Wright County Board Minutes

NOVEMBER 14, 2006

The Wright County Board met in regular session at 9:00 A.M. with Heeter, Sawatzke, Mattson, Russek and Eichelberg present.

On a motion by Russek, second by Eichelberg, all voted to approve the 11-07-06 minutes as presented.

Petitions were accepted to the Agenda as follows: Consent Item A1, “Performance Appraisal for Sharon Anderson, Recorder’s Office” (Norman); 9:10 A.M. Item, “2006 Natural Resources Block Grant” (Norman); Item For Consid. #2, “Refer To Budget Committee Discussion With Anoka County Representatives On Medical Examiner Contract” (Norman). On a motion by Eichelberg, second by Russek, all voted to approve the Agenda as amended.

Russek moved to approve the Consent Agenda, second by Eichelberg. Richard Norman, County Coordinator, requested that Item D1, “Approve Appointment Of Lt. Joseph Hagerty To The Position Of Chief Deputy, Step 9, Eff. 11-20-06” be pulled and referred to the Personnel Committee for salary discussion. Norman discussed this with the Sheriff prior to the meeting. The request would include not taking action on the appointment until after the Committee Meeting. The motion and second accepted the amendment to the motion removing Item D1 from the approval of the Consent Agenda. The motion carried 5-0 to approve the remainder of the Consent Agenda:


1. Performance Appraisals: S. Rief, Aud./Treas.; J. Martinson, Hwy.; B. Rhineberger, P&Z; S. Anderson, Recorder.


1. Approve Abatement, PID #116-030-000010, Backes Companies Inc. (City of Waverly).


1. Accept The Findings & Recommendations Of The Planning Commission For The Following Rezonings:

A. Gerald Knott (Albion Twp.). On a vote of 6/1 the Commission recommends approval of rezoning 1 acre of the Goelz Property (to be added to residential plan proposed from AG & S-2 to R-1 & S-2).

B. Gregory Holt (Cokato Twp.). Commission unanimously recommends approval of rezoning of 20 acres in the NE corner of farm (description to be determined by survey) from AG to A/R.


2. Authorize Signatures On Influenza Pandemic Planning Grant.

Bob Hiivala, Auditor/Treasurer, recommended approval of a plat, Waverly Trail. On a motion by Russek, second by Mattson, all voted to approve a plat, “WAVERLY TRAIL,” as submitted by John S. Stenehjem, fee owner, of the following property described as: Gov. Lot 1, Sec. 2, Township 119, Rge. 26, except the W 630.00 ft. as measured at right angles to the W line thereof; with all outstanding taxes, including green acre liability, if any, having been paid; the park dedication fee has been paid (#102658); there are no new roads involved; and the title opinion prepared by George C. McDonald, examining attorney, and the accompanying consent to plat document #921384 from the mortgagee, have been reviewed by Thomas C. Zins, Assistant Wright County Attorney, who finds the plat to be ready for recording.

The claims listing was discussed. Hiivala anticipates receiving all invoices related to the Election by the end of the month. The claims listing includes a claim Election Systems & Software ($4,505.18) for election supplies. Significant costs have been incurred relating to the Election and will be billed out based upon a formula from the Secretary of State’s Office. Russek referenced a claim on Page 10 for a chainsaw for the Parks Department from Fastenal Company ($169.53) and indicated it is probably for a more powerful one due to the cost. On a motion by Mattson, second by Russek, all voted to approve the claims as listed in the abstract, subject to audit.

A Budget Committee meeting was held on 11-08-06. At today’s County Board Meeting, Russek moved to approve the minutes, seconded by Mattson, carried unanimously:

Proposed Fee Changes. Copies of proposed fee changes were distributed. The proposals include the Departments of Human Services, Information Technology, Planning & Zoning, and Surveyor. Also distributed were updated proposed fee changes for the Surveyor Department and Information Technology Departments. Jobe outlined justification for fee increases for the Surveyor Department:

A. Plat Checking fees will be increased to $300 plus $35/lot based on rationale that the Department is spending time correcting errors of survey firms. Parcel Mapping and Aerial Photography fees will be combined instead of having two different rates. The per lot fee includes an increase in aerial photography fees from $5 to $10 based on what is needed to fund future photography. Fewer lots per plat are being seen. This fee is consistent with fees charged by surrounding counties.

B. Map costs will increase. With the purchase of a large scale plotter, color maps are now available.

C. Custom Jobs will be added to the Schedule at $50/hr for staff time plus print charges/digital data fees. This is consistent with fees charged by some other Wright County Departments.

Pooler contacted “collar counties” and counties involved in GIS to obtain digital data fees. Those polled had a fee range of $50-75 for digital data. The information obtained did not include justification of fees. Swing said the County currently provides a free exchange of information to governmental entities. Fees proposed by the Surveyor include data provided at half price to the public sector. He suggested resurrecting a draft partnership agreement with cities outlining collaboration on data. He supported the proposed fee structure if an exception were made for cities involved with the partnership agreement. Jobe said this issue was recently discussed by staff from the Surveyor and Information Technology Departments. He viewed the data as a product because of its capabilities, differing from individual data. Because of staff hired and products purchased, he felt government entities should be charged. Norman said the issue of charging varying costs to the public vs. government entities should be addressed. In addition, the partnership agreement presented to the cities should reflect that any data obtained from the County should not be provided by the City to others at a cost. Swing favored a partnership with governmental entities to service the public. The Committee noted that although this is a good concept, the County many times pays for services provided by cities and does not received reduced rates. Discussion occurred on justification for establishing fees. Norman stated there are two ways to establish fees. The first involves statutory authority. The second involves fees set by the County Board. The fees must be reasonable and relate to the actual cost of providing information. A profit cannot be realized. Fees can include such things as staff time, print charges, and digital data costs. Asleson said Statutes reflect that fees can be established if there is not another statute elsewhere setting the fee and if the County is providing the service. The statute does reflect the process of how fees can be set. They must be justified and a logical explanation should be documented of how they were established. Statute would need to be consulted for a determination on how to charge for employee time. With regard to custom jobs, it would need to be determined whether the data was readily available or whether staff time was required to produce it. The Board could adopt the fees and a public hearing must be held unless statute reflects otherwise. Norman said the goal is to set an annual public hearing to review proposed changes to the fee schedule. If adopted, the fees would be effective January 1st of the following year. It was the consensus that Departments should further review their fees for service proposals and consult with Asleson if needed. The meeting was recessed to 11-15-06 at 9:00 A.M. (End of Budget Committee Minutes)

A Building Committee meeting was held on 11-08-06. At today’s County Board Meeting, Sawatzke questioned the possibility of the Highway & Surveyor Departments drawing up the specifications for the parking lot due to their expertise. It was explained that Otto Associates have already drawn up the specifications and was asked to modify them. Mattson moved to approve the minutes and recommendations. The motion carried 5-0 on a second by Russek:

Third Floor Remodeling (Human Services Board Item).

West Parking Lot Expansion. The County Board recently approved purchase of a property to the West of the Courthouse, allowing expansion of the West parking lot. Norman suggested that Otto Associates rewrite the specifications for the property to reflect the maximum parking spaces and electrical requirements. A CUP may be required from the City of Buffalo. Otto has requested to update the topographical drawings at an extra cost. The County Surveyor’s Department is checking to see if the County holds updated topographical drawings. An estimated 77 parking spaces will be added. Recommendation: Authorize removal of the home and utilize the services of Otto Associates to draw up specifications. Bids will be let in early 2007. (End of Building Committee Minutes)

A Deferred Compensation Committee meeting was held on 11-07-06. At today’s County Board Meeting, the request to withdraw funds for Hawkins was discussed. Sawatzke said an opinion has been received from the Attorney’s Office since the Committee meeting. Brian Asleson, Chief Deputy Attorney, indicates that Hawkins should be allowed to remove all funds from his deferred compensation account. Sawatzke moved to approve the minutes and recommendations, including authorizing Hawkins to remove all funds from his account. The motion was seconded by Mattson and carried 5-0:

Request To Withdraw Funds, Unforeseeable Emergency, Kayla Morrissette. The Committee reviewed Morrissette=s request to withdraw all funds from her deferred compensation account. It was determined that the circumstances meet the definition of an unforeseeable emergency. Recommendation: Allow employee to withdraw her funds from the Deferred Compensation Program.

Request To Withdraw Funds, Unforeseeable Emergency, Virgil Hawkins. The Committee reviewed Hawkins’ request to withdraw all funds from his deferred compensation account. The Committee recommends that $2,500 be allowed to be withdrawn with the understanding that an additional amount may be allowed pending an opinion from Brian Asleson, Chief Deputy Attorney. (End of Deferred Compensation Committee Minutes)

A Personnel Committee meeting was held on 11-08-06. At today’s County Board Meeting, Eichelberg moved to approve the minutes and recommendations, seconded by Russek. Mattson referenced the minutes which reflect that no city contracts have been declined. Sawatzke stated the only contract for enforcement of criminal ordinances would be with the City of Annandale. The other contracts with cities relate to law enforcement. The motion carried 5-0 to approve the minutes:

Change 4/5’s Secretary Position To Full Time, County Attorney Department. Kelly requested that the position held by Luann Winterhalter be increased to full-time, effective 12-04-06. The request will not impact the 2006 budget because of staff turnover and an employee on medical leave (an estimated $7,400 savings). In 2007, savings will be realized with the recent hire of an Attorney who will be paid at a lower step than the employee replaced. Kelly does not intend to request additional staff in 2007. He could not project what staff needs will be in 2008. No City contracts have been declined for 2007 and the City of Annandale has given verbal confirmation that they will proceed with a contract. Recommendation: Approve request.

Policy On Monitoring Use Of Technologies. Various methods are available to monitor employee use of technologies including camera surveillance of buildings, card key access, and use of the phone, computer, internet and email. It was the consensus that a policy should be developed reflecting what methods the County can utilize. Recommendation: Norman and Swing will consult with the County’s Labor Law Attorney to discuss what methods the County should utilize and how they should be implemented.

24/7 Support Requirements & IT Personnel Plans. Swing brought forth discussion on the need for 24/7 support of systems, the ability of IT staff to access confidential data, and the BCA requirement for background checks of employees. Currently, the IT Department utilizes an on-call list for after hour support of 24/7 systems. This list is comprised of four volunteer Exempt and Union employees. The average occurrence for after hours support is once every two months. Norman said the Union Contract contains a scheduling section reflecting that scheduling can occur outside of normal work hours. The section dealing with overtime states that employees are paid for a minimum of two hours if called in during their scheduled time off. Swing said 24/7 system support is necessary for the Sheriff Department. On call employees troubleshoot and coordinate after hour incidences with vendors. A poll of metro and collar counties was completed reflecting methods implemented and compensation provided for 24/7 on-call support. Swing supported the same in Wright County to reduce system vulnerabilities. Norman suggested hiring future staff on a non-traditional schedule to accommodate these incidences. The Administration Department is currently working on the issue of background checks. Recommendation: Swing will obtain information on methods used by other counties for 24/7 on call support.

Performance Appraisal – Tom Salkowski, Planning & Zoning Administrator. Based on five appraisals submitted, the Committee recommends an overall rating of “Exceptional.”

Performance Appraisal – Genell Reese, Veterans Service/Civil Defense Director. Based on five appraisals submitted, the Committee recommends an overall rating of “Superior.” The Committee further recommends that Reese be reappointed Veterans Service Officer for a four year term commencing February 1, 2007. (End of Personnel Committee Minutes)

Norman was previously directed to contact Anoka County to set up a negotiation session on the Medical Examiner Contract. Since that meeting, Norman said the Anoka County Administrator passed away. Norman is now communicating with Division Director Jerry Soma. Soma said that the rates for the Contract are not negotiable. He and one Anoka County Commissioner would like to meet with Wright County’s Budget Committee on 11-22-06 to discuss Anoka County’s budget. Transport costs are included with the contract. In addition, the Anoka County Board is expending $87,000 to Midwest Forensics for the remainder of 2006. Anoka County is purchasing all equipment from Midwest Forensics for the Anoka County operation at a cost of about $200,000. They will not charge other contract counties for equipment, administrative costs, or general liability coverage for their office. It is presumed that Sherburne County will vote at their meeting today to proceed with a contract with Anoka County for Medical Examiner Services. This would result in a lowered rate to Wright County. McLeod County joined for 2007. Eichelberg moved to refer to the 11-22-06 Budget Committee discussion with Anoka County on Medical Examiner Services. The motion was seconded by Russek and carried unanimously.

At 9:30 A.M., Heeter closed the bid process for the sale of a one-half acre parcel in Middleville Township. Norman said the advertisement reflects a minimum bid requirement of $4,400. One bid was received from Melissa and Winston Shelton in the amount of $4,500. The bid includes a money order for 10% of the bid price. The bidders are the owners of the adjacent property. Russek inquired whether a building entitlement was included with the sale of the property, as it is a lot of record. Sawatzke said he and Mattson served on the Committee which reviewed the sale. Both the Wright County Planning & Zoning Office and Middleville Township Planning & Zoning are of the opinion that the lot is not suitable for building. The advertisement reflected this was not a buildable lot. Russek said there still could be a building entitlement. Asleson said the advertisement reflected the lot would be considered unbuildable per Wright County zoning regulations. This is based upon the size of the lot and the terrain. Asleson will contact both the Planning & Zoning Office and Middleville Township on the building entitlement. A requirement of the sale to this bidder is that this parcel must be combined with their land so it is not a separate parcel of record. Per discussion at the Committee Meeting, Asleson said the selling price would have been substantially higher had a building entitlement been attached to the parcel. The advertisement does indicate that the County can reject any and all bids. Sawatzke said it should be made clear that consistent with Committee and Township recommendation, the property must be combined to create one parcel and it would not contain a building entitlement. Russek moved to lay the bid over for one week to allow Asleson to research the issue, seconded by Mattson, carried 5-0.

The meeting was recessed at 9:36 A.M. and reconvened at 9:50 A.M.

Norman requested that the Board revisit Consent Agenda Item D1, “Approve Appointment Of Lt. Joseph Hagerty To The Position Of Chief Deputy, Step 9, Eff. 11-20-06” which was pulled and referred to the Personnel Committee for discussion. Sheriff Gary Miller recommends that the appointment of Joe Hagerty as Chief Deputy Sheriff become effective 11-20-06 and the salary for the position be referred to the Personnel Committee. Russek moved to approve that recommendation, seconded by Eichelberg, carried 5-0. Congratulations were extended to Hagerty on his appointment. The current Chief Deputy Sheriff, Rollie Helgeson, will retire on 11-17-06 after approximately 32 years of employment. The Board extended thanks to Helgeson for his service to Wright County.

KKE Architects and Adolphson & Peterson (A&P) presented an update on the Design/Development Phase and associated budget for the new Jail/Law Enforcement Center (LEC). Randy Lindemann, KKE, said the Schematic Design Phase was accepted by the Board on 10-10-06. The Design Development Phase was started (120 days) and encompasses changes to the Schematic Design. The Board previously directed KKE to look at ways to reduce the project costs. Lindemann said they were not looking for a decision on what was being presented. The Board could take two weeks to review the information.

Mattson referenced the tremendous gravel reserve on site and questioned why the plans did not reflect stockpiling or material removal. He was concerned with the County building on a site which contains gravel when residents are told by the County that gravel pits are necessary. Lindemann responded that a meeting was held with Wayne Fingalson, Highway Engineer, during the past week on gravel mining. He referenced the changes in drawings distributed today on the architectural site plan. Because of the gravel resource, the building is proposed to be constructed 250’ to the east. Earlier, the plans reflected the edge of the building being located 450’ from Braddock Avenue. The revised plans reflect 750’ from Braddock Avenue. During the meeting held with Fingalson on gravel mining, Fingalson indicated the best gravel would be located at the western edge of the site. Parking lots and drives were reduced. The public entry parking lot was reduced from 84 to 64 vehicles. The fire road was also reduced. The connection to Church Avenue, the Bremer property, and the Historical Society would be deferred until the TH 25 project is completed. The biggest stride came in terms of grading, which David Rey from Anderson/Johnson would address. Work was completed with the landscape architect to devise a way to drain the site with buried culverts and bio-swales on the north and south sides. Drainage in this fashion would occur from the west parking lot, the roof, and major staff parking lot. Norman questioned the reduction in parking spaces and whether that would meet the City of Buffalo’s requirements for public parking. Lindemann said they believed it would but they need to work through the City’s CUP process. Lindemann said there is the issue of expandability. As the building pad moves nearer to TH 25, the image reflects that a future Courthouse would be located right next to the Bremer property. The Bremer property would become a larger issue if expansion is planned.

Lindemann introduced David Rey, Anderson/Johnson Civil Engineer, who is working with KKE to assure the building is sited properly and drains properly, while trying to extract the most gravel. Rey provided information on the grading plan and the methodology used to establish the grade. He referenced the low point of the site, near the culvert on TH 25, which drains properly as it exists today. The plan would be to connect to the culvert with a pipe through the ditch, up the hill to a pond. All storm water would be piped to a pond. A minimal grade would be seen in the parking area. The question was how to build the building at a lower elevation in order to recover as much gravel as possible. This was accomplished by draining storm water into swales and the building elevation was dropped 4’ from the original study. With shifting the location of the building 250’ to the east, it would allow excavation to the same elevation as the pit today (1004’). This would generate approximately 545,000 cubic yards of material which could be mined. Heeter questioned whether the site would look similar to a shallow pit. Rey responded that they expect dry conditions on site because of gravel soils. Over time, maintenance will be required due to such things as grass clippings and leaves. The landscape architects will allow for infiltration to occur.

Mattson asked how deep they would probe from the normal elevation of the plan. Rey said they would go down to the 1004’ elevation which is the same as the pit. That is the assumption at this point, but this could vary dependent upon soil conditions. For the purpose of the building design, they could elect to go deeper or extend the soil borings. Soil borings prove to be relatively inexpensive based on the information they provide. Sawatzke asked if the 1004’ elevation was the lowest point of the drainage pond, footings and floor level. Lindemann explained that the TH 25 surface elevation is 1004’ to 1010’. Their first plans reflected about 75,000 cubic yards of gravel. After meeting with Fingalson, they realized how far off this estimate was. In a week’s time, they have revamped the site. Based on Fingalson’s recommendation and the grading plan proposed by Rey, 545,000 cubic yards of material is estimated. The area to the north will yield another 363,000 cubic yards or a total of about 900,000 cubic yards of excess material. It is unknown whether this would all be gravel. In response to Russek, Rey pointed out different site elevations. The parking area is about 1022’, to the east is 1010’-1012’, and another area is 1024’. Sawatzke questioned whether there was a consensus between KKE and the Highway Engineer on elevation. Although not every yard of gravel can be saved, the County would strive to save as much as possible. Lindemann said they agree in principal. They don’t want to locate a public safety center at an elevation lower than the spill line of the site. Fingalson’s goal is to extract as much gravel as possible. The plan reflects a good balance between the two, although Fingalson has not had an opportunity to review it. Sawatzke said he did not want to create a situation where gravel is removed and other fill is brought in. Lindemann said the figure of 545,000 cubic yards is the net figure. Some engineered soil will be brought back under the building. One area that is not completely reconciled is the location of the geo-thermal well pit. If this system is elected, the location of the field would need to be addressed. Soil would need to be brought back to a level to allow the system to work. They would not bring in any additional fill other than what is normally required under a building. They do not know the bearing capacity of the gravel and whether it is adequate. RFP’s have been published and proposals received for subsurface preparation for soil borings. The recommendation on this will not be brought forth at this time. If tests are performed down 35’ and the site is lowered 18’, that is a 53’ range. If the County approves of the 900,000 cubic yard figure for excavation of gravel and the use of bio-swales to make drainage work, they will then address the subsurface proposals. Sawatzke questioned the value of gravel versus material brought in for fill. Lindemann said gravel values are between $4-8 per cubic yard. A&P estimates compacted engineering fill at $10-$11. The fill under parking lots and the building will be more expensive. That is why they have incorporated Fingalson’s suggestions on moving the building site and lowering the elevation. He felt they had reached the best solution for the site based upon deferring the southern entry drive and extending the pit up to the single drive proposed. Heeter questioned the location of the geo-thermal system. Lindemann said the northern area would be proposed where the staff parking areas are located. Work to relocate pipes in the mechanical room would be required. Fingalson felt this was a step in the right direction. The main discussion when he met with KKE was the potential of moving the site across the road due to the amount of gravel affected. Another option discussed would be to do something with the crossing under TH 25 beyond the scope of the Architect, going in at a lower elevation with a tile line. This option would not depend on the current culvert but would open up other drainage issues to Lake Pulaski.

Mattson said the design reflects a proposed future regional radio tower and asked whether gravel would be extracted from that area also. Fingalson said he anticipated this and it made sense to do so prior to the tower being located. Russek questioned water drainage patterns. Rey responded that civil engineer rules indicate that the rate and volume cannot be changed from what is discharged now. Sawatzke asked whether the elevations were consistent with programming documents prepared by DLR. Lindemann said he did not recall elevations being included. He said KKE was unaware of the gravel resources until they met with Fingalson.

Cliff Buikema, KKE Project Manager, presented information on the building floor plan changes and the savings. Over the past 5 weeks, KKE has worked to reduce the size and cost of the building while trying to maintain the function. Meetings were held with the Sheriff Department.

In the LEC, the building size was reduced by taking footage from every grid. The corridors were reduced from 6’ to 5’. The garage width was also reduced. In the Jail Administration/locker area, a toilet was removed. Those changes are on the first floor. On the second floor of the LEC (office area), the size of the print was reduced making it more compact. The major change was moving the mechanical room from the roof to the basement (lower level) to save square footage. Mattson questioned the logic of housing women inmates at the current jail and housing two male areas at the future jail. Heeter said it would be cost prohibitive to run two facilities (laundry/kitchen/staffing). Buikema said in planning, they tried to make space as generic as possible so it could house different types of inmates dependent upon the size of the population. Inmates could be moved to make the most efficient use of space. Sawatzke referenced the fitness area and asked what changes had been made. Buikema said two things occurred. The female locker room was previously located in this area and was moved across the hall next to the male locker room. The area now houses a mechanical room which used to be located on the roof. The fitness area is now 800 square feet and is a narrow area, appropriate for exercise equipment. With regard to changes to the jail, 10’ was removed from the gym. The side aisles are narrower. The kitchen was reduced by 8’ removing the service corridor. The vehicle sally port was reduced by 5’. The general housing area was redesigned. The large direct supervision area will have pre-fabricated cells to make more efficient use of cells. In general, about 6,200 square feet was removed from the building but function was retained.

Sawatzke referenced the change of courtyards from triangular to rectangular shape and questioned whether the design was for exterior lighting. Buikema indicated this was the case, that they were trying to provide lighting for those with indirect supervision. The DOC requires lighted windows for those cells. The exercise areas could be designed for indoor and outdoor windows which would allow the use of outside air through windows. However, the windows are expensive due to the secure screens required. The courtyards were considered as outdoor recreation space in lieu of this option and would provide a dual function. For now, they are designed with paved concrete.

Norman referenced the number of private offices in the Sheriff Administration building. Assuming the plan encompasses 20 years, he inquired whether all offices would be constructed at the onset. Buikema said the plan is to build them right away. In terms of staffing, only a few offices would not be utilized. Most of the expansion is in the clerical area (open office space). About one-third of those workstations would not be required in the beginning. The option would be to not purchase the furnishings at the onset. Norman said the Architectural Digest magazine recently showed an office building meeting the goal desired to bring more natural light deeper into office spaces by locating private offices on the interior and placing modular offices near the windows. Buikema said those options were reviewed. Because of the ratio of private offices to open spaces, it would not be feasible to place the open areas on the perimeter. To bring natural light into the center of the space, they are looking at doing so through sloped structures on the roof. The original drawing included an entire floor over the top of the LEC with a mechanical penthouse located between. The mechanical room will be moved to the lower level and sloped structures will be used for lighting. The removal of the penthouse resulted in a reduced cost.

Discussion led to the exterior of the building. The drawings provided reflect the building looking at it from the southwest. The plan was revised to assign windows where daylight was specifically needed. Sawatzke felt clear windows should be used versus colored. With regard to the LEC, Lindemann said the issue of where to provide natural light has been a lifelong debate (private offices vs. open spaces). He recommended the use of the stoops on the roof to provide natural light to this area. The plan presented on 10-10-06 called for 100% glass on the exterior of the LEC. The plan has been revised to include 70% solid walls and 30% glass. On the drawings, the darker areas of the LEC and the bottom half of the jail are proposed with precast sandwich panels or precast concrete. The upper portion of the LEC has a band with punched openings for windows. There are some punched openings in the lower level. The previous plan reflected a lobby area. Work is underway on the lobby plan and it is not reflected in the drawings being presented today. The idea is to have a 70%/30% split between solid and glass. The round forms were removed as well as the dome. The lobby was simplified. Lindemann concluded that there are another 75 days remaining in the Design Development Phase. He asked for Board direction on size and what would be included. They would then come back with a specific design.

The meeting was recessed at 10:42 A.M. and reconvened at 10:51 A.M.

Mark Liska, A&P, introduced Project Manager Tara Martin who will be located on site, and Estimator Bill Blotske, Estimator, who has attended meetings with the design team and staff. He said Blotske would address the methodology for changes in cost from 10-10-06 to today. Martin would summarize the cost reductions to date. Blotske said evised costs are based on the information provided on changes to the plan by KKE. Instead of completing an entire new estimate, they based their cost estimates on the changes to the original schematic of 10-10-06. This was done based on time and efficiency. From here, they would proceed into the Design Document Phase which is a separate estimate from the Schematic Design Phase.

Martin provided an overview of changes as outlined on the Schematic Estimate-Design Options/Value Analysis. Items 3-8 relate to roads and parking lots and provide approximately $313,000 in savings. The use of swales was not included at the time the cost savings was drawn up and has not yet been evaluated. Items 9 & 12 address design efficiency cost savings at about $1.1 million. Item 10b, precast wall option, provides a cost savings of $376,000. Items 11 & 13 deal with the location of the mechanical room to the first floor and the elimination of the curtain wall at the LEC, providing a cost savings of $100,000. Item 14 provides the option of early bid packages for such things as utilities, site preparation, footings, site foundations, and modules. Liska said early bid packages will minimize the effects of inflation, estimated at 6.2% per year on the construction end. With bidding such things as utilities, cell modules, site excavation and footings in the Spring, the contractors could be mobilized on site to commence work. If the Board would elect to go with the geo-thermal option, that package would be pre-bid as well. Work could be completed in the Winter. Some unanswered questions are whether gravel will be mined/stockpiled on or off site and who will take the lead in preparing bid documents. This may require a separate contract. The desire would not be to stockpile other materials and hide the site. Whoever owned the material should remove it from the site.

Sawatzke referenced Item 11 calling for the elimination of the curtain wall at the LEC and revised clerestory. Martin said the revised drawings from KKE reflected precast concrete and punched openings for windows, as well as the removal of the mechanical penthouse to the lower level. Liska said the net result is a savings of $100,000. In response to Sawatzke, Liska stated the total cost of $53,871,714 included escalated (inflationary) costs as well as contingencies. Discussion led to cell types. Liska said standard cells are modular (one piece). Efficiency is gained through stacking pieces. At the 10-10-06 meeting, a cost of $4.3 million was provided. Based on the efficiency factor over the last month, that number is probably less. When Items 9 and 12 are combined (precast cell without the 60 cell pod and the square footage reduction), the design is more compact and efficient resulting in a savings of $1.144 million.

Martin said Item 15 (enclosed “bump-in” at direct supervision) does not reflect a cost savings at this point. Item 16 relates to SAC/WAC deductions with a potential savings of $100,000. However, it is too early to pinpoint that figure. Item 17 relates to a sales tax rebate of about $900,000 which the County is eligible to receive on materials for the jail area only. Norman inquired as to whether the County would need to seek Legislative approval on the rebate. Liska discussed this with Tim Thompson, DOC, and a former DOC employee, Allen Brinkman. He also went through an analysis of two cell types with manufacturers. The response received is that although Minnesota counties are not exempt, State Statutes provide counties the ability to apply for a sales tax rebate for all construction materials included in the jail portion of the project. He understood that since Wright County houses some of its inmates elsewhere, the DOC would put in writing that this would satisfy the rebates requirements. Sherburne County utilized this rebate. Liska said the bid form would have contractors identify the amount of sales tax included in the bid for the jail portion. The bidders would be advised that at the end of the project, they would certify in writing how much State sales tax was paid on the jail portion (including backup documentation). The information would be provided to the County to submit the paperwork for the rebate. The rebate takes about two months to receive. Sawatzke referenced Item 16 relating to SAC/WAC fees estimated at a savings of $100,000. He inquired as to whether this included credits from the current jail. Liska said this figure will be based upon what happens with the current jail but it is premature to identify at this time.

Martin referenced the Probable Project/Scope Cost worksheet. The worksheet reflects estimates based upon: 1) 10-10-06 estimate for 276 precast cells; 2) 11-10-06 preliminary estimate for 276 precast cells; and 3) 11-10-06 preliminary estimate based on 216 precast cells. Building construction costs were estimated at about $44,823,000 on 10-10-06 and dropped to $41,809,000 on 11-10-06. If the County eliminates one pod, the building construction cost would be about $37 million. The total projected cost with a conventional mechanical system was projected at about $53 million on 10-10-06 and has now dropped to about $50 million for 276 precast cells. If one pod is eliminated, the cost would reduce to about $46 million. The worksheet includes cost projections for the geo-thermal and conventional heating/cooling system. It was clarified that the only difference between the 2nd and 3rd columns was the number of cells (276 to 216) at a reduction of about $4.3 million (includes other reductions). Liska said the $4.3 million figure is based on the old estimate (larger jail).

Liska provided information on steel versus precast cells. At the 10-10-06 meeting, the differences were discussed. The base estimate priced precast cells with the option to change to pre-manufactured steel cells. Since that time, more research has been done on the two cell types. Precast cells become part of the structure and the second cell becomes the roof. This is not the case with steel cells. A structure is required to be built for the steel cell. In review of the two designs based upon 216 cells, they found that precast cells are actually less expensive than steel cells ($33,000 vs. almost $35,000 per cell). Those figures should only be used for this scenario and not for other cost comparisons. Some costs associated with each are the same (i.e., slab on grade). Some manufacturers claim that they can reduce the square footage with steel cells or they can install them more quickly. Liska found this was not the case. Steel requires a structure. Using precast columns and beams, the lead time is nearly the same as precast cells (1 week later than utilizing steel cells). The steel cells may be purchased quicker but the building needs to be ready for them. In order to meet the project schedule, pre-ordering or early bid packages will be required with either precast or steel. The recommendation is not to pre-order the cells as it may result in errors. It was felt the design should be completed and the cells bid at the end with the remainder of the building. In summary, Liska said the precast cell module would be more efficient than steel based on the 216 cells.

Dan Katzenberger, EDI Mechanical Engineer, provided a handout on an energy analysis comparing two mechanical systems for the Jail/LEC (chillers/boilers versus geothermal ground source heat pump system). Using the reduced square footage of 160,000, the geothermal heat pump system is estimated to add about $1,250,000 to the project. Dependent on variations in energy rates, the simple paybacks for the system range from 5.2 to 11.6 years. If natural gas prices go up in relation to electricity prices then paybacks for the geothermal system are reduced. If natural gas prices go down in relation to electricity prices then paybacks for the geothermal are extended. Estimated savings with the geothermal system range from $108,000-$240,000 per year based on energy savings. Once the system is paid for, the energy savings will result in a positive cash flow to the County. Russek stated that as a government agency, the goal would be to conserve natural energies. With the type of payback proposed, he felt this option should be considered. The occupancy of the jail is projected at 20 years and the payback of the geothermal system is estimated at half that amount. Sawatzke added that the payback would be enough to save each year what is paid in additional bonding. He questioned maintenance of the two systems. Katzenberger explained that the central system would require annual maintenance and is at a level more sophisticated than that of the heat pump system. It has a system life of about 30 years. The geothermal system has 160 heat pumps located throughout the building requiring filter replacement every 3-6 months. The heat pumps have a life of about 10-20 years. Motor, belt or compressor repair can be handled by a local repair person. He estimated that maintenance costs would be similar with either system. Sawatzke questioned whether either system could handle expansion. Katzenberger said that in both situations, it would be better to design them today for future expansion. It would be more difficult to add a geothermal system as additional wells would be required. With a central system, it would be less expensive to buy a larger boiler and chiller to handle the future expansion. Norman asked whether the geothermal system would require maintenance staff to be licensed to operate it. Katzenberger replied that it would not. The system can be operated by custodial staff and repairs by a local repair person. Russek asked how each system handled building humidity. Katzenberger said either system would be equivalent, that they are designed to address the health, comfort and wellness in a building. Eichelberg asked how much extra cost would be associated with adding an extra pod or courts building. Katzenberger said that the difference with the extra pod would not make much difference. Energy savings would increase. If another geothermal system was added for courts in the future, the payback would be in the general neighborhood of what is projected. However, if the system were designed now to include the capabilities to handle those areas, the cost would be estimated at $2.4 million with a payback of 12-24 years. Liska clarified that the majority of upfront costs associated with the geothermal system occur with the well field (estimated at $1 million). He wanted to clarify that if any additional areas were added, this would expand the well field.

Russek cited the inflation rate at 6.2% and inquired how soon it would be until the additional pod was required and what the rate of increase was for prisoners. Capt. Gary Torfin, Jail Administrator, said the analysis completed by DLR would reflect the number of cells required and growth projections for 20 years. He said the third pod would be required sometime in the 20 year period. In response to Heeter on double bunking of inmates, Torfin said their plan is to install the wall immediately in the pod to allow for double bunking. Sawatzke said when this issue was discussed on 10-10-06, only five inmates fell into the category of indirect supervision housing. He questioned what could be done to utilize that area short term until it is needed so that it would not sit empty. Torfin said the area will be used for inmates who require segregation (weekend inmates, detox, medical, and females). Sawatzke said the proposed design would accommodate 30 more cells (60 more beds) for men in the first few years. This would provide additional time before a third pod is needed. Lindemann restated that the cells are designed to be generic, allowing for flexibility in how they are used. The cell modules will be prepped for double bunking. A decision will be made in the future which are double bunked. Lt. Pat O’Malley, Assistant Jail Administrator, said the proposed space allows them to separate inmates differently than what is currently possible. At the previous meeting, he said the number of five inmates was identified as those who require segregation. He said the number is actually much higher and there is currently not space to separate those inmates. He felt the number more correctly reflected those in disciplinary areas.

In closing, Lindemann recognized the Sheriff Department for their cooperation in the design process. He also recognized A&P’s efforts. The two decisions before the Board would be to select the size and scope of the project, and to choose an energy system (geothermal or conventional gas system). Lindemann said they would not proceed further until decisions were made. Sawatzke said he was prepared to take action today. With regard to the geothermal system, he felt the County should proceed with this method based upon payback. Russek and Sawatzke favored bidding the third pod as an alternate. Heeter felt the consensus of the Board was to proceed with geothermal in terms of cost and responsibility with energy efficiency. Mattson questioned whether the gravel situation had been settled. He referenced the value of the gravel on the site. Sawatzke said the County cannot mine so much that it is too low. Russek did not feel the County had another option for construction of a jail, other than to purchase another site which would add more to the cost. Lindemann restated that 545,000 cubic yards will be taken from the site exclusive of the northern area, which has another 362,000 cubic yards. The total is more than the anticipated goal of 840,000 cubic yards for the site. Although there is a portion under the building which will not be mined, the building must be positioned above the spill site and on suitable soil. Norman said if early bid packages are being considered, the County should meet with Springsted Financial Advisors and discuss whether there will be more than one bond issuance for the project. In relation to the gravel mining, it was felt this should be dealt with in an expedient manner as site preparation work is anticipated this Spring/Summer.

Sawatzke made a motion that the County accept every single item on the list as presented, including those items added and those items removed. The motion includes removing from the plan the 60 bed cell and including the geothermal system. Sawatzke said whether the cost of the pod was $4 million or $5 million, it was not needed for approximately 15 years. The motion was seconded by Mattson. Liska said the motion did not include a selection of either Item 10A or 10b, the precast wall option. The cost for precast wall panels ranges from $25-$35/square foot and varies dependent upon the level of finish, colors and reveals. Liska did not feel the County should elect lower than the $30 level. The panel would be simpler with the lower cost. Sawatzke and Mattson amended the motion to include a range of $25-$30/square foot for precast wall options. The motion carried 5-0. On a motion by Sawatzke, second by Russek, all voted to add gravel mining to the Transportation Committee Of The Whole Agenda on 11-28-06. A Committee Of The Whole Meeting will be held in early 2007 to discuss bonding and principal/interest payments. Springsted Financial Advisors will be invited to attend this meeting.

Bills Approved

Abrahamson/Brian. $283.46

Advantage Water Cond. 307.00

Allina Hospitals & Clinics 209.76

AME Red-E-Mix 226.47

American Messaging 640.07

Ameripride Linen & Apparel 161.00

Andersen Inc./Earl F. 306.36

Anderson/Conrad 128.61

Aramark Corr. Services 10,905.12

Asplin Oil Co. Inc./Kirk 111.86

B & D Plumbing & Heating 327.00

Boyer Truck Parts 1,177.40

Buff ‘N’ Glo Inc. 1,311.89

Buffalo Hosp.-Otpt Comm 748.32

Buffalo/City of 539.14

Business Ware Solutions 157.50

Catco Parts Service 420.54

Center Point Energy 4,275.14

Centra Sota Lake Region 1,832.57

Central MN Mental Health 647.50

Climate Air 2,260.89

Construction Bulletin 199.00

Contech Construction 9,852.60

Crysteel Distributing 5,475.17

Culligan of Buffalo 264.13

Derson Manufacturing Inc. 589.78

Election Sys. & Software 4,505.18

Fastenal Company 169.53

Feddema/Tom 366.24

Fyles Exc. & Honey Wagon 2,605.00

Gateway Companies Inc. 4,945.47

Gau/Todd 153.08

Gholson/Janet 190.90

Graphic & Printing Services 236.25

H & H Sport Shop Inc. 145.00

Herald Journal Publishing 158.72

Hillyard Floor Care Supply 781.71

Hirshfield’s Decorating Center 286.82

Holiday 8,459.51

Holthaus/Melissa 121.46

Interstate All Battery Center 216.95

Keeprs Inc. 1,017.83

Kustom Signals Inc. 179.46

Lakedale Telephone Co. 501.19

LaPlant Demo Inc. 314.30

Loberg Electric 652.65

Loffler Companies Inc. 2,729.89

Marco Business Products 256.67

Marks Standard Parts 1,602.68

Masys Corporation 2,628.87

Menards - Buffalo 640.05

Midland Corp. Benefits 997.75

MN Counties Comp. Coop 3,057.05

MN Co. Attorneys Assoc. 540.00

MN State Bar Assoc. 785.00

MN Transportation Alliance 110.00

Morries Buffalo Ford Merc 1,361.10

Munson/Margaret 302.23

Nat’l Dist. Attorneys Assoc. 210.00

Nextel Communications 915.61

Office Depot 1,790.41

Otsego/City of 868.56

Paumen Excavating 300.00

Royal Tire Inc. 1,881.49

Schliesing/Sherry 522.87

Software House Int’l Inc. 247.08

Stoll/Brian 159.75

Streichers 282.07

Super Express 192.77

Synergy Graphics 599.06

Tilsner Carton Co. 1,160.52

Tires Plus 491.13

Total Printing 350.92

Uniforms Unlimited 399.74

Unique Truck Equipment 265.79

United Rentals Hwy. Tech. 704.89

Verizon 167.74

Waste Management TC W 699.00

Wright Co. Hwy. Dept. 111.67

Wright Co. Journal Press 318.06

Wright Lumber & Millwork 315.95

Wright Soil & Water Cons 196.02

Zack’s Inc. 2,008.07

42 Pymts. less than $100 2,031.96

Final total $102,642.14

The meeting adjourned at 12:15 P.M.

Published in the Herald Journal Jan. 8, 2007.