Wright County Board Minutes
WRIGHT COUNTY BOARD MINUTES
MAY 15, 2007
The Wright County Board met in regular session at 9:00 A.M. with Heeter, Sawatzke, Mattson, Russek and Eichelberg present. The meeting was opened with an Honor Guard Colors Presentation and Pledge of Allegiance. On a motion by Mattson, second by Heeter, roll call vote carried 5-0 adopt Resolution #07-26, observing May 13-19, 2007 as Police Officer’s Week:
Whereas, The Congress and President of the United States have designated May 15 as Peace Officers’ Memorial Day, and the week in which May 15 falls as National Police week; and
Whereas, the members of the law enforcement agencies of Wright County play an essential role in safeguarding the rights and freedoms of Wright County; and
Whereas, it is important that all citizens know and understand the duties, responsibilities, hazards, and sacrifices of their law enforcement agencies, and that members of our law enforcement agencies recognize their duty to serve the people by safeguarding life and property, by protecting them against violence and disorder, and by protecting the innocent against deception and the weak against oppression; and
Whereas, the men and women of the law enforcement agencies of Wright County unceasingly provide a vital public service;
Now, therefore, The Wright County Board of Commissioners, call upon all citizens of Wright County and upon all patriotic, civic and educational organizations to observe the week of May 13th to May 19th, 2007 as Police Week with appropriate ceremonies and observances in which all of our people may join in commemorating law enforcement officers, past and present, who, by their faithful and loyal devotion to their responsibilities, have rendered a dedicated service to their communities and, in so doing, have established for themselves an enviable and enduring reputation for preserving the rights and security of all citizens.
We further call upon all citizens of Wright County to observe Tuesday, May 15th, as Peace Officers’ Memorial Day in honor of those law enforcement officers who, through their courageous deeds, have made the ultimate sacrifice in service to their community or have become disabled in the performance of duty, and let us recognize and pay respect to the survivors of our fallen heroes. (End of Resolution)
Five Wright County Peace Officers who died in the line of duty have been memorialized at the National Law Enforcement Memorial in Washington D.C. and at the MN Law Enforcement Memorial in St. Paul. These include Sheriff John C. Nugent Jr. (July 22, 1922); South Haven Town Marshal Rudolph (November 23, 1922); Sheriff Paul Kritzeck (August 16, 1951); Sheriff James Kreitlow (August 8, 1963); Deputy Sheriff Roger E. Wrobbel (December 21, 1980); and Annandale Police Chief George Ryti (September 16, 1977). Miller thanked the Board for acknowledging the deaths of these officers. The four members of the Wright County Sheriff’s Department who died in the line of duty and are memorialized reflect the highest statistics in the State. A moment of silence followed honoring those who had died.
The minutes of 5-08-07 were corrected as follows: Page 1, 6th paragraph, 4th line, change sentence from “The cost would be $3,363 more to purchase the equipment” to “The cost would be $3,363 less to purchase the equipment” (Russek). Heeter moved to approve the minutes as corrected, seconded by Eichelberg, carried 5-0.
Petitions were accepted to the Agenda as follows: Consent Agenda Item D1, “HIGHWAY, Refer Jake Braking Issue To Ways & Means Committee” (Norman). Heeter moved to approve the Agenda as amended, seconded by Eichelberg, carried 5-0.
1. Performance Appraisals: S. Riley, P&Z; M. Wannebo, Sheriff.
2. O/T Report, Period Ending 5-04-07.
1. Approve Renewal Of Annual On Sale 3.2 Beer License For Osowski’s - Monticello Township.
2. Approve Tobacco License For Albertville Express (Formerly Pat’s Shell) City of Albertville.
1. Refer To Personnel Committee Request To Backfill Detective Position Due To Office Of Justice Program Grant.
1. Refer Jake Braking Sign Issue To The Ways & Means Committee.
Bob Hiivala, Auditor/Treasurer, presented the claims listing. He referenced a claim on Page 16, Virgil Hawkins ($569.48) for expenses related to the NACE Conference. Hiivala requested that $17.00 of the meal reimbursement request be pulled from the request for payment to obtain additional information. It appears the breakfast and lunch allowances were combined to cover one meal. Norman and Hiivala will review the County Policy. Sawatzke moved to approve the claims as listed in the abstract, subject to audit, with the exception of the $17 meal reimbursement portion of the claim for Virgil Hawkins. The motion was seconded by Heeter. It was clarified that the remainder of the claim to Hawkins will be paid. The motion carried 5-0.
Gary Torfin, Jail Administrator, said the recommendation from the Building Committee Of The Whole Meeting on 5-08-07 was to proceed with planning a Groundbreaking Ceremony for the new Jail/LEC on 5-22-07 at 1:00 P.M. Russek stated he had a conflict with that time, so it was the consensus that the Ceremony should be held at 12:30 P.M. instead. Those designated as Ceremony participants are the County Board Members, Dick Norman (County Coordinator), Sheriff Gary Miller, Capt. Gary Torfin (Jail Administrator), Pat O’Malley (Assistant Jail Administrator), and Lt. Todd Hoffman. Heeter moved to set the Groundbreaking Ceremony for 5-22-07 at 12:30 P.M., seconded by Sawatzke, carried 5-0.
At the last County Board Meeting, the Board discussed potential charges from Intereum for design services for furniture at the new LEC. Craig Hayes, Purchasing Agent, was directed to consult with Intereum to inquire whether they would provide design services at no cost. Today, Hayes indicated that Intereum has declined providing design services at no cost. The proposed contract reflects a cost of $5,200, but Hayes clarified that would include design services for each individual office and that is more than the County is seeking. Hayes said the cost would be $2,500 to include the design of a standard office space and standard cubicle space. Lt. Todd Hoffman, Sheriff Department, said 70-80% of the offices will follow the standard. There are quite a few workstations that would be non-typical (i.e., reception, evidence room). Heeter did not support paying the design fee and was convinced other companies would provide this service at no cost. Intereum was used for Human Services and the 3rd & 4th Floors of the Annex. Hayes said Intereum has provided most of the furniture work since 1990 for the County. The name of the product is “Herman Miller” and Intereum is the local company that represents Herman Miller and completes the install. Hayes was approached by a furniture salesman with an offer for the County to purchase used Herman Miller furniture. The County would also have the option to proceed through a furniture bid process or incorporate the furniture into the project contract. Previously, A&P had the furniture included in the FF&E budget. Hayes said the Board has the option to reuse existing pieces and keep consistent with the furniture standards. However, they have the option of looking at other furniture. He requested direction on other items that will be purchased including high-density filing systems, conference room furniture, and technologies. Heeter suggested referring these issues to the Building Committee Of The Whole for discussion. Russek did not support purchasing used furniture to place in a new building. Heeter said the prior motion included 30 offices and 59 cubes. Lt. Todd Hoffman said that only included the 2nd Floor of the LEC. The additional spaces which need to be configured include the 1st Floor LEC, Jail offices, and training rooms. Hoffman has been in contact but not yet obtained quotes from vendors who provide such technologies. These items will be included in the 3rd bid package, scheduled for August. Hoffman said the technology components will not be ready for approval until July and may not affect office and conference room furniture purchases. Norman interjected that Hayes has taken on the task of workstation design. When the current Jail was constructed and the Government Center remodeled, the County paid for interior design services. At some point the Board will need someone to design the space and decide on the standard used for offices and workstations. A decision cannot be made until that time. If the 3rd bid package is scheduled for August, he felt the County needs to address this as soon as possible due to work required for design and bid specifications. Hoffman said KKE is working with a designer on jail equipment furnishings and could be contacted to determine what is included in their design package. The cost for Intereum furniture is estimated at $4000/cubicle and $4500/office. Heeter felt the furniture and technologies were related as technologies may determine where furniture is placed. Heeter moved to schedule an Owner’s Committee Meeting for 6-05-07 at 1:00 P.M. to address furnishings for the 30 offices, 59 cubes, furniture for the lower level, and technologies. Discussion followed on the meeting date due to time constraints on bid specifications, etc. Final action will not be taken until the Committee Minutes are presented for Board approval. Hoffman inquired whether other furniture options should be presented at the Committee Meeting. Sawatzke affirmed that any other options should be supplied for review. Heeter amended the motion to change the Owner’s Committee Meeting to 5-22-07 at 1:30 P.M. The motion was seconded by Sawatzke. In response to Mattson, Norman said minutes will be taken of the meeting. The motion carried 5-0.
A Building Committee Meeting was held on 5-09-07. Heeter moved to approve the minutes and recommendations, seconded by Mattson. Russek questioned whether sales tax would need to be paid for the carpet replacement in Courts. Norman said the County would have to pay sales tax for this purchase. The only sales tax exemption that will be allowed is related to the Jail. With the Jail project, the County will pay the sales tax and be reimbursed by the State. The motion carried 5-0:
CARPET REPLACEMENT, COURTS AREA
Hayes presented the following bid results for carpet replacement including base, tear up and disposal:
Neil’s Floor Covering, 12,674.00 (Plus Tax)
Monticello Carpets Inc., 13,500.00 (Plus Tax)
Waverly Flooring & Design, 16,380.67 (Plus Tax)
Twin Cities West Flooring, 12,354.44 (Tax Included)
Jerry’s Floor Store, 15,960.00 (Tax Included)
Twin Cities West Flooring is the apparent low bidder. Norman asked if there will be any restrictions for the installation process. Hayes stated yes, the installer will have to do their work after 5:00 P.M. each day. The restriction added an additional $500-$800 per bid. Twin Cities West suggested a different cove (vinyl base) which could save the County an additional $450. Norman stated that the lighter colored vinyl base shows scuff marks from cleaning machines. Hayes presented a dark blue, confetti print, Mohawk commercial carpet sample: Barrier Island MC045/07257 Cool Lagoon. The carpet style that the County has used in the past has been discontinued. Hayes stated that he does not have a sample of the cheaper cove, however will consult with Al Buskey and LaVonn Nordeen prior to making the final decision. RECOMMENDATION: Award Twin Cities West Flooring the carpet replacement contract with a possible alternate cove. The replacement will be funded by the Budget 100, Site Improvement Line Item. (End of Building Committee Minutes)
A Building Committee Of The Whole Meeting was held on 5-08-07. Heeter moved to approve the minutes, seconded by Sawatzke. At today’s County Board Meeting, Sawatzke asked if there was a set process to keep the entire Board apprised of change orders related to the Jail/LEC project. Change orders will be referred to the Owner’s Committee and then onto the County Board thereafter. Norman said procedurally, it is Adolfson & Peterson’s (A&P) responsibility to inform the County of change orders and produce documentation on any change orders approved. If Capt. Gary Torfin provides verbal approval on something, it should be followed up with a written change order by A&P explaining the change and costs associated, as this will change the bottom line of the construction budget. Sawatzke said whether or not the Owner’s Committee meets, the Board needs to receive information on a timely basis so they are aware of what is occurring. Mattson referenced the recommendation to authorize Torfin to expend up to $5,000 for a change order. This could become costly if numerous things show up in a short time frame. The documents held with A&P and KKE reflect Gary Torfin as the primary contact for the County and Dick Norman as the alternate. Norman will be the contact person for change orders in the absence of Torfin. The Owner’s Committee will meet every week. A&P will attend every other week. If it is not necessary for the Committee to meet, it will be announced at that day’s Board Meeting that the meeting has been cancelled. Sawatzke said if the process does not flow smoothly over the next couple of months, the procedures for change order approval will need to be addressed. The motion carried 5-0 to approve the Committee minutes:
DISCUSSION RE: CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT CONTRACT.
Russek reconvened the meeting at 11:15 A.M. Norman stated it would be due diligence for the County to review the contract so that there is a clear understanding of both the Construction Manager and the County’s commitment. Heeter asked Norman for the status of the payment request by A&P. Norman stated that A&P has submitted a revised pay application. They have revised their request based on 8 months of the 30 month timeline and a $30 million project. Norman stated that he expects A&P will revise the project costs following the 2nd and 3rd bid packages, once they know what the true construction costs will be. Sawatzke stated that he recalls a discussion that took place during the negotiation process permitting A&P to secure additional management fees only if the project could not be completed on time due to an Act of God. Sawatzke asked where the result of that discussion was noted in the contract. Norman referenced Article 13.5.1, “IF THE BASIC SERVICES covered by this Agreement have not been completed within thirty (30) months of the date hereof, August 22, 2006, through no fault of the Construction Manager, extension of the Construction Manager’s services beyond that time shall be compensated as provided in Section 12.3.3.”. Russek asked what Heeter and Sawatzke negotiated. Asleson stated that he questions whether there was a “meeting of the minds” between the two parties during the negotiation stages. Despite the discussions, the County will be held to the written contract language. Asleson stated that he attended several meetings, however he had not specifically heard the discussion between A&P and Commissioner’s Heeter and Sawatzke referencing the “what if’s” of the project going beyond its 30 month timeframe. Heeter stated that an extensive discussion took place with Liska on the potential causes for why a project would run over schedule. Heeter stated that she recalls Liska boasting of A&P’s successful history of completing projects within contractual timeframes and within budget. Asleson stated that he did recall Liska referencing “Acts of God” as a deterrent to completing a project on time. Norman stated that due to the above mentioned Article, he had asked Tara Martin of A&P at the 5-01-07 Bid Opening how Addendum #2 would affect the contractual timeline. The Addendum referenced a possible 4-6 week delay. Russek stated that Rick Streich, Site Superintendent, had said that the Addendum would not cause an extension to the 30 month timeframe. Mattson stated that he has known Steich for a long time and does feel that he can trust him as the Site Superintendent for the Jail/LEC project. Torfin stated that Randy Lindemann, of KKE, informed him that the soil corrections in Addendum #2 would only delay the footings. Norman stated that it was his understanding that the purpose of the early bid package was to expedite the project. Originally the entire bid package was to take place in the late Summer/early Fall. Sawatzke stated that his concern is that A&P will now have a financial incentive to delay the project past the 30 month contractual timeline so that they can receive additional compensation. Norman referenced Article 13.5.1, “…through no fault of the Construction Manager…”, and stated that due to Sawatzke’s concern the County needs to be diligent with monitoring A&P and the progress of the project. Norman stated that with any contract that is administered, documentation is everything. The County will need to document and monitor the progress of the project so that it will be brought in on time and on budget. Norman proposed that the County issue correspondence to A&P notifying them that the County will require documentation from this date forward of how the project is progressing. Norman then referenced Article 1.1.3, “The Construction Manager shall provide sufficient organization, personnel and management to carry out the requirements of this Agreement in an expeditious and economical manner consistent with the interests of the Owner.” Norman reiterated that it will be the County’s obligation to confirm that A&P is consistently running the project in a timely manner and under budget. Torfin stated that Martin has requested that the County establish an Owner’s Committee that would meet bi-weekly or monthly to review project progress. Russek stated that Heeter has been involved in a group similar to Martin’s request for a “Owner’s Committee”; however meetings have been called between KKE and the Sheriff and IT Departments that Heeter has not been notified about. Torfin confirmed that it has been KKE that has been conducting the meetings and they have been keeping minutes. Norman stated that he would need copies of the minutes for official record as there is a retention schedule for maintaining copies of meeting minutes. Eichelberg stated that he would like the Commissioners and Norman to be notified of all scheduled meetings as they relate to the project so that the Commissioners can opt to attend. Sawatzke stated that the computation of the Basic Compensation is briefly discussed in Article 13.5.1 which references Section 12.3.3, then directs the reader to 13.2.1 and finally redirects the reader to Exhibit A. Sawatzke stated that in Exhibit A, “Fee for Basic Service during the Pre-Construction and Construction Phases shall be payable in equal monthly installments beginning in the month the contract is executed and ending in the month scheduled for substantial completion of the project.” Sawatzke proposed that the County take the total construction costs and divide it by 30 months to compute the monthly payment. Sawatzke questioned where in the contract it says that A&P can attain additional management service fees. Norman referenced Article 13.5.1. Sawatzke disagreed and stated that Article 13.5.1 defers from answering the question by rerouting the reading to other areas in the contract. Miller stated that the increased management fees are due to the geo-thermal wells. Sawatzke asked if Asleson has an earlier edition of Exhibit A which reflected the discussion content during negotiations. Asleson stated that he will check his files. Norman stated that earlier versions of Exhibit A are irrelevant as the contract was presented to the Board and signed by the Board. Norman turned the Committee’s attention to the last sentence of Article 2.2.3, “The Construction Manager shall provide cost evaluations of alternative materials and systems.” Norman asked if any of the Committee members have been provided any documentation of the cost evaluations. Russek stated that he would be interested in seeing documentation on proposed savings. Russek stated that the County has a $200,000 claim sheet from A&P; however A&P has not documented how they propose to save the County money. Norman then referenced the second sentence of 2.2.4 which states, “The Construction Manager shall provide recommendations on relative feasibility of construction methods, availability of materials and labor, time requirements for procurement, installation and construction, and factors related to construction cost including, but not limited to, costs of alternative designs or materials, preliminary budgets, and possible economies.” Norman again proposed that the County send correspondence to A&P requesting that they document what they have done to fulfill this contract Article. Article 2.2.5 states that “The Construction Manager shall prepare and maintain Critical Path Method (CPM) or bar chart schedules which include each phase of preconstruction and construction; and, which show milestone dates for each phase of the project.” Norman stated that the County needs to see that A&P is holding to their 30 month schedule. Norman stated that it is the due diligence of the County to document the progress of the project, and request documentation from A&P as it relates to their duties expressed in the contract. Mattson asked Norman if he thought the best way to address A&P was to send a copy of today’s Building Committee of the Whole Minutes as well as a redlined copy of the signed contract requesting that they respond to the County’s concerns. Norman stated that the best method, in his opinion, would be to send several letters, each requesting A&P to provide documentation of how they are fulfilling each of the County’s concerns as discussed at today’s meeting. Eichelberg proposed proceeding with the drafting of the correspondence.
Norman questioned the value of having weekly Owner’s Committee meetings based on past projects. Miller stated that the weekly meetings with Nelson Building & Development on past projects proved to be invaluable. Miller conveyed that it is better to have regular meetings as a way to stay abreast of project progress and related issues. Torfin added that there would be minutes taken at each meeting. Kelly noted that regular meetings would be a tool for keeping A&P on their 30 month schedule. Heeter stated that based on an email from Liska on 8/10/2006, “…our team is confident we will complete the construction in a 18 month period”. Heeter stated that all indications are that A&P should be able to complete the project on time. Sawatzke noted that construction is to begin within 9 months of the contract. Discussion continued on the construction schedule as well as the scheduled installation of the geo-thermal wells. Miller stated that it has been explained to him that the installation of the geo-wells will delay access to the site. Torfin explained that an excavation of the site will take place, followed by having the soils corrected. Torfin stated that it was his understanding that with two separate geo-thermal well fields, there will be two separate drill rigs. The wells will have to come up to two vaults prior to the contractors routing around on-site. Sawatzke stated that based on the same email, and prior to signing the contract, A&P was aware that the County was pursuing a geo-thermal well system. Sawatzke questioned why A&P would already be talking about a timeline delay (referenced in Addendum #2). Norman stated that he and Russek met with the City. The City has indicated that they will bid out the water line and loop it in this Summer. Russek stated that the site will have water fairly soon. Torfin stated that the City has been great to work with. Norman referenced Article 2.2.6, “The Construction Manager shall advise the Owner and Architect if it appears that the Construction Cost may exceed the latest approved Project budget and make recommendations for corrective action.” Norman stated that he would like to see A&P’s recommendations for corrective action. Sawatzke agreed. Eichelberg stated that the Committee’s recommendation should authorize Norman to write A&P several letters requesting communications based upon the Board’s concerns of several contract Articles. Sawatzke stated that the correspondence to A&P should reiterate that the County is disappointed in their response as it is inconsistent to what was agreed upon in the negotiation discussions. The County also needs to be adamant that A&P is to complete the project within 30 months. The negotiation team was told adamantly that this project could be completed in 18 months. The project is to start within 9 months of signing the contract. Sawatzke stated that 18 and 9 allows for a 27 month time schedule with a 3 month margin. Sawatzke noted Exhibit A by saying that A&P is only to be paid a percentage of construction costs. In Exhibit A, “For the purpose of this Agreement, “Construction Cost,” as defined in paragraph 5.1.1, shall exclude fixtures, furniture & equipment, contingencies, asbestos and lead abatement, land costs, cost of attorneys, architects, engineers, financial consultants, site planner fees, assessments, governmental charges, insurance premiums paid by the Owner and personal property which is not a component to the project building.” Sawatzke asked if A&P’s first pay application was based on the contract’s definition of construction cost and noted that the pay application should be reviewed and verified for correct computation. Miller stated that the proposed construction costs are $40.5 million; however the total estimated project cost is $48 million. Miller asked if the construction of the turn lanes for Braddock Avenue was included in the construction costs. Asleson stated that the turn lanes are part of the project costs, but not part of the construction costs. Sawatzke stated that he did not think that the turn lanes would be completed until after the project had been completed. Torfin stated that he would verify whether the road construction costs would be included in the construction costs. Norman stated that it will also need to be verified whether Bill Swing’s technological needs are included in the present project cost estimates. Norman stated that the correspondence will inform A&P that the County is monitoring the specifics within the contract. Russek stated that by doing so, the Board will be communicating how the County has interpreted their contract language. Asleson asked if monitoring the contract was for the purpose of not paying the excess management fees at the end of the project. Sawatzke stated that it was too early to define what the County’s intent is as the County is not even aware of what the total construction costs are going to be. Heeter stated that she’d prefer hiring a different construction manager. Russek stated that changing construction managers won’t permit the project to be completed within 30 months. Norman stated that the County would have to negotiate a termination agreement. Norman stated that he’d like to send A&P a letter requesting an updated time schedule now that the first bid has been obtained. Russek stated that the second bid package is due 7-12-07 and Norman noted it falls on a Thursday. Eichelberg proposed that A&P hold the bid opening on 7-12-07 and present their recommendations at the Board Meeting on 7-17-07. Norman asked Torfin and Miller if they had any areas of concern within the contract. Miller stated that his sole request is that the Building Committee of The Whole determine who will be on the Owner’s Committee and how to hold the members accountable for attendance. Discussion to select Owner’s Committee members continued, resulting in an eight member group: Torfin, Miller, Norman, Hayes, Heeter, Sawatzke, Asleson and Swing. Torfin stated that A&P is requesting the formation of this group and therefore has volunteered to record the meeting minutes. Torfin asked Norman if he would feel comfortable having A&P compose the minutes. Norman stated that he would feel comfortable if A&P submitted the minutes as “Subject to Approval”. Norman questioned if the group was too large with 8 members. Heeter stated that she thinks group would benefit with more members, as opposed to a small group such as the negotiation team, which consisted of 3 members. Russek noted that if he is to sign Norman’s drafted letters, then the Board will need to see the drafts for approval. Heeter questioned the value of sending several letters to A&P. Norman stated that it is his opinion that each request from the County should be made separately. Mattson stated that in an effort to not overload A&P, the requests may appear to be less overwhelming if made separately. Norman stated that the Committee should discuss who will be authorized to approve and sign change orders. To place an approval of a change order on hold for a Board Meeting could delay the progress of the project for a week. Sawatzke asked that Norman create some criteria for the approval process of a change order. Norman proposed that the Owner’s Committee could approve the change orders; however a three day notice must be posted prior to a Committee meeting. Sawatzke requested that the Owner’s Committee meet every Tuesday to address issues such as a change order. Sawatzke proposed that the Board allow for the Committee to have a certain level of authority so that the issues don’t have to go before the Board each time. A consensus was made to allow Torfin authority to approve change orders up to $5,000. Sawatzke then proposed that any change orders over $5,000 and under $25,000 would be addressed by the Owner’s Committee. Sawatzke proposed that the Committee meet every Tuesday at 1:00 P.M., and if there is nothing to discuss, the meeting will be cancelled. Norman asked if the meetings would begin in June. Torfin stated that Martin only suggested that the Committee meet bi-weekly or once a month. Sawatzke stated that the Committee will meet weekly and A&P can attend as many of the meetings as they feel necessary. The Committee agreed to start the Owner’s Committee meetings on 6-05-07 at 1:00 P.M. Sawatzke asked when the contractors are expected to begin their work. Russek stated that road restrictions were lifted on 5-04-07. Torfin stated that Buffalo Utilities will be going out to the site soon to pull power. Miller asked what had been decided for the Ground Breaking Ceremony. The Committee agreed to 5-22-07 at 1:00 P.M. to allow time to notify the press. The meeting was adjourned at 12:16 p.m. Recommendation: Norman to draft several letters of correspondence to A&P requesting their response to the County’s concerns as related to specific contract articles. Authorize the formation of an Owner’s Committee. Authorize Torfin to approve change orders up to $5,000 and the Owner’s Committee up to $25,000. (End of Building Of The Whole Minutes)
A Ways & Means Committee Meeting was held on 5-09-07. At today’s County Board Meeting, Mattson moved to approve the minutes, seconded by Sawatzke. Sawatzke said card access to the EOC will be limited to five Sheriff Department employees. The EOC will only be utilized for EOC trainings or emergencies; it will not be used for training not related to EOC. The motion to approve the minutes carried 5-0:
CARD KEY SYSTEM/LOCKS FOR EOC.
Hayes stated that the Board authorized him to seek two separate quotes: a quote to change door locks and a quote to add card access to the Emergency Operations Center (EOC) door at the Government Center. The quote to change door locks came from Rhode’s Lock & Key for $90. Since the locksmith was in the building, and in an effort to save the County a trip charge, Al Buskey had Rhode’s install a used lock set that Buskey had in storage. By installing the used lockset, Buskey saved the County $500. Hayes presented the quote for the EOC Door from Integrated Fire & Security. The quote of $2,268.35 is to provide and install a Tiger II Controller, MiniStar Black Switch Plate Reader, Power Supply and HES Heavy Duty Door Strike. Programming and testing will also be included in the installation process. Hayes confirmed that the card access would be for the EOC West Entrance allowing only those who are authorized to enter the room. Sawatzke asked who would have access to the EOC via the card key system. Howell stated that the Sheriff, Steve Berg, himself, Captain Miller and the Chief Deputy. Norman stated that he also has access, as well as Al Buskey and the Building Care staff. Reese requested that she be notified when the Sheriff’s Department is using the room for emergency operations training as she is to keep NSP Nuclear updated on the room’s usage. Reese stated that when the room is used by the Sheriff’s Department the door will have to be open. Hayes stated that the door is programmed to open during work hours, or the door could be propped open. Mattson asked if an alarm would be set off if a card key door is propped open. Hayes stated no, as the card key simply releases the strike plate. Sawatzke confirmed that both Reese and authorized employees would have access to the door via their badge, unless the door has been locked with the key which is in the sole possession of Reese. Norman stated that by using the card key system, the County would have a record of who is entering/leaving the EOC. Hayes stated Buskey wanted each of the doors in the Government Center to have key and card key access for safety redundancy. Norman asked if a decision has been made for the door accesses at the new LEC. Howell stated that it hasn’t been discussed. Sawatzke asked Norman to send an email to Randy Lindemann of KKE to remind him of the door accesses. Concern was expressed for the safety of the building if the card key system was to go out due to a power outage. Hayes explained that in the Government Center, there are battery backups for the card system that retain power for up to six hours due to a power outage. Hayes stated that the County would never go back to relying on keys for door access. If a key is lost, then the doors would need to be rekeyed. If a card key is lost, the card is simply shut off in the card key system. Sawatzke asked if there has ever been a power outage that lasted longer than 6 hours. Hayes stated that there has been an eight hour outage at the Government Center; however there were custodians in the building who were able to aid with the locked doors by using their keys. Norman asked Howell if the Sheriff’s Department would be comfortable only using card keys out at the LEC. Howell stated that if something were to go wrong with the card key reader, then the regular keys would allow for staff to move throughout the building. Sawatzke reiterated that the EOC is to be used for actual emergencies and emergency operations training for the EMS. Sawatzke asked that Howell not perform any training during the practice Nuclear Testing in August. The actual testing event is set for October/November. Norman asked Reese if NSP Nuclear would be willing to pay for the card key system for their EOC. Reese stated that they will not pay for the installation. RECOMMENDATION: Proceed with the installation of the card key access to the EOC using Integrated Fire & Security. (End of Ways & Means Committee Minutes)
Ace Auto Upholstery. $165.00
Albertville LLC 8,000.00
American Hotel Register Co. 573.44
Ameripride Linen and Apparel 208.29
Ancom Technical Center 611.95
Annandale Rock Products 2,414.37
Appraisal Institute 484.00
Appraisal Inst. North Star 250.00
Auto. Garage Door & Firepl 156.14
B & D Plumbing & Htg. 1,823.00
Joe Backes 176.66
Bankers Adv. Co. Inc. 391.12
Jean Bresin 188.66
Buffalo Floral & Landscaping 160.00
Buffalo Hospital 53,398.00
Ryan Busch 286.64
Catco Parts Service 245.05
Center Point Energy 10,211.33
Centra Sota Lake Region 29,867.77
Climate Air 2,191.29
Coborn’s Inc. 303.14
Comm. of Transportation 1,032.10
Cottens’ Inc. 2,399.86
Cub Pharmacy 2,371.38
Culligan of Buffalo 500.00
Defense Tech. Corporation 850.00
Dingmann Marine & More 138.44
E-Z Flush 140.00
EPA Audio Visual Inc. 620.35
Ernst Gen. Construction 677.50
Wayne Fingalson 808.06
Force America Inc. 200.39
Gateway Companies Inc. 2,992.65
Raymond Glunz 100.00
Going Under Dive Center 330.89
Gould Towing 101.18
Granite City Iron Works 667.77
Graphic & Printing Services 1,155.58
Greenview Inc. 252.40
Virgil Hawkins 552.48
Leander Heuring 79,550.00
Hillyard Floor Care Supply 1,972.09
Intereum Inc. 6,554.72
Int’l Personnel Manage 896.13
Interstate Battery Systems 104.30
Jude Vending 292.25
Lake Region Coop Oil 390.54
Lakedale Telephone Co. 299.83
LaPlant Demo Inc. 691.15
Lewis-Goetz and Co. 137.43
Loberg Electric 292.98
Loffler Companies Inc. 562.50
Magneto Power 106.51
Martin-McAllisters Cons. 1,050.00
MASYS Corporation 2,628.87
Mille Lacs County Jail 2,300.00
MN Assn. of Co. Prob. Off. 900.00
MN Soc. of Prof. Surveyors 250.00
MN Spring & Suspension 496.29
Mobile Vision 332.63
Morries Buffalo Ford Merc 784.09
Motorola Communication 3,162.45
Nextel Communications 1,049.53
Office Depot 977.13
Photo 1 257.65
Precision Prints of Wright Co. 161.88
Douglas Psyk 261,010.00
Reds Auto Electric 314.70
Reed Business Info 263.52
Reichels Catering Serv. 244.95
Riverport Inn & Suites 411.06
Royal Tire Inc. 3,403.05
RS Eden 9,588.25
Sherry Schliesing 445.40
Software House Int’l Inc. 482.45
Specialty Turf & Ag 1,262.82
Tech Depot 271.52
Philip Thinesen 150.31
Total Printing 328.13
Tri-Co Tree Movers 10,700.00
Uniforms Unlimited 207.13
University of MN 255.00
Waste Management TC W 2,653.91
Janelle Webb 270.63
Gordon Weber 278.80
Wright Co. Journal Press 237.95
Wright Henn Co-op Elec 2,392.27
Wright Henn. Electric 154.83
30 Payments less than $100 1,445.85
Final total $537,712.70
The meeting adjourned at 9:51 A.M
Published in the Herald Journal June 25, 2007.