction (Cokato); Yes; $40,802.00
G.F. Jedlicki, Inc. (Eden Prairie); Yes; $49,056.00
Mathiowetz Construction Co. (Sleepy Eye); Yes; $45,759.00
Landwehr Construction Inc. (St. Cloud); Yes; $46,579.80
Midwest Contracting, LLC (Marshall); Yes; $50,990.00
Larson Excavating Contractors (Holdingford); Yes; $68,980.20
Keith Wurm (Annandale); Yes; $58,987.50
The meeting recessed at 9:41 A.M. and reconvened at 9:52 A.M.
KKE Architects and Adolphson & Peterson Construction (A&P) presented the Jail & Law Enforcement Center (LEC) Schematic Design Presentation and cost estimates. Present were Randy Lindemann (KKE), Clifford Buikema (KKE), Mark Liska (A&P), Michael McGowan (A&P), David Rey (Anderson-Johnson Associates, Inc.), and Larry Svitak (Engineering Design Initiative). Lindemann stated KKE was contracted in early July to work with the program the County Board adopted in August, 2005. During the past 90 days, ten meetings have been held with Sheriff and Jail staff to convert the planning level document to the design level document. Work has been completed on a parallel track of site development and building concept, as well as converting the program document to design. A Schematic Design Report was distributed. KKE provided a detailed presentation on the Report including review of site development, building concept overview, staffing analysis, space program, and a design schedule.
In terms of site development, work has been completed on annexation, zoning, access and utilities. Annexation into the City is planned. The property will be zoned residential so will be non-conforming for its intended use. Efforts are underway to meet the requirements of the Conditional Use Permitting Process, including the Architectural Site Plan being submitted to the City as early as tomorrow. The City allows for a 60-day review after staff recommends the project to the City Council. As KKE would like to know that the site is approved prior to seeking bids, they are negotiating with the City to allow for an early submittal of the Site Plan. With regard to access to the site, the plan previously sent to the County by Mn/DOT does not include funding in the current budget to move access to the site off from TH 25. KKE has taken the liberty to move the roads to serve the overall parcel. An overview of proposed roads was provided. It was noted that Braddock Avenue would need to be widened at the access for entry and exit points. As this is a fairly large development, the City will require some type of storm water retention ponds and treatment. With respect to the utilities, the City has hired Bolton & Menk to complete the preliminary engineering report. In order to meet fire flow pressures, the recommendation is to proceed with a water main loop. One option would be to consider a water tower for the site. The Architectural Site Plan reflects development of the Jail and LEC in the center of the site. The Plan will allow for future expansion. Norman questioned the regional radio tower, proposed to utilize almost half of the former Stemper property, and asked whether that was a set location and a code requirement to do so. Lindemann stated that the area includes a 300’ crash zone which is a code requirement, although the proposed site is not a fixed location. They are under the impression that the crash zone needs to be within the parameters of the site. Mattson questioned whether utilities would be located on the roof. Lindemann indicated that their aspiration is to place vents, antennas, and incidental mechanical equipment on the roof, but not the major mechanical components. That is one of the reasons the square footage of the building has increased. The design has north facing entrance doors, which was something the Board had previously expressed concern with. Lindemann said this is an extension of the internal workings of the building. The landscape architect is proposing a cross section of wind breaks to address this issue. Trees with a density of 50-65% will be used to reduce wind and snow drifts. More work needs to be completed to address security. Mattson questioned dock levels. The response was that the Jail will have two loading docks (one grade and the other with a small ramp). The LEC will have a utility loading area.
Rey spoke to the potential of using a water tower versus bringing the water supply to the site as per the City’s suggestion. Similar facilities in Wisconsin and Colorado have proceeded in this fashion and costs are comparable to those reflected in the study prepared by Bolton & Menk Actual cost still needs to be determined, as well as long-term maintenance costs. With regard to gravel mining, the elevation of the building and surrounding parking has been established. The low point of the area is TH 25, and the building will need to be at least 2’ above that elevation for natural overflow of the site. Another consideration is to make sure water drains to ponds. Pond elevation is dictated by available culverts and the TH 25 storm sewer. This will dictate elevation of the building and mining of the site.
Lindemann said when they inherited the DLR Plan, the aspiration was a 20-year Plan. The two most important aspects conveyed to KKE were an efficient operation of the Jail and options for expansion. KKE provided an overview of the proposed layout of the Jail and LEC. The LEC is proposed as a two-story building with a functional design (vehicle intense employees located on the ground level with management located on the upper level). The Jail is designed with a distinct separation between the core and housing, each having the ability to grow independently. The attempt was to come close to the DOC inmate to staff ratios. All cells will have a rear chase and borrowed light. Buikema provided information on the building layout and Svitak discussed options for the mechanical and electrical systems. Mattson questioned security at building entrances. Buikema stated that the Courts System is not planned for this site at this time. The public entrance will be open. A secure entrance will be at the back of the Lobby. There will be two types of visiting. The first will include six contact areas which will be used by attorneys, clergy, or law enforcement to meet with inmates. The second will be two video stations for public visitation. Monitoring will be conducted by Jail Administration or Central Control depending on the time of day. The public will be served by an elevator, restrooms and vending. A staff/service elevator is planned for the LEC. Sawatzke referenced the external surfaces of the building and the use of glass on an entire wall and questioned whether this would be problematic with climate control. Buikema said the walls are solid surrounding the Jail. The goal is to maximize the amount of natural light for the LEC. With modern systems, it is not difficult to achieve a quality environment and high insulation value in walls. Mattson noted the problems incurred on the 3rd and 4th Floors of the Annex with climate control. Buikema said the point was well taken and they could also use walls with punch windows. Sawatzke said the same holds true for the entry area which is designed with glass. He did not want the public to perceive this portion of the project as expensive.
Buikema outlined the housing plan which is designed for different housing for various scenarios. Indirect supervision housing has 86 cells with a 1:40 staffing/inmate ratio. As these inmates will be locked down for longer periods, the cells are designed with windows allowing for indirect view. Mattson cited problems in Sherburne County with grab bars and questioned bars proposed in the Jail. Buikema said the anchorage was not correct as specified for the Sherburne County handicapped grab bars. The grab bars will be used only as required. Russek understood that the site will have six handicapped cells with grab bars. Buikema stated that 2% overall is required, with handicapped stalls required in each separate classification. By not identifying specific housing areas, they were able to reduce the number of handicapped cells required by six. In the general population, each day room would have a handicapped shower. Maximum disciplinary areas will not be double bunked. The three pods for direct supervision and medium security housing can be divided in the future into 6 pods. There will be two 60-person day rooms which can be divided into four 60-person day rooms in the future under double bunking. The female medium security pod will start out with 30 cells which can be double bunked to 60 in the future. Eichelberg questioned the future expansion of the laundry, cooking and exercise areas. Buikema said booking and food service is designed to the ultimate capacity of 600 beds right away. Programming and recreation space can be expanded with population. Lindemann said housing and the core can grow independent of one another. The design of the Jail was based upon information received that most problems occur in booking and maximum security. Based on that, those areas were placed for quick response time by staff. Indirect supervision housing is almost self contained and requires no additional programming staff. Sawatzke questioned whether the kitchen would be set up to accommodate inmate labor. Buikema stated that the current jail does not use inmate labor. As the population of the Jail expands, the future site will be designed for this.
Svitak said there are two mechanical system options for consideration including a geothermal system and a chiller/boiler system. A test was completed last week for bedrock and it was encountered at 245’, which will not pose a problem for the site. This week a conductivity test will be performed to reflect soil conditions. Results should be received by 10-20-06. The geothermal system would require 200-250 heat pumps located throughout the facility. A energy model is being developed utilizing information from both options as well as gas costs. Maintenance for each system will be about identical and both will incorporate energy recovery. Norman questioned location of air intakes. With geothermal, air intakes will be located throughout the facility. Areas may be turned off if not being utilized. All air intakes will be located indoors, either in a penthouse or indoor mechanical rooms. Payback of each type of system will be studied. Gas companies do allow for incentives but this will not be an option through the City for electrical. Heeter referenced the LEC and questioned whether the number of cubes planned was for growth. Miller stated that the programming was done based on a 20-year model. The office space plan will be 75% occupied. Cubicle space will be added as needed.
Staffing was discussed. Buikema said the DLR Study included a staffing analysis reflecting initial staffing, as well as staffing if additional pods were added. KKE has a different proposal including staffing at initial, mid-term and full-term occupancy. Initial occupancy will include two staff within the independent supervision pods and one staff in each of the single occupancy cells. Sawatzke questioned staffing levels from the current to the proposed Jail. Torfin responded that they are projecting a minimum of 10 staff at opening for any given shift. Currently they have 7-8 staff. There is one training officer that works as a supervisor in the Jail. In this scenario, about 10 more staff would be required to staff the new jail (2 people x 5 shifts). If 3-4 staff were working on transition, then potentially 7 more staff would be required. Buikema said they are still refining the data, but it appears the proposed plan will reduce the number of staff by 6.5 over the DLR Program (based upon initial occupancy). Buikema will forward a copy of this data to the County. Heeter referenced page 5 of the Schematic Design Report, reflecting the number of cells and opportunity to double bunk. The indirect supervision housing is designed for 86 beds before doubled bunking. Each of the two pods could be double bunked to 240 (60/per pod or 120 double bunked each). That would equate to 240 beds plus 86 prior to building the third pod. The total would be 206 beds prior to double bunking (120 plus 86). It is estimated that by the time the Jail is occupied, the daily occupancy will be 160-180. The third pod could be delayed until needed. Sawatzke noted that the layout had changed. Lindemann stated this was done for operational reasons. One pod was identified for expansion should the need arise. The other reason is that Jail staff were concerned about a single, unsupported post on the end of the building. The plan was changed so the female medium security and work release pods are closer to the center. The two pods have back to back staff posts that support one another. With the change, the third pod was identified as an alternate. More discussion is needed on double bunking implications for the male general population. Torfin stated that the indirect supervision housing will include maximum security, disciplinary segregation, medical, and others. There are currently about five inmates in this classification. This area will not be used for the general population. Sawatzke questioned the logic of 86 cells in the indirect supervision housing. Torfin said this area was built to capacity as maximum security could not be added at a later time. Heeter questioned whether medium security prisoners could be housed there as well. Torfin said this would not be as staff efficient but sitting empty would not be desired either. Mattson inquired whether Wright County could house high risk prisoners from other counties. Miller responded that this was not desired. Norman asked whether the staffing analysis was based upon minimum DOC requirements. Buikema said it was, with direct supervision at a 1:60 ratio and indirect at 1:40. The building was designed to those ratios to try to maximize efficiencies. Sawatzke referenced the indirect housing area and asked whether it could be designed for direct supervision (1:60 ratio) using doors between the two areas. Buikema said it is dependent upon regulatory systems. Direct supervision requires staff to be in the room with the inmates. One option, if the third pod is not constructed, would be to move the female population into that area. One reason this is not allowed per regulations is that there is still a wall; it would not classify as direct supervision because of the housing officer being physically separated from the unit. Doors could possibly be left open or a vestibule designed.
KKE met with A&P during the past couple of weeks. Lindemann commended A&P on the work completed to compile the financial data in a short time frame. He pointed out specifics as to why KKE’s programming is different from what DLR proposed. With regard to space programming, KKE uses the BOMA (Building Owners & Managers Assn.) Method which defines net returnable space. This methodology was adopted so programs could be designed to help owners control the size of their projects. It was developed to test efficiency and is based on net gross square feet, allowing greater overall size. The base net gross figures are used to calculate office circulation requirements. Net factor wall spaces have gone up substantially with ADA requirements. Major circulation is estimated at 10-12%. The DLR Plan did not allow for minimum ADA requirements in their net factors and base numbers were missing. Exterior wall thickness was missing. A total of 5600 sq. ft. was not accounted for. Rear chases were something that could not be accounted for. Lindemann felt the DLR Plan was a good planning document but all data needs to be included. Each of the 266 cells planned has a rear chase with glass fronts for observation, access by staff, etc. Cells were removed from exterior walls providing for better climate control. The main Jail corridor is the backbone which allows separation between housing and core/independent functions. Mechanical space is another thing they would have liked in the planning document (prescribed 3600 sq. ft. as compared to 12,400 sq. ft.). The mechanical system being located indoors (indoor air handling) versus on the ground or on the roof resulted in a 9000 sq. ft. difference. The DLR Plan reflected 147,000 sq. ft. or 172,000 sq. ft. if converted to the BOMA method. The proposed design by KKE reflects 185,000 sq. ft. which is about 9% over the targeted figure. For schematic level planning, this is within 10%, or on target. As they proceed into design development, Lindemann felt the plan will tighten and they will attempt to get close to 172,000 sq. ft.
The meeting recessed at 11:39 A.M. and reconvened at 11:50 A.M. Liska provided information on the probable project cost as prepared by A&P. A handout was provided. A kickoff meeting was held on 9-22-06 with KKE and staff. The purpose was to obtain information on the schematic design phase. A lot of work has been completed and is continuing based on the information obtained. The document presented today was based upon the 10-04-06 meeting with the design team and reflects estimated costs of the project. Wright County will also have site development costs. Unknown factors are mining quantity and who will mine the site. At this time, nothing is allocated for this. Off site development costs are estimated at $883,100 including utility development (bringing sewer/water to site) at $785,000. Site development costs are estimated at $822,113 and will include site access, utility construction, site characteristics and site administrative expenses. It is hoped that the soils are adequate for the structure and there is not soil remediation required. The soil boring tests will reflect the property of the material. The assumption is that the soils are suitable; otherwise, the footings would be enlarged for capacity. Liska said McGowan, VP of Estimating and Preconstruction, felt the project met requirements as compared to past projects A&P has completed. They looked at RS Means (industry leader in cost estimating), which indicates the price per sq. ft. should be around $2.58 and through ACE (Architects, Contractors & Engineers) at $2.53/sq. ft. They looked at five jails and one prison project completed in Minnesota over the past five years. The A&P estimate is at about $2.37/sq. ft. based on the total square footage. If $42 million is divided by the square footage, that equates to $2.32/sq. ft. in today’s dollars. It is understood that inflation will impact these figures as Wright County plans to bid the project in August, 2007. The escalation factor from today moving forward is at about 5.2%. Building construction costs are estimated at $42,634,378. Projecting out to bid opening, the figures would increase to $2.41/sq. ft. or $44,823,933. That includes building costs only. Heeter understood the project would be bid in Spring or mid-Summer. Liska said they are looking at different ways to minimize or eliminate the escalation factor. For example, if the County elects to proceed with the geothermal system, the 400 wells could be drilled during the Winter. Other options could include pre-purchasing materials and on and off site utilities. Taxes are included in estimated figures. With regard to furniture, fixtures, equipment and communications, an allowance of 5% of building costs is being used or $2.2 million. This will include equipment that the County will purchase directly to use in the building. Sawatzke questioned the re-use of desks, cubicles and equipment for the Jail/LEC. Lindemann said that later in the project, equipment will be identified that can be reused or relocated. They will work with the County’s Purchasing Agent to furnish the remainder of the building through the County’s furniture contract. A figure of 5% of the project cost is used as an estimate. Heeter assumed the cubicles recently purchased for the detectives would be re-used. Norman said based upon past projects, the furniture/equipment line item is generally underestimated. Building Care & Maintenance will also need to purchase equipment to maintain the facility. The figures do not include technology costs nor work with the consultant for the technical aspects of the building. Sawatzke understood that anything installed in the Sheriff Department now would be moveable to the new site. Professional Fees, estimated at $3,822,340, include contracts or agreements (KKE, A&P, KKE reimbursable expenses, material testing/inspection). Contingencies and other costs are estimated at 3% or $1,279,031. Liska suggested that this contingency be held onto once bids are received in case anything happens on site. With regard to SAC/WAC charges, they are normally in the area of $400,000. Sawatzke felt the County should be charged sewer/water charges based on a 300-bed facility (400-bed facility less credit for the 100-bed facility that is being abandoned). The total project cost is estimated at $53,871,714.
Building construction costs of $44,823,933 are based upon the conventional boiler/chiller system. Two options are available for cells (precast vs. steel). Proposed alternates are listed on the last page of the document including a geothermal system in lieu of a conventional system (1,461,739 add); steel cells in lieu of precast cells ($1,066,066 deduct); deletion of a 60 precast cell pod ($4,342,932 deduct); and deletion of a 60 steel cell pod ($4,205,696 deduct). Sawatzke inquired on the rationale of bidding with an add alternate. Liska said this process is easier as it directs specific bidders to pay attention to alternates. In addition, the County may not receive a dollar for dollar return on a deduct. Almost every bid category will be impacted by an add on. Russek stated another advantage of an add on is the contractor already has all of the equipment on site.
Heeter did not envision the costs to be as high as presented. She had estimated $30-$35 million to constituents and felt some reductions needed to be made. Lindemann said their desire is to proceed as outlined and to attempt to find ways to pare the project down closer to $30-$35 million. Sawatzke identified potential savings through not constructing one pod, not using as much glass on the exterior of the building, reducing the size of the building entry, removing the dome focal point, and the reduction of square footage in the LEC office area. Russek did not favor a pod sitting empty but felt consideration should be given to costs associated with construction in the future when the space is needed. Miller said a lot of time has been spent planning for efficient use of space. He did not feel they could squeeze more efficiencies out of the space and reasonably look at a 20-year building. The estimated cost of $35 million was from a few years ago. Such things as inflation and an increased tax base have resulted in the figure rising to the $42 million figure. Torfin said there was currently an average inmate population of 130-135. Heeter referenced the $35 million figure and said that figure was discussed as recently as several months ago when the contracts were signed with KKE and A&P. Lindemann concurred. Heeter was pleased with the schematic design but said the Board has to be responsible and diligent with taxpayer funds. Lindeman stated that KKE will work with A&P to look at the structure and mechanical system. To reduce the program would, in effect, be a redo. With the deducts presented of $5.5 million, that would bring the project to the $38 million range. Another approach would be for the Board to set a $35 million ceiling. KKE would then go to operations and cut space. Sawatzke did not desire to cut the project to $35 million and eliminate something needed. The only exception would be the extra pod. If it was not needed, it should not be included. He felt the building should be constructed with solid brick walls and not all dressed up. Mattson was not ready to make a decision as they had only received the materials today.
Lindemann said they were seeking acceptance of the Schematic Design Report and authority to proceed into the Design Development stage. They have met their contractual obligation to date by meeting with users, taking the program and converting it to a design level program, and the work completed with the County’s consultant. The KKE Contract has points designed within it to allow the County to step back for a week or two. The Schematic Design is a snapshot of where the project is as of today. The discussion that transpired today on changes and cost is anticipated and obligates KKE to make changes during the Design Development Phase (120 days). Lindemann suggested taking the next 2-3 weeks to review the suggestions. KKE will work with A&P to try to identify possible cost savings. He requested authority to proceed and to return on 11-07-06 to present any revisions. Sawatzke clarified that any additional thoughts or ideas could be relayed to KKE. Sawatzke moved to accept the Schematic Design Report from KKE acknowledging the Schematic Design Phase has been completed. The motion further requests that KKE implement the suggestions made today for cost saving measures and proceed to the Design Development Phase. The motion was seconded by Russek and carried 5-0.
Aggregate & Ready Mix. $525.00
Albertville Body Shop Inc. 3,055.87
Allina Health Systems 500.00
American Messaging 1,421.53
Ameripride Linen/Apparel 211.45
Ancom Technical Center 1,063.13
Annandale Rock Products 223.40
Anoka Co. Juvenile Center 2,366.00
Aramark Corr. Services 5,837.96
B & D Plumbing & Heating 1,949.00
Bachman Printing 297.05
Lawrence Bauman 548.79
Beltrami Co. Treasurer 326.00
Matthew Bender & Co. Inc. 246.49
Black Box Resale Services 1,191.74
Bristows Kawasake & Polaris 601.43
Buffalo Bituminous 21,390.54
City Buffalo 51,121.49
CADD Engineering Supply 270.00
CDW Government Inc. 905.00
Comm. of Transportation 1,100.00
Computer Prof. Unlimited 1,336.68
Country Inn 355.90
Dental Care Assoc. Buffalo 532.00
Dept. of Public Safety 8,430.00
Design Electric Inc. 76,051.30
Karen Determan 157.98
Ralph Douglas 562.14
E. Central Reg. Juvenile 17,100.00
Nicholas Eastman 125.00
Emergency Physicians 555.75
Tom Feddema 117.48
G C Concrete Group 398.04
Raymond Glunz 100.00
Gloria Gooler 161.68
Granite City Iron Works 300.00
Annette Habisch-Peterson 145.00
Hancock Concrete Products 920.16
Hawthorn Suites Duluth 212.44
Karla Heeter 165.98
Hillyard Floor Care Supply 3,379.41
Interstate Automotive 143.77
Intoximeters Inc. 878.63
Chris Jahnke 249.65
Jerrys Towing & Repair 372.76
Arlen Johnson 200.00
Brian Johnson 246.44
Kevin Johnson 200.00
Klatt True Value Electric 104.57
Lake Superior College 800.00
Lakedale Telephone Co. 564.84
Lawson Products Inc. 703.84
Lorman Education Serv. 339.00
Maple Lake Lumber Co. 298.71
Marco Business Products 1,397.81
Marks Standard Parts 3,841.70
Donita Martin 422.75
Dick Mattson 330.31
McCombs Frank Roos Assoc. 635.25
Julie Menken 156.00
Mid-Minn.Hot Mix Inc. 1,395.81
Millenium Hotel Mpls. 145.77
MN Assn. of Co. Probation Off. 100.00
MN BWSR 1,586.34
MN Corrections Assoc. 645.00
MN Counties Comp. Coop 4,560.83
MN Office of Enterprise Tech. 172.31
MN Prevention Resource Ctr. 320.00
MN Spring & Suspension 490.97
MN State Auditor 2,105.75
Morries Buffalo Ford Merc. 11,788.00
Mumford Sanitation 173.16
Nextel Communications 1,137.55
N Suburban Towing Inc. 337.83
Office Depot 1,296.60
David Pederson 222.25
Wallace Peterson 109.03
Precision Prints of Wright Co. 1,186.41
Prosource One 1,252.96
Reds Cafe 426.00
Rhodes Lock & Glass 297.25
Royal Tire Inc. 6,148.29
Ruttger’s Bay Lake Lodge 1,955.40
Ryan Motors Inc. 760.19
Donald Schmidt 330.70
Sheriffs Youth Program 1,112.40
Software House Int’l 204.48
State Supply Co. 423.92
Nancy Stephenson 103.73
University of Minnesota 935.00
University of MN Extension 608.70
Unlimited Electric Inc. 3,069.12
Veit & Company 13,000.50
Shawna Vollbrecht 125.00
George Warzinik 374.98
Waste Management TC W 598.18
West Payment Center 1,222.18
Westside Equipment 2,059.23
Wright Co. Highway Dept. 72,342.99
Wright Co. Journal Press 260.48
Wright Lumber & Millwork 184.77
Zack’s Inc. 1,088.96
Zee Service Company 101.02
44 Payments less than $100 2,399.00
Final total $361,842.19
The meeting adjourned at 12:40 P.M
Published in the Herald Journal Nov. 27, 2006.