Wright County Board Minutes
MARCH 13, 2007
The Wright County Board met in regular session at 9:00 A.M. with Heeter, Sawatzke, Mattson, Russek and Eichelberg present.
The minutes of 3-06-07 were corrected as follows per a request by the Highway Engineer: Page 5, 1st paragraph, line 10, remove “Sawatzke referenced CSAH 42” and replace it with “Sawatzke referenced CSAH 18”; Page 5, 2nd paragraph, 11th line, change from “In the interim, funding would be borrowed from the Hwy. 6 project scheduled for 2009 (State Aid project)” to “In the interim, funding would be borrowed from the Hwy. 6 project (between TH 55 and TH 24) scheduled for 2009 (Federally Funded)”; page 5, 2nd paragraph, 12th line, change from “…approved by the 7W Transportation Group…” to “…approved by the 7W Transportation Policy Group…”; Page 5, 2nd paragraph, 15th line, change from “If the Bill does not pass, $1.3 million less would be available to fund the CSAH 6 project in 2009” and replace it with “If the Bill does not pass, up to $380,000 less would be available to fund the CSAH 6 project in 2009”; Page 5, 20th line, change from “The County will not receive Federal funding in time for the project” and replace it with “The County may not receive Federal funding in time for the project.” Eichelberg moved to approve the minutes as corrected, seconded by Mattson, carried 5-0.
On a motion by Heeter, second by Eichelberg, all voted to approve the Agenda as presented.
On a motion by Mattson, second by Eichelberg, all voted to approve the Consent Agenda:
1. Performance Appraisals: T. Fedor, A. Riebel, Parks; C. Davis, W. Stephens, P&Z; G. Eldred, Sheriff.
2. Set County Auction For 6-02-07 @ 10:00 A.M., Public Works Site.
3. Revise Photo ID Badge/Door Key Card Policy To Authorize The Administration Department The Ability To Set The Fee For Lost Card Keys.
B. PLANNING & ZONING
1. Accept The Findings & Recommendations Of The Planning Commission For The Following Rezoning:
A. Martin Weber (Marysville Twp.). Planning Commission unanimously recommend approval of the request to rezone appx. 37 acres from AG to A/R.
Bob Hiivala, Auditor/Treasurer, presented the January Revenue/Expenditure Guidelines for approval. Eichelberg moved to approve the Guidelines, seconded by Heeter, carried 5-0.
The claims listing was discussed. Hiivala referenced a claim on Page 9, City of Montrose ($600.00) that was laid over from the last County Board Meeting. The charges relate to a contract held with the City of Montrose for high speed internet service in the Fire Department, not in the City office. Lt. Greg Findley, Sheriff Department, said the Montrose Fire Hall provides a central location between two patrol districts. Deputies utilize the Fire Department’s dial up internet service and were depleting their minutes. An agreement was reached with the City upgrading to DSL High Speed Internet. The County funds the cost difference between dial up and high speed service. Sawatzke said his concern did not relate to the amount but rather the law enforcement contract held with cities reflecting that the city is to provide a facility for deputies to operate from. He said other cities are providing office space and appropriate internet access. Lt. Findley said the contract requires office space and a phone line. In other cities, normally the network has already been established so there is no additional charge. Sawatzke recalled a similar issue with the City of Monticello but did not remember details. The position of the Board at that time was that the service was what other cities were providing and so the County should not be charged. Sawatzke said that the law enforcement contracts for 1-01-08 should be evaluated and reflect a requirement that the city should provide a phone line and acceptable internet access. Otherwise the result is additional cost to the County. State law requires the deputy cost to cities should equate to the County’s cost. Lt. Findley said the situation in Montrose differs in that deputies from both districts are utilizing the space as opposed to a larger city where only the contracted deputy utilizes the space. Mattson referenced a claim on Page 19, Mn Counties Insurance Trust ($979.00) for additional insurance, Otsego Shop, Liability Insurance. In checking the claim, Hiivala explained that the claim will be funded from Line Item 6353 which is labeled as “Liability Insurance.” The claim includes casualty insurance as well but the description of the Line Item does not change. Hiivala referenced a claim on Page 4, Wright SWCD ($118,545). This is for the State and County share of the grants listed. Hiivala said the County is always one year behind in payment to the SWCD, so they are attempting to catch up. Hiivala explained that the State does not directly send grant payments to the SWCD. The State pays the County and the County pays the SWCD. Sawatzke inquired whether the State has forwarded the 2006 payment. Hiivala said payment of a water management grant has not yet been received. The SWCD is following up on the payment but indicated that a report was turned in late. The SWCD understands the State has already forwarded the payment to the County. Hiivala said the County did receive the $10,657 Water Management Grant but not the $48,000 Wetland Conservation Grant. After further discussion, Sawatzke moved to approve the claims as listed in the abstract, subject to audit. The motion was seconded by Mattson. Hiivala referenced a claim on page 15, University of Minnesota ($255.00), Highway Department. The claim was for conference attendance by Nila Ellis. The claim has been pulled and is not reflected on the signature copy. The motion and second were amended to remove approval of that claim. The motion carried unanimously.
Tom Salkowski, Planning & Zoning Administrator, requested that the Board schedule a Planning Committee Of The Whole Meeting to discuss the NE Quadrant Plan, a Proposal for the next Planning Area, and Township Zoning. Heeter moved to schedule the meeting for 3-27-07 at 10:30 A.M., seconded by Mattson, carried 5-0.
Scott Miller, Central MN Emergency Medical Services Region Coordinator, provided an overview of the Region’s activities. The Region provides coordination and collaboration to EMS agencies throughout the 14-County Central Region. The 14 Counties involved include Benton, Cass, Chisago, Crow Wing, Isanti, Kanabec, Mille Lacs, Morrison, Pine, Sherburne, Stearns, Todd, Wadena and Wright. The EMS services 12,430 square miles and almost 200,000 people. The 2005-2007 Program areas included Pediatrics/Child Safety, Data Collection, Medical Direction, Volunteer Retention & Recruitment, Public Safety Education, CISM, and Interagency Collaboration. The CISM (Critical Stress Management) Program provides stress management training to law enforcement, ambulance and fire department personnel and has been popular in the Region. Heeter referenced an emergency situation a few years ago where this training was beneficial to those involved. The number of calls for this type of assistance is increasing and will continue to do so as calls for service increase. Revenue sources for the EMS includes the EMSRB Region Program Grant ($156,000 every two years), the EMS Relief Account (funded by seatbelt fines), and Health Resources and Services (Hospital Preparedness Group). Expenditures include direct program costs, training reimbursement, and Bioterrorism/All Hazard Preparedness. Miller said there is an effort through the Legislature to appropriate $100,000 from the General Fund to each of the Regions. Miller would like to increase participation in Wright County. Of the 27 agencies on record, 8 applied for the Program and 7 participated. A total of 10% of program funding went to Wright County agencies. One of the programs is the availability of three disaster response units which are designed to treat 50 critically injured people. These units are located in St. Cloud, Mora and Pine River. The EMS Region is in the process of writing the next grant RFP cycle for 2007-2009. A communication survey was completed in an attempt to meet the desires of the Region. It appears funding may be available for a State-wide system and may include subscriber fees as well as the main system. Miller said there is a strong correlation between those on the Task Force and those that participate in the Region. At the end of the month, the EMS will host a networking forum for Medical Directors. The Region is unique in the number of new medical directors. Ongoing advocacy includes the Statewide Radio System, Homeland Security Emergency Management, Platform Information, Region Implementation of the Statewide Trauma System, MN Dept. Health Office Emergency Preparedness, and to replace lost funding for the EMS Regions. Miller said prior to the Legislature convening this year, the Region worked with AMC and the Association of Mn Cities. Those organizations have grown to understand the purpose of the EMS. Miller requested approval of the draft letter of recommendation to the Emergency Medical Services Regulatory Board in support of the grant application. Heeter moved to support the grant with a letter of support, seconded by Sawatzke, carried 5-0. Heeter extended thanks to Miller for the outstanding job he has done.
The meeting recessed at 9:35 A.M. and reconvened at 9:40 A.M.
The Design Development Report for the new Jail/LEC was presented by KKE Architects and Adolphson & Peterson (A&P) Construction.
Randy Lindemann, KKE Architects, said the Design Development (DD) Phase is now complete and the Report is being presented for approval. The Construction Document Phase will follow. The large conceptual decisions have been made and the next step is to work with staff to select materials and systems. Lindemann said they are pleased on the project costs, which came in slightly higher than projected but within tolerance. A lot of time has been spent with Sheriff and Jail staff to meet the needs of the departments.
1. Early Bid Package Schedule.
Cliff Buikema provided an update on the schedule and design. He referenced the bi-weekly meetings held with staff over the past few months where they discussed housing, food service, booking and the needs of the LEC. They plan to carry on that type of approach during the Construction Document Phase. He extended appreciation to staff for their efforts. Meetings have also been held with State and local Code Officials. Buikema felt the project met requirements. They have coordinated work to meet the structural, mechanical, security and electrical codes. They have also worked with A&P to refine the budget and to help them understand the building. As part of the process, a decision was made to proceed with several early bid packages instead of a single phase for construction documents. The first package would include site preparation, including earth-work, utilities, and geo-thermal bore field. The second package would occur two months later and include footings and foundations; structural steel; pre-cast concrete wall panels and structural elements; and detention equipment, including pre-fabricated concrete cells. The third package would be bid in August and would include all other work, including exterior envelope, interior finishes, mechanical and electrical construction. The advantage of the accelerated schedule is that it would save inflationary costs and allow the County to adjust a future phase based on receiving bids. He noted that with approval of the early contracts, the County is doing so not knowing the total project cost. Buikema requested approval to proceed with the first bid package. The second bid package would be presented for approval on 6-05-07 and the third package on 7-26-07.
Review of Building & Site-KKE.
1. Site Plan Review.
Lindemann indicated that many changes have occurred since KKE met with the Board in November. The annexation of the site has been approved by the City of Buffalo and Buffalo Township (January). They have also gone through the City’s CUP process and the land will be classified in the Ag zone. The City approved the CUP application on 2-20-07. KKE is currently working with the City’s engineer who has asked that the technical and civil engineering information be resubmitted. This primarily relates to storm water management and the Utility Development Agreement. The City engineer is preparing the Agreement. The City has been notified that the site will need water. It would be best to have water when the geo-thermal bore field is drilled, otherwise the water would be brought in. With regard to gravel mining, the site has been lowered in many areas by seven feet. As discussed in November meetings, 75,000 cu. yds. of gravel will be stockpiled in an existing pit. All storm water will be retained in on-site retention ponds. The parking proposal was approved and will include 290 stalls (73 public, 43 work release, & 174 for LEC, Jail, Transport & staff). This also includes handicap parking. A meeting was held on 3-15-07 on the location of fire hydrants. KKE has proposed to the City and Fire Marshall that the fire loop road stop. It’s in the County’s best interest to allow for future ports development and to minimize internal road construction that has to be done. The proposal is to place the fire hydrants at the point of the public lot and at the end of the fire truck turnaround.
This will either be approved or denied by the Fire Marshall by the end of the week. With regard to the geo-thermal bore field, there were 400 wells estimated in November. The design is nearly complete and this number has risen to 474 to allow for the extra capacity for a future pod. The bore field designer has also requested that the well field be split into two locations (3 acres under the staff parking lot and 2+ acres under the public parking lot and drive). It was requested that the well field not be placed under the east/west driveway. Part of the reason for the split well field is for space and cost savings. The grading plan includes bio-filtration swales. A study was completed and the split well field was the best option. A second manifold was added on the west side of the building. The average depth of the geo-thermal bores went from 200’ to 230’ to meet capacity. A total of 208,000 lineal feet of vertical piping is required (474 wells at 230’). The horizontal piping will have 5.5 feet of ground cover. Future construction is not an option over the well fields unless they are vacated.
Mattson referenced the location of the loading dock on the north side of the building. He inquired what methods are being taken to prevent ice buildup. Lindemann said as reported in November, two wind buffers will be used and designed to be semi-permeable. The snow will be dumped or drifted past the dock. The City also had screening requirements. They are doing the best they can to buffer that area through landscaping. Buikema indicated that the question of north facing doors was brought up at the time of interview. They had choices to make. In terms of the operation of the building, the public side of the building will face the main street with service entrances to the rear. Housing will face south. The loading dock needs to be connected to the center core of the Jail facility. The first plan will be to use landscape buffering to partially shield the dock. However, they are reviewing the use of a product to melt snow for the area immediately in front of the dock. This is not included in the design or the budget. The other area that needs to be addressed are the doors to the vehicle sally port. The south side of the building is being kept open for future expansion of the Courts, and it was not desirable to place the loading dock next to Courts. Lindemann said the site decision is important as it is involved with the early site package. What is being presented is most likely what will be constructed.
2. Floor Plan Review.
Buikema stated that through weekly and bi-weekly meetings with staff, they tried to make the plans as efficient as possible. Overall, the size of the building was reduced by 2000 sq. ft. without reducing the capacity or jail size. The public lobby was reduced by 1/3 of the previous size. A decision was also made to incorporate the yard maintenance equipment and the trash into the Sheriff’s Department garage. They continue to refine the indirect housing units to make them more efficient. To meet code compliance, additional square footage is required for exits and stairwells. The requirement is for two means of egress. They also worked with the IT Department on data and electrical closet locations, resulting in minimized use of wiring and maximum efficiency of the system. Mattson said the data closet in the Human Services Center did not have air conditioning so repair was required. He asked whether that had been taken care of, and Buikema confirmed it had been. With regard to the upper level, the size of the entry lobby was reduced. The mechanical penthouse on the roof of the Sheriff’s Department was eliminated. The plan is for two mechanical rooms, each serving one floor. Mechanical rooms are located in the Jail area to serve the indirect supervision housing and on the roof to serve the direct supervision housing. Each mechanical room has a connection to the inside of the building. A stairwell will be used to access equipment.
Heeter inquired whether the courtyard will be used for recreational space. Capt. Gary Torfin indicated that in order to do so, a screen of security mesh would be required overhead. This is not planned. The courtyard area will be concrete with a floor drain and may be used by staff. If an air intake is located here, it will be a non-smoking section. Buikema said that the chillers for the Dispatch Center and equipment will be located in the Courtyard. Daylight and relief air will also be pulled from this area for the housing units. Mattson questioned space designated for vending as the vending space in the Government Center is small and warm. Buikema said vending areas will be located in the Jail staff break room, the second floor office break room, and another accessed through the main lobby or stairwell. The areas will be sized as required.
Sawatzke referenced bed capacity in the Jail. In October, 2006, the documents reflected 342 beds (240 direct housing, 86 indirect housing, and 16 double bunked in indirect housing). He questioned why the current plan did not reflect the 16 double bunked beds. Lindemann said they are included in the plan, which will allow for 342 beds when the facility is opened. However, the day room space may not support that. Smaller units will not support double bunking based on 35 sq. ft. requirements. The larger units are sized for double bunking. Sawatzke then referenced the types of inmates in indirect supervision. When this was discussed in October, only five inmates met the classification of requiring segregation or maximum security. At that time, the Board felt that 86 cells was in excess of what was needed. There was also discussion of utilizing the indirect supervision housing for females. He asked whether that was still the expectation because if it were, the 16 double bunked beds would be important. Buikema referenced the layout which reflected 12 units which were capable of being doubled bunked (24 beds). There has been some consideration of using this space for weekend inmates. Capt. Torfin said that area could potentially be used for different classifications, weekend inmates, and the overflow of female inmates. Sawatzke said bid documents should reflect the number of beds required. Russek said the same number of cells would be required whether or not double bunking was installed. Heeter said the Board previously decided to put the second bunk in on day one for efficiency. Sawatzke said it will cost less to install the second bunk initially rather than to retrofit in the future. Lindemann said one of the next steps is to consult with the Department of Corrections (DOC) on staffing. The current DOC code reflects that in indirect supervision housing when a housing officer is on the other side of the glass from the inmates, they may only supervise 40 inmates. With double bunking, the physical requirements are met but this has a significant impact on staff. Sawatzke said there would only be 32 inmates in this scenario so that would meet staffing requirements.
3. Exterior Design & Materials Review.
Lindemann said although the Jail and LEC are intended to be in the same family, their exterior design is different. The exterior of the LEC includes a very impervious, concrete design on the ground level (street level). The upper half which will be office space will include more glass. The openings were scaled back and now include punched openings. The remaining part of the exterior office area is pre-finished metal wall panels.
The Jail exterior is even more impervious. It faces south and is where the housing pods are located. Although there are some openings, they are not all glass. Although the panel opening is 2’4” by 4’, the top 8” is the actual view area. Some pods have a window into the chase area. Other pods will have borrowed light. In the indirect unit, there is the potential that an inmate will be locked in for 23 hours/day. The design team decided to provide daylight directly into cells as well as into the day rooms to address mental health issues. Color selection for the building exterior has not been completed. KKE will present this at a future date. The colors reflected in the DD Report are for illustration only. The gray area in the illustration is intended as insulated pre-cast wall panels (12” thick) and will include indentations. The finish could be sandblasted to expose aggregate. The metal wall panels on the LEC will be smooth and integrated with the window system. The upper half of the Jail and the light monitors on the LEC will be a heavy gauge pre-finished metal siding with a non-insulated concealed fastener. The split level lobby of the Jail/LEC faces southwest. The lobby entrance is a flat entrance from the parking lot and will have a small canopy. The entrance will be apparent to the public. Mattson questioned how the pre-finished metal panels will hold up during a hail storm. Lindemann said the heavy metal should hold up well unless the hail is baseball sized. He will research the hail tolerance.
A sun shade is proposed on the western facing portion of the building. Due to glazing requirements, this is one area that glare can be controlled. The western face is predominantly bunker like on the bottom, with the exception of the windows in Jail Administration and the offices above. On the south side of the building, there is a solid wall. Internally, this area will house the restrooms and elevator shaft. There is also an interface for the future Courts building (all framework can be removed allowing for an 8’-10’ opening). The mechanical piece delineates stacked mechanical rooms with no future additions. The north side of the building has space for future expansion of law enforcement. In the center bay, the pre-cast structure and pre-cast base were designed so this section can be added onto without additional structural requirements. The garage is located at the rear of the building with four bays for specialized LEC vehicles and utility space. The LEC garage will use overhead doors because of less use. A corner area off the lobby/LEC has been designated for future addition of the E911 Center. An area of the Jail roof was specially designed to accommodate future expansion. In response to Heeter, Lindemann stated that all doors in the building will have some type of security device. The vehicle sally port will be slightly larger allowing for taller bi-fold garage doors as they will open 50-100 times/day. There will be split enclosures for dumpsters and mechanical equipment. Recreational, jail programming and classroom space is included in the design. The mechanical room is located close to housing. An elevator is not required in the Jail being this is exempt from ADA code. A public elevator will be located in the office building in the lobby and another elevator is located near the bay for freight. Lindemann said in about one month, a report will be provided on colors and textures.
The meeting was recessed at 10:31 A.M. and reconvened at 10:45 A.M.
Building Cost Update-A&P
1. Construction Cost/Project Cost Update.
Dale Blotskie, A&P, said that a lot of work has been completed during the DD Phase. With the additional detail included in the DD Report and subcontractor input, they were able to determine a more accurate price for the project. About 90-95% contractor involvement occurred on pricing. The percentage of cost difference from the schematic to design phases is minimal. Usually a design contingency is carried but it was not required.
Tara Martin, A&P, provided an overview of the project costs. Information was distributed on project costs for 216 cells, both for the preliminary DD estimate provided on 11-13-06 and for the DD estimate dated 3-13-07. The probable project cost with Geo-Thermal Heating/Cooling System was estimated at $47,422,028 on 11-13-06 and is today estimated at $48,361,995.
A. Off Site Development Costs have risen from $865,087 to $1,247,676. The cost of mining/selling of mineral rights has increased by $370,000. This increase in cost is for the site to be balanced. This cost was not originally carried as the County was going to mine the 75,000 cu. yds. of gravel. If a contractor is paid to complete the work, the approximate added costs will be incurred. Off-site utility development cost estimates remained at $785,400. Proposed Braddock Avenue improvements rose from $79,697 to $92,276. The cost increase resulted with a deeper sub-cut and after more survey work was completed.
B. Site Development Costs have decreased from $707,560 to $505,000. A cost reduction resulted in water main service extension to the building, from $197,170 to $142,500. The DD drawings are more defined and have reduced the cost of utilities. The sanitary and storm water service/extension to building/pond costs decreased from $329,270 to $207,500 because of more defined drawings. The on-site drainage pond and outlet structure costs also reduced from $141,120 to $115,000 because of more defined drawings. Other site development costs remained as projected.
C. Building Construction Costs increased from $39,048,009 to $39,479,143. The increased cost relates to the additional 74 geo-thermal bores. Sawatzke inquired on the payback of the geo-thermal system from what it was projected at initially. Liska explained that payback was estimated at 8.7 years previously but he was unsure of the payback with the added cost. Russek said this would be dependent upon fuel costs.
D. Furniture, Fixtures & Equipment; Communications costs remained stationery at $1,879,314 as not much changed on what was required.
E. Professional Fees remained as projected at $3,822,340.
F. Contingencies & Other Costs rose from $1,099,708 to $1,428,522. The contingency costs increased due to the increased cost of construction. The SAC/WAC charges reduced from $400,000 to $300,000.
The first bid package will be sent out in April with the bid opening in May. The value of that bid package is approximately $4 million. This includes $3.7 million in contracts and $240,000 in soft costs.
Sawatzke inquired on the status of trees on the site that will potentially be moved. Lindemann stated that the trees that can be saved have been identified. The landscape architect has been asked to complete a plan. A meeting will be held on 3-15-07 to finalize where the trees will be moved to but no decision has been made as to the location. The trees must be moved for the mass excavation of the site and cannot be placed into their ultimate location on site until the end of the project. Possible locations for the trees to be moved to were discussed including elsewhere on the Jail/LEC site, onto Parks property or the Otsego site, or possibly give them to the City. Lindemann offered the suggestion of planting them north of the added service road to create a shelter. They could be staggered to create a wind block. The landscape architect wants them carefully sited. The Board discussed cost and felt it may be three times the cost to move new trees in. It was the consensus that several bids should be obtained to determine the cost to relocate trees. Heeter noted that the project costs did not include any technology items or the 800 Mhz Radio System.
Decisions Needed To Proceed With Design.
1. Approval of Design Development Report.
Lindemann said the Report was part of the material presented for today’s meeting. Supplemental to that is the cost sheet provided by A&P. Approval would be for those two documents along with the 116 sheets of working drawings and the 2 volumes of specifications.
Eichelberg moved to approve the Design Development Report, seconded by Heeter. Heeter indicated that she had not read the entire report and asked whether there was anything contained within the report that would raise concern. She did not want to get further into the project and run into a problem, only to have the explanation that it was contained within the report. Lindemann responded that there was not anything that caused concern for KKE or A&P. The systems proposed are conservative and appropriate for the building. He did not see anything in the report that would cause concern. The geo-bore field designer statement was conservative. He felt the report was very appropriate for this level. The Jail and Sheriff staff have done a good job of articulating needs and the proposed building systems have been matched to support their needs. Mattson questioned whether the Commissioning Agents costs were reflected in the figures presented. Buikema responded that these would fall under the consultant column and are not identified. Liska said commissioning is included for life and fire safety, which is part of the building permit process to obtain a certificate of occupancy. This cost is included in the $37 million figure. The budget does not include a full or part time commissioning agent (outside agent working directly for the County). A&P is working with staff and KKE in drafting an RFP for this purpose. In response to a question by Mattson, Lindemann stated there would be an advantage to having the commissioning agent involved in the project. Liska said it will be up to the Board whether this person is full time and what services are desired. The RFP must be specific on what the County is looking for. The commissioning agent can review drawings and design calculations, as well as being present on site. Mattson felt it would be hard for the Board to determine what that person should do. Liska said they are in the process of gathering information to form an RFP, which will be sent out to determine cost. Sawatzke then brought forth a concern on the responsibility of parties involved if something is not designed properly. His concern was adding the commissioning agent and the County becoming responsible as they hired this person. He asked if the Jail was built and there was no commissioning agent, and if KKE’s mechanical person designed the system and it didn’t work, would KKE and the engineer be responsible for making it work. Lindemann responded this would be correct, as well as the construction manager. When questioned, Lindemann reiterated the construction manager would be partially responsible. Liska said this would not be for the design but for the installation. Sawatzke then asked if the third party were added (the commissioning agent) and if the system were designed by KKE and it didn’t work, who would be responsible. Lindemann said ultimately KKE would be. If the commissioning agent wanted a change in design, they could design it to meet their requirements. The design and the building, what is delivered, would be the responsibility of KKE and the design consultant. Sawatzke asked for clarification on who would be responsible if the commissioning agent asked for a change and it was completed. Lindemann said this was a complicated question. He provided the scenario where a pump can be properly designed and specified, but installed incorrectly by the subcontractor. The problem would be identified and corrected. He felt there was no simple answer to the question. Sawatzke said if the commissioning agent were involved and employed by the County, it may create an out for KKE and A&P. Lindemann said they would still need to deliver a functioning system to the County. Either way, there would be a functioning system in the end that works. Sawatzke asked why the County would spend the extra money on a commissioning Agent. Buikema said many years ago, the engineers designed the building. Mechanical engineers knew enough about the system and took pride to make it work. There was confidence that what was designed was built properly. Over time, the systems have become complex with automatic controls and heat pumps. The old way of doing things is not enough (where the engineer came on site and made periodic inspections was not enough to make sure things were properly built). A mechanical engineer is not hired to be on site but to turn on and test systems. Commissioning came about because of the need for an independent party to test the systems both as pieces came on line and to set up procedures so things are tested and reported back. This includes testing of structural steel and concrete. Buikema compared this to an extra set of eyes. His experience has not involved finger pointing and has actually reduced that probability. He referenced Lindemann’s example. If the building were constructed as designed, the commissioning agent would set up testing procedures independently to make sure things worked properly. If not, an additional set of tasks would take place to make sure the system works better. Many times, an engineer is paid extra to be on site. In this case, the option is to look at a separate, independent person. Eichelberg questioned what the advantages/disadvantages would be and whether it cut back on change orders and cost to have an additional person on site. Buikema did not feel it would result in ultimate savings. He provided an example of a project where a commissioning agent was hired to review a project that had problems with getting air flow down stream. The agent identified the problem through drawings. Although the engineer probably should have caught this, it was caught by having an additional person review the drawings. In that case, the contractor paid for the problem as it was not built per the plan. Although this did not save money, it made the system work better over the long run. The other part is to involve the commissioning agent so he understands the system. His role is during construction and start up of the system; however, it can be helpful to have the agent involved during design. Mattson questioned when the head maintenance person should become involved (person who will manage the maintenance of the building after the building is complete). Buikema indicated that it would be helpful to have that person involved now. Mattson said it would be a Board decision on when this person will be hired. The motion to accept the Design Development Report carried 5-0.
2. Approval of Updated Project Budget.
The project budget was as presented today. KKE and A&P worked together to come up with early bid packages. He noted the risk involved in approving this budget without knowing the final tabulation on bids. They were seeking authority to proceed into the Construction Document Phase.
Sawatzke said a meeting occurred recently with regard to what furniture can be moved from the current location to the new site. With regard to the Jail, he inquired what equipment and furnishings could be moved. Lindemann said they have not completed an inventory in terms of Jail equipment. What is included in the proposed project budget is anything that is attached to the building. Anything that is not would fall under the FF&E budget. Sawatzke asked what would happen with the beds in the current Jail. Torfin said they would be sold for scrap pricing. The new Jail will have precast cells in modular form with everything attached. With regard to reuse of items, Lindemann indicated that technologies and requirements have changed. Their experience has been that it is more expensive to relocate items due to labor and required upgrades. If there were any furniture that could be moved, that may be worth looking at. Things that are affixed to the building are difficult to remove and may end up being damaged. Mattson moved to approve the updated project budget, seconded by Eichelberg, carried 5-0.
3. Approval Of Proposed Early Bid Packages.
Heeter moved to approve the proposed early bid packages, seconded by Eichelberg, carried 5-0.
4. Authority To Proceed With Construction Documents.
Heeter made a motion to authorize proceeding with the construction documents, seconded by Sawatzke, carried 5-0.
Liska asked for verification that it was okay to proceed with advertising for bids for the first bid package. This is a four-week process with the bid opening following. The bids would be opened and at the following Board Meeting, a bid summary would be presented with a recommendation. Heeter moved to open the bids on bid package #1 on 5-01-07 at 2:00 P.M. in the County Board Room. The motion includes authorization to advertise for those bids. The motion was seconded by Sawatzke. Pat Melvin, Special Projects Administrator, inquired on whether this will work for the County’s cash flow. The estimated cost of the early bid packages is around $4 million. Bob Hiivala, Auditor/Treasurer, affirmed the County would have funding to cover this. The motion carried 5-0 to set the bid opening and authorize advertising for bids.
A Building Committee Of The Whole Meeting was held on 3-05-07. At today’s County Board Meeting, discussion occurred on the commissioning agent for the Jail/LEC project. Mattson asked Lindemann whether 4-20-07 was early enough to have the agent on board. Lindemann stated that on the design side, anything the agent can do to become familiar with the project will be helpful so they understand it when commissioning occurs. It is not critical as the engineer designs the building. Considerable discussion followed on whether the budget presented by A&P as part of the Design Development Report included commissioning for the life safety systems. The recommendation of the Building Committee Of The Whole was to solicit RFP’s for a commissioning agent in two ways, one for the life safety commissioning and the other for a complete job to include life safety and mechanical systems. Although not related to the Building Committee Of The Whole Minutes, Heeter felt that whoever will be performing building maintenance at the Jail/LEC site should be brought into the process soon so they can attend the bi-weekly meetings and be trained. Lindemann stated there are two parts to consider. The input of the maintenance person would be helpful on the design side for the mechanical and electrical systems. In addition, the person may want to have input on the selection of materials for the interior of the building. The person will not be required to have a boilers license with the proposed system. With regard to the commissioning agent, Lindemann will ask A&P detail what is in the budget for commissioning. Items that must be commissioned are the pre-action sprinkler system, the active smoke management system, and the enunciation system. He felt those items were included in the project budget. The mechanical contractor that installs the controls for the smoke management system will need to include commissioning in their budget. It was clarified that commissioning is included in the A&P figures for fire and life safety requirements, as they cannot be turned on until they are certified by an official. Lindemann was certain that smoke management, the pre-action sprinkler and enunciation were included in the base construction bid. Lindemann said on the design and engineering side, he would need to obtain a clearer definition of what is included in the base bid. Life safety of the mechanical system would be included, as well as the sprinkler system and alarm, and the smoke management system. Capt. Torfin said those would be included. There would be a contract issued just as there is for other items such as precast concrete. Torfin did not feel water systems would be included in the base contract (portable water, heaters, pumps, hot water, metering valves going into the individual housing units). Buikema stated that code requires special inspection of life safety systems. It is independent and not normally part of the base contract. Although it is in the budget to hire this work, it will probably be a separate contract that he felt the County would hold. It was felt that the minutes of the Committee Meeting reflect what transpired at the meeting, but the recommendation on the first item may not be acted upon. Heeter then asked why the County is only looking at Intereum for office furnishings for the new site. Sawatzke said the primary reason is that this type of furniture is used throughout all County buildings. This allows for pieces to be utilized elsewhere if desired (modular furniture). Torfin added that Intereum is on the State Contract and therefore a discount is received. Mattson moved to approve the minutes as presented not including the recommendations, seconded by Sawatzke, carried 5-0. Sawatzke then offered a motion on the first item, Building Commissioning, Jail/LEC, to not accept the Committee recommendation but to lay the item over until such time as better advice is received from staff and KKE/A&P. The motion includes approval of the recommendation of the second item, FF&E Budget, Jail/LEC. The motion was seconded by Eichelberg. Heeter felt it would be easier if KKE understood what was needed for commissioning, if they would advise the County and charge accordingly instead of the County Board trying to determine how to proceed. Lindemann stated they would research this issue and provide the County with information. The motion carried 5-0.
Building Commissioning, Jail/LEC.
Torfin distributed a draft Commissioning RFP, General Commissioning Requirements information, and input received on commissioning received from Scott County and A&P. Commissioning is required for Life Safety Systems (smoke and HVAC Systems). Torfin has been in contact with Scott County on building commissioning. Due to mechanical problems with their own Jail project, Scott County recommends hiring a Commissioning Agent early in the process to avoid potential change orders to Wright County’s Jail/LEC project. Building commissioning would be handled through a separate contract. Torfin said the estimate on a Commissioning Agent is 1.5% to 3% of the electrical/mechanical on the building or an estimated $120,000-$140,000. Mattson questioned whether a code compliance person could take care of commissioning. Torfin said that code compliance relates to building codes, not review of the specifications for mechanical systems. In response to Eichelberg, Torfin explained overlay relates to working in coordination. A&P’s role will be to schedule trades and take care of the general conditions on site. They are not mechanical engineers and don’t understand the intricacies of building controls. A&P would look out for the County’s best interest but not as it relates to mechanical controls. Torfin said that KKE has retained as a partner an engineering firm with more expertise in geothermal systems. Norman said that the County was informed previously by KKE that the geothermal system was simplistic and could be maintained by the custodial staff. Gary Miller said this would be the case once the system is up and running. He did not have previous knowledge of commissioning, but felt it may be wise to pursue in an effort to avoid change orders and to have the building properly engineered. Discussion followed on the potential redundancy in effort. Sawatzke felt that the County may be setting itself up for liability if a building Commissioning Agent was hired and the system does not work properly. Russek noted that when the County Board interviewed architectural candidates for the Jail/LEC project, every firm indicated they had qualified engineers. If the request is approved for a Commissioning Agent, additional cost will be incurred. Torfin indicated that John Williamson, Willen Inc., was hired to review specifications and prints for the Jail/LEC. A meeting will be held with the Architect and Engineer to discuss his findings. Cost of Williamson’s services was $2,500, funded from the Sheriff’s Professional Services line item. Sawatzke commented that the budget to build the Jail/LEC is in the hands of the County Board and not part of the annual Jail operational budget. Torfin said Williamson was hired because he felt if there were any issues with the plans or specifications they should be looked at more closely. The Commissioning Agent is not hired to double check the engineer but to be on site to oversee installs to make sure what is specified is installed. Sawatzke felt that KKE and A&P would support the hire of the Commissioning Agent as it would result in time savings on the project for them. Sawatzke questioned whether KKE has a legal responsibility to design what works. Miller said the design on paper may not be adequately sized or designed to handle the work load. Torfin said a Commissioning Agent will be required for the Life Safety Systems. The air handling systems have to be balanced prior to occupancy. His recommendation was to include commissioning for mechanical and electrical as well. Torfin stated that the architect would sign off on the electrical and mechanical and this would be a separate contract as it is beyond the scope of the project. Gary Miller referenced recent school projects involving geothermal systems, of which some did not work properly. They were designed by an architect and engineer but were not sized adequately. He was unsure whether the changes were funded by the architectural firms. He felt it may be worth contacting the school facilities for their input on Commissioning Agents. Hayes stated that with any project, things can go wrong. With the 1991 Courthouse Construction Project, it took several years to identify problems and therefore warranties expired. With the most recent Public Works project, there are still heat problems. Norman stated that unless the Commissioning Agent provides detailed documentation on his activities (meetings attended, recommended actions, what is completed, cost), the overall savings to the County would remain unknown. He suggested that RFP’s be distributed to potential Commissioning Agents as soon as possible so the plans can be reviewed before specifications for the Jail/LEC project are mailed. Eichelberg questioned the project time schedule and what impact the RFP’s for a Commissioning Agent would have on the schedule. Torfin said as far as he knew, the project was on schedule except for the delay of one week for the Architect presentation to the Board. KKE Architects is scheduled to meet with the Board on 3-13-07. Torfin said that Williamson has already identified design problems with a water line and duct work. Hiring a Commissioning Agent would help to identify things that a design engineer may not necessarily do themselves. Torfin asked to expand the scope of the Commissioning Agent to be brought on sooner and to review all systems including plumbing, pumps and geothermal. Having the plans reviewed at the front end of the project may prevent change orders. Russek said there will be change orders no matter how many people are hired. Recommendation: Solicit RFP’s for a Commissioning Agent. The RFP’s should be advertised in two ways, one for Life Safety Systems (HVAC, Sprinkler System, Fire Alarm Systems, and Fire Doors) and the other for a complete job to include Life Safety and Mechanical Systems. Bids must be submitted to the Administration Office by 4:30 P.M. on 4-20-07.
FF&E Budget, Jail/LEC.
Gary Miller recently met with the Design Team for the Jail/LEC, including the Interior Design person. Miller said the Interior Design person will work with wall coverings, carpet, white boards, and built-in cabinets. He sought direction on the furnishing and equipment budget and what furniture should be moved from the existing Sheriff Department to the new site. Miller said that some furniture would be logical to move (chairs, computers, file cabinets). However, some things may need replacement due to their age and whether the items will retrofit into the new space. If the vacated Sheriff Department space will be utilized by other departments in the future, he did not feel that furniture configured for that space should be moved. Sawatzke stated that it is unclear at this point who will move into the vacated area and that furniture should be moved to the new site if it is logical to do so. The furnishings in Conference Room C118 will remain. Hayes stated that most of the system furniture in the Sheriff Department is 17 years old. He supported utilizing Intereum furnishings (modular furniture) so that all County furniture remains consistent. They do have a standard layout for offices and conference rooms to use as a model. With regard to the roller records storage system located in the Sheriff Department, Hayes said the vendor indicated that it could be reconfigured to the new location. Hayes will work with Intereum to coordinate what furniture will be required in the new facility and what furniture can be re-used. Norman said the County needs to be cautious on expenditures from the FF&E line item. The history is that the County has not budgeted adequately for this line item.
Recommendation: Hayes will meet with Sheriff Department staff and Intereum on office furnishings. Furniture should be moved and salvaged if possible. (End of Building Committee Of The Whole Minutes)
Correspondence was received from the MN Department of Transportation inviting the Board to attend an ATP Outreach Meeting on 4-12-07 at 1:00 P.M. in St. Cloud. This is an informational meeting to discuss transportation issues. Eichelberg moved to authorized attendance, seconded by Sawatzke, carried 5-0.
Correspondence was received from AMC requesting support of the full 50% State reimbursement for probation officer salaries and fringe benefits. A draft resolution was included. Heeter moved to adopt Resolution #07-16, seconded by Sawatzke, carried 5-0 on a roll call vote.
American Alum. Access.. $2,034.27
American Messaging 643.12
Ameripride Linen and Apparel 219.78
AMI Imaging Systems Inc. 2,187.17
Ancom Communications Inc. 820.05
Ancom Technical Center 998.00
City Annandale 2,260.00
Apec Industrial Sales/Serv. 388.19
Aramark Correct. Services 10,552.63
Association of MN Counties 1,575.00
Auto. Garage Door & Firepl. 112.13
B & D Plumbing & Heating 370.00
Joe Backes 175.57
Betmar Languages Inc. 200.00
Brock White Co. Inc. 221.17
Buffalo Quality Feed Mill 938.69
City Buffalo 32,947.28
Burdas Towing 117.15
Ryan Busch 301.19
Tim Cameron 125.00
Cargill Inc.- Salt Division 2,381.18
Center Point Energy 22,278.84
Centra Sota Lake Region 11,117.73
Civic Research Instit. 169.95
Coborn’s Inc. 311.63
CPS Technology Solutions 112.07
Crestline Specialties Co. 140.55
Culligan of Buffalo 700.00
Delta Hospital Supply Inc. 407.40
DLT Solutions Inc. 544.00
Elmer Eichelberg 190.95
Elk River Ford 345,491.00
Dale Engel 400.00
Eng. Design Initiative 2,644.02
Excel Systems Inc. 257.26
Federal Signal Corp. 1,980.90
Terry Frazier 195.00
Friendship Ventures 100.00
Gateway Companies Inc. 1,848.31
Raymond Glunz 100.00
Hardings Towing Inc. 260.93
Hillyard Floor Care Supply 2,775.53
Hirshfields Decorating Ctr. 203.99
JR’s Appliance Disposal 1,338.75
Lakedale Telephone Co. 347.88
LaPlant Demo Inc. 538.11
Michael Laurent 369.51
Little Falls Machine 5,319.67
Marco Business Products 1,081.83
Mark’s Standard Parts 2,607.20
Martin-McAllisters Cons. 1,750.00
Material Control Inc. 107.54
MN BWSR 3,229.51
MN Counties Comp. Corp. 2,761.77
MN Counties Ins. Trust 979.00
MN Sheriff’s Association 750.00
MN Supreme Court 315.00
Monticello Auto Body Inc. 117.15
City Montrose 600.00
Morries Buffalo Ford Merc 794.06
MTI Distributing Inc. 103.57
Nextel Communications 754.81
Ray Allen Mfg. Co. Inc. 540.75
Reed Business Info. 381.33
Royal Tire Inc. 2,349.97
Jack Russek 164.90
Ryan Motors Inc. 685.08
Software House Int’l 8,541.30
Spectrum Solutions 105.00
St. Joseph Equip-Mpls. 484.75
City St. Michael 8,383.80
Total Printing 293.51
United Locating Services 120.00
United Rentals Hwy. Tech. 1,116.12
US Bank 1,618.75
Verizon Wireless 368.90
Shawna Vollbrecht 125.00
Voss Lighting 222.35
Waste Management TC W 1,106.82
Weighing Systems/Serv. 870.00
Wright Co. Journal Press 449.68
Wright Soil & Water Cons. 118,480.00
Zack’s Inc. 331.49
35 Payments less than $100 1,748.42
Final total $630,532.54
The meeting adjourned at 11:55 A.M
Published in the Herald Journal April 9, 2007.