Wright County Board Minutes

WRIGHT COUNTY BOARD MINUTES

OCTOBER 9, 2007

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 Eichelberg, second by Mattson, all voted to approve the 9-28-07 County Board Minutes as presented.

The County Board Minutes of 10-02-07 were discussed. Richard Norman, County Coordinator, referenced page 6, 4th paragraph, which includes the motion to award a number of the bid categories for the Jail/LEC Project. Included in the motion was a recommendation to award Bid Category 23B, Mechanical, to Thelen Heating & Roofing, at a contract value of $6,760,000. Norman was in contact with Rick Streich of A&P. Norman and Streich both feel the contract amount should be $6,876,000. This is based upon the County’s decision not to accept Mechanical Alternates M3 and M4. The alternates were listed as a deduct if the County elected not to accept them. However, the County did accept the alternates. Norman provided copies of a handout distributed by A&P at the last County Board Meeting. The handout reflected Bid Category 23B, Mechanical, to have a base contract value of $6,760,000 and a revised contract value of $6,726,000 (including alternates). Sawatzke provided rationale on why he supported the motion as presented in the Minutes: Alternate M1, Controls, was not selected so $82,000 was not added to the contract value of $6,760,000; Alternate M2 had no change; Alternate M3, Kitchen Make-Up Air Unit, was selected so $68,000 was not deducted; and Alternate M4, Snow Melt, was elected so $48,000 was not deducted. Bob Hiivala, Auditor/Treasurer, referenced a separate handout compiled by A&P listing the bid tabulations from the 9-28-07 bid opening. This handout reflected a Base Bid with Alternates of $6,876,000. Therefore, he felt the correct figure should be $6,876,000 less $82,000 for a total of $6,760,000. Sawatzke said if that were the case, the numbers on the handout distributed at the Board Meeting were incorrect. After consideration, it was the consensus that the following correction should be made to the Minutes: Page 6, 4th paragraph, should reflect, “Bid Category 23B, Mechanical, Thelen Heating & Roofing, $6,876,000” (Norman). Eichelberg moved to approve the Minutes as corrected, seconded by Heeter, carried 5-0.

Heeter moved to approve the Agenda as presented, seconded by Eichelberg, carried 5-0.

The Consent Agenda was discussed. Eichelberg referenced Consent Item B1A, “Accept The Findings & Recommendations Of The Planning Commission For The Following Rezonings: Michael Veit (Buffalo Twp.), unanimously recommend approval of the request to rezone appx. 26 acres from AG to A/R.” Eichelberg stated the Township was incorrectly listed and should be Marysville Township. Eichelberg moved to approve the Consent Agenda as corrected, seconded by Heeter, carried 5-0:

A. ADMINISTRATION

1. Performance Appraisals: M. Ruzicka, Aud./Treas.; P. Heitland, M. McGill, T. Olson, Sher.

2. O/T Report, Period Ending 9-21-07.

3. Approve Memorandum Of Agreement With Teamsters Local #320 Authorizing Donation Of Vacation Accrual To An Employee.

4. Acknowledge Minnesota Board & Water & Soil Resources (BWSR) Approval Of Revised Comprehensive Local Water Management Plan.

5. 2007 Voluntary Leave Without Pay Program.

6. Approve/Authorize Signatures On Memorandum Of Agreement With Teamsters Local 320 Authorizing Uniform Allowance For Civilian Bailiffs.

B. PLANNING & ZONING

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

A. Michael Veit (Marysville Twp.). Unanimously recommend approval of the request to rezone appx. 26 acres from AG to A/R.

Bob Hiivala, Auditor/Treasurer, presented the claims listing for approval. On a motion by Sawatzke, second by Mattson, all voted to approve the claims as listed in the abstract, subject to audit.

Craig Hayes, Purchasing Agent, said a Pay Application was received from Knife River Corporation for work completed on expansion of the West Parking Lot. The Pay Application was evaluated by Otto & Associates, Engineer for the project. They applied the 5% retainer and then compared each work category to the original Engineer’s estimate. Otto & Associates recommends approval of the Pay Application request in the amount of $134,619.68 and Change Order #4 for an additional $420.30 for extra work completed by the contractor. A letter from Otto & Associates explains the variances from the estimate. One item included the City’s requirement that the contractor perform extra work to remove abandoned water services at four locations. Eichelberg moved to approve Change Order #4 in the amount of $420.30, seconded by Heeter, carried 5-0. Heeter moved to approve payment to Knife River Corporation in the amount of $134,619.68, seconded by Mattson, carried unanimously.

Hayes said Building Care & Maintenance has requested an additional sidewalk for the West Parking Lot Project. A layout of the area was provided. The existing sidewalk is utilized by those entering the main entrance of the Government Center. Many of the employees parking in the West Parking Lot will enter the West Entrance of the Building. An additional sidewalk is proposed which will provide a safer and more direct route to the employee entrance. Otto Associates provided a cost estimate of $1,200. A quote was received from a contractor for $1,100. Discussion followed on whether the City would provide a mid-block crosswalk. Hayes said employees may elect to cross at this location regardless of whether there is a crosswalk. Crossing at locations other than where marked is done at the person’s own risk. Heeter moved to approve the request for the additional sidewalk as it is affordable and it will provide easier access. Russek questioned whether the City will be asked for a crosswalk. Norman stated the City has been invited to attend the 10-10-07 Building Committee Meeting to discuss parking and safety issues at this location. They could be consulted on the crosswalk issue at that time. The motion was seconded by Mattson. Sawatzke said he was okay with approval providing it meets with the acceptance of the City. The motion carried 5-0.

Tim Clark, A&P Senior Project Manager, presented Bid Package #3 contract recommendations:

Bid Category 5C, Miscellaneous Metals. Award to Standard Iron at a contract value of $333,000. Alternate A3, Railings, is an add of $31,000. Sawatzke said the Owner’s Committee does not recommend Alternate A3. Clark referenced Bid Category 8A, Glazing which reflects a savings of 49,000 if metal is selected over glass for the handrail. Sawatzke said the Committee does not recommend metal. The largest concern is that the metal railings are designed horizontally which could present a safety hazard for children. The railings could be redesigned vertically but would result in a change order. Heeter said the long-term maintenance of metal is a consideration as well. In response to Norman, Clark indicated that the contract value for Bid Category 5C is the base bid and does not include the alternate.

Bid Category 5D, Miscellaneous Metal Erection. A & P recommends award to KMH Erectors at a contract value of $462,000. Alternate A3, Railings, is an add of $7,000. Alternate A3 will not be accepted.

Bid Category 6A, Miscellaneous Carpentry. A & P recommends award to Tekton Construction at a contract value of $851,339. No alternates.

Bid Category 7A, Wall Panels. A & P recommends award to SGH at a contract value of $969,130. No alternates. Sawatzke said this is a category where one of the bidders has requested withdrawal of their bid. The low bid was from Minnkota Architectural Products, $542,605. Minnkota apparently did not read the entire specifications for the project and therefore did not include everything in their bid. Clark confirmed that Minnkota did miss a portion of the project scope. Sawatzke said the County Board has the opportunity to consider whether to retain the bid bond or cashier’s check. Clark said bidders are required to provide a bid bond in the amount of 5% of the bid, certifying they have a responsible bid. This would equate to a bond amount of just over $25,000. In construction, there are various ways in which bidding takes place. At times, subcontractors are unsure how to match products with other contractors. It is not uncommon for bids to be provided where contractors may not understand the process. Typically A& P does not recommend going after bid bonds if an honest mistake is made. Clark said Minnkota made an honest mistake which involved not including labor for a product that was an acceptable alternate. Eichelberg said that the difference is that although the County wants to do the right thing and return the bid bond, if the situation were different and the second bidder was selected, the County would have to accept their bid no matter what the situation. Russek said this would be the case unless it was an inadequate bid. He referenced comments made by Cliff Buikema, KKE Architects, last week with regard to the problems that can occur if a bidder with an inadequate bid completes the work. This can result in more project costs. Mattson questioned whether there is a track record on bidding completed by companies. Clark said Minnkota is a reputable company and did not understand the scope of the project. The recommendation of A&P is to award the bid to SGH for $969,130.

Bid Category 7B, Roofing. A & P recommends award to McDowall at a contract value of $641,940. Alternate A1, Roofing, includes an add of $301,710 to go from a rubber ballast roof to a built-up roof. Clark met with McDowall today and they will change the warranty from 10 years to 15 years on the rubber ballast roof at a cost estimate of less than $10,000. Sawatzke said Aduddell Roofing would be the low bid with the built-up roof. Sawatzke said the Committee recommendation is to elect the base bid of the rubber roof with McDowall Company. The Committee was not in favor of the extended warranty. It was felt that the County would pay more in the end for an extended warranty. If there is a problem, it would be discovered within 10 years. If not, the roof should last 15 years. Clark concurred and said the roof should not leak if the 60 mil rubber ballast roof were selected.

Bid Category 8A-Glazing. A & P recommends award to W.L. Hall at a contract value of $1,158,632. Alternate A3, Railings, a deduct of $87,027, will not be accepted.

Bid Category 11B, Kitchen Equipment. A & P recommends award to Dakota Food Equipment at a contract value of $615,006, no alternates.

Bid Category 28A, Security Electronics. A & P recommends award to Norment Security at a contract value of $1,030,000, no alternates.

Clark said the total contract value of the bid categories presented is $6,061,047. The base bid is the recommendation as no alternates are being accepted. Sawatzke noted that by accepting the bid from SGH, the action would include approving withdrawal of the bid from Minnkota and return of their bid bond. Sawatzke questioned whether a response was received from the local ceramic contractor on whether they will honor their bid. Streich said they have not received word yet. There are a number of things which still need review. Sawatzke moved to accept the bids from Categories 5C, 5D, 6A, 7A, 7B, 8A, 11B and 28A for a base bid of $6,061,047 with no alternates. The motion was seconded by Heeter and carried 5-0.

Russek was contacted by one of the companies that bid on the Jail/LEC project (blacktopping parking lots) who questioned why crushed limestone is required under the parking lots. Russek contacted the County Highway Engineer who felt Class 5 would work just as well. It would cost an estimated $75,000 more to use crushed limestone as a base. Russek asked Cliff Buikema, KKE Architects, whether a lower bid should be negotiated on Class 5 or whether re-bid should be considered without crushed limestone. Buikema stated this was the first he had been made aware of this and would obtain an answer for the Board. Streich said this was discussed about one month ago. He will bring a report to an upcoming Owner’s Committee Meeting.

A Committee Of The Whole Meeting was held on 10-02-07. At today’s County Board Meeting, the following corrections were made to the minutes: Page 2, 3rd paragraph, second sentence should read, “The professional services line item was hit hard in 2006 with paying for the NE Quadrant Study and in 2008 will incur a large expense for the NW Quadrant Study” (Eichelberg). Eichelberg moved to approve the minutes and recommendations, seconded by Sawatzke. Mattson referenced the Committee’s recommendation which reflects “Recommend the retention of Baker’s services and review a proposal for services at the 10-09-07 Board Meeting.” Mattson wanted to know the cost before approval. Sawatzke clarified that the motion indicates the minutes are accurate and that the recommendation was to look at the proposal. Brian Asleson, Chief Deputy Attorney, concurred. The motion carried 5-0:

DISCUSS POTENTIAL LITIGATION RE: TOWNSHIP ZONING. Asleson announced that today’s meeting, originally scheduled as a closed session Committee meeting, will be held as an open meeting. Asleson acknowledged the determination of whether this was an open or closed meeting was a “grey” issue, however for the sake of focusing on the substance of the issue versus the nature of the meeting, Asleson in consultation with others has chosen to proceed with an open meeting. Salkowski presented a letter to the Board dated 10/02/07 (see attached). Salkowski’s letter discussed the intent of today’s Committee meeting, the progression of negotiations with Corinna, Stockholm and Middleville Townships regarding planning and zoning and justification for why the County should proceed to retain legal counsel concerning these matters. He asked John Baker to attend today’s meeting to brief the Committee on his legal background and the County’s legal options and strategy. Baker introduced himself by stating that he has previously worked with the County on other cases. He is an Attorney and a Partner with Green Espel in Minneapolis and also serves as an Adjunct Professor at William Mitchell College of Law, teaching Land Use Management. He has experiences in 2000-2004 with similar land use authority cases including Olmsted County and its Townships and another case involving the City of Rochester. Baker successfully represented Olmsted County leading to a published decision in the Court of Appeals in 2001-2002 called “West Circle Properties LLC vs. Daniel Hall.” In the Rochester land use authority case Baker won a declaratory judgment. In each case the supremacy of the County’s zoning laws, in circumstances where the townships laws were not consistent or less restrictive than the County, was established. In this respect, the County will not have to start from scratch to prepare for possible litigation. The law has not changed since this ruling in the Olmsted case. Baker stated that the present task is to prepare for possible litigation. The details of litigation would be speculative at this point; however the goal would be to choose the path and the timetable that would most likely and efficiently result in a decision that would be favorable to the County’s position. Asleson stated that Tom Kelly, County Attorney, and Tom Zins, Attorney III, are both in support of retaining Baker’s services. Kelly is preoccupied in a grand jury trial that will be taking place next week. Sawatzke stated that there are challenges in administering planning and zoning within the County. He stated that he feels that the County is at a point where it needs extra help and a third party that can provide a different perspective. The Board is familiar with Baker’s work. Sawatzke stated that he is in favor of retaining Baker’s services and would support having Baker brought up to speed to serve as an advisor to the Attorney and the Planning and Zoning Departments. Sawatzke stated that he feels it is important to maintain unified planning and zoning within the County and due to Corinna’s target date of 10-15-07 to begin its own planning and zoning, it is a perfect time to bring in outside legal counsel. Mattson asked if the County will be initiating a contract with Baker’s office. Asleson stated that the County Attorney’s office has a small budgeted amount available for outside professional services. This budgeted amount would only be enough to cover the expenses of the initial consultation. Asleson stated that it is speculative to determine what the County will spend on outside counsel. Attorney’s Department staff would like the Board’s input on a source for funding this expense. Mattson stated that he is not in favor of an open checkbook contract. Russek stated that he would expect that Baker’s office will provide a proposal including the hourly wage charged for his services to the Board for approval. Salkowski stated that Planning and Zoning also has a professional services line item with insufficient funds to cover this expense. The professional services line item was hit hard in 2006 with paying for the NE Quadrant Study and in 2008 will incur a large expense for the NW Quadrant Study. However the Department may be under the budgeted amount for 2007. Sawatzke proposed that the County’s Budget 100, Professional Services line item, may be suited for funding this type of expenditure. Recommendation: Recommend the retention of Baker’s services and review a proposal for services at the 10-09-07 Board Meeting. (End of Committee Of The Whole Meeting)

Asleson distributed a Legal Services Agreement to retain the services of John Baker, Greene Espel, for possible services related to township zoning litigation. Page 1 of the document reflects the fees at $257/hour for John Baker and $140 for Kate Hibbard. An email from Baker indicated the rates in the Agreement are the lowest of any of their clients. The same rates are applied to work completed for the County’s Insurance Trust and League Of MN Cities Insurance Trust. Asleson said Baker has indicated that litigation will not ensue unless we feel a favorable court ruling will be obtained and we are convinced the time will be spent judiciously. In an effort to keep costs down, the County will complete some of the legwork relating to the State’s Shoreline Regulations and how those are affected by what Corinna Township is proposing. Russek supported retaining Baker but hoped that the County will never need his services. He hopes Corinna Township will provide information requested by the County, demonstrating their ability to perform their own Planning & Zoning. Mattson had concern with costs and suggested setting a cap on expenditures. Asleson said at this point, the County will obtain legal advice. At the point of commencing litigation, the issue would be brought back for County Board authorization. That would be the point at which to set a ceiling for expenditures. He did not feel the County would expend much prior to litigation. Mattson questioned whether another meeting should be held with Planning & Zoning to identify the County’s concerns. He said the Townships of Stockholm and Middleville, who perform their own Planning & Zoning, are uncomfortable with recent actions. He felt the County had a good relationship with those Townships. Asleson referenced the Committee Meeting where Tom Salkowski, Planning & Zoning Administrator, had oral and written comments reflecting his desire to continue working with townships that are willing to work with the County. Asleson shared that sentiment and said they would not commence litigation unless absolutely necessary. Sawatzke felt there was a good relationship with Middleville and Stockholm Townships although there are a few areas that could be improved. By in large, they are trying and there is good communication. Corinna Township, however, has set a date of 10-15-07 to begin its own planning and zoning. The understanding is that there will be many changes and that they might not be consistent with the County’s Plan. This is in violation of Statute. The implementation date is only six days away. With approval of the Agreement with Greene Espel, Sawatzke felt it would be relatively inexpensive until the Board is informed that they need to proceed to litigation. The County Board will then make that decision. Asleson concurred. Sawatzke said that timing is critical and with only six days until the self-imposed deadline by Corinna Township, he made a motion to approve the Agreement with Greene Espel. The motion was seconded by Heeter. Mattson wanted to make sure that the County is not creating a problem for the other two Townships. He felt Wright County had very good legal staff and hoped the County did not have to retain the services of outside counsel. Russek said the intent is not to create a problem where there isn’t one. However, the County must be prepared for possible problems associated with a Township doing something that is not legal. The County is the planning authority and could potentially be named in a future lawsuit on land use. The motion carried 5-0.

An Owner’s Committee Meeting was held on 10-02-07. At today’s County Board Meeting, the following corrections were made to the minutes: Page 1, 3rd paragraph, Bid Category 9D-Flooring, Neil’s Floor Covering, second sentence should read, “They were substantially lower than the next low bid of $230,625.” (Sawatzke); page 2, 5th paragraph, Bid Category 5D-Metal Fabrication Erection, 5th sentence should read, “The reason these were not bid together is that the drawings were not ready at the time the structural steel drawings were required” (Sawatzke). The minutes follow, including discussion at today’s Board Meeting (reflected in italics):

Project Update.

A. A&P. Streich said the poured walls were being finished today for Areas A&B of the LEC. The pads are complete in Area A. Area B will be dug this week. The main elevator shaft will be put in by the end of the week. All perimeter footings are in. The wall steel is tied. They should see in-beds for Areas C & F next week so they can continue with the perimeter walls. Two additional drills along with six men arrived at the site yesterday. They are starting on the north side of the site which is the second well field. They will start placing header material. There are 472 wells. With regard to work on Braddock Avenue, the poles are in and the wiring has been brought to the site. They will bore under the road and to the site later this week.

B. KKE. Buikema said they have finished the first set of precast shop drawings and will work the next few days on the precast cell assembly drawings. These will be sent to the mechanical, electrical and security areas to collect information. There are items that were discovered during the shop drawing process that may be brought to the Board with suggestions for changes. These were items that were forgotten.

C. Phase III Bids. Martin distributed an overview of bids and project costs (attached).

1. Bid Category 9D-Flooring. Two contractors have contacted Martin to discuss withdrawal of their bids.

• Neil’s Floor Covering submitted the low bid of $136,500 for Bid Category 9B-Ceramic Tile. A certified check was submitted with their bid. They were substantially lower than the next low bid of $230,625. Martin said it appears something was left out of their bid. Neil’s Floor Covering is unsure whether they want to withdraw their bid and are verifying figures. Hayes questioned whether they would be able to demonstrate the error. Martin said the bid is as is. The County will then need to decide whether to keep the $6,000 certified check.

At today’s County Board Meeting, Sawatzke said Neil’s Floor Covering may want to withdraw their bid but the County has not heard back from them on their intentions.

• Minnkota Architectural Products submitted the low bid of $542,605 for Bid Category 7A-Wall Panels. The bid missed a large scope of the work including the sheeting, insulation and building rack. The wall panels alone are worth approximately $500,000. Minnkota has requested withdrawal of their bid.

At today’s County Board Meeting, Sawatzke noted that the County Board took action to allow withdrawal and refund of Minnkota’s bid bond by accepting the next low bid.

Martin indicated that neither of the bids are time sensitive. The bid bond is for the purpose of the contractor guaranteeing pricing. The withdrawal of the Design Electric bid was discussed as part of the 10-02-07 County Board Meeting, and Martin stated that human error was involved. If the County had decided to retain that bid bond, it could affect the company’s bonding for other projects. With regard to the bid from Neil’s Floor Covering, the County retaining the certified check for $6,000 would have a large impact on a small business. Hayes said if the County would make an error, they would have to pay for it. He was under the impression that the purpose of the bid bond was to compensate the County if they were required to re-bid. As there are enough viable bidders for this category, the County Board would have to make the decision. Buikema said there is a relationship between the general contractor and their subs during a bid process. The County Board has become part of that process during the review of the bids. The positive aspect is that the errors are above board and the County has the option on determining how to proceed. The purpose is to retain the best contractor for the best price. Although accepting the low bid may save dollars, it may be made up in quality and problems which could occur during the construction process. He encouraged the Board to review this as a positive process with some room to maneuver, which may affect the quality of the project. KKE and A&P will be participating in that process to make sure the bids are good. Martin said a lot of work is being expended on qualifying bids. Hayes stated that a contract will follow and that the performance bond will carry through the project. Martin said Minnkota cannot provide the Centura panels. She understood from the Centura installers that the edges of this product are of much higher quality. Minnkota has an alternate product. Sawatzke felt Minnkota would not elect to complete the job for the $25,000 bond versus completing the job at a $400,000 difference. He felt keeping the bond may send a message. Martin said their error was different than that of Design Electric. Minnkota did not read the specifications. They will need to show proof of the error. Martin is continuing to meet with contractors on bids. Most of the apparent low bidders are reflected on the handout, with the exception of Neil’s Flooring and Minnkota. This handout reflects an estimated total project cost of $37,850,909 versus the $42,688,978 reflected in the CD estimate. Once all contract values have been calculated, she will provide updated information including fees and technology related items. Sawatzke said the approximate total cost provided at the 9-28-07 bid opening was $36,091,000. Martin responded this figure did not include the $791,773 general requirement or the change from Design Electric to Phasor Electric. Recommendation: At the 10-09-07 County Board Meeting, Martin will provide an update on whether Neil’s Floor Covering will be completing the work. The consensus was that the County Board will need to decide on what action to take with regard to Minnkota’s bond.

2. Bid Category 5D-Metal Fabrication Erection. Sawatzke referenced the one bid received from KMH Erectors at $469,000, which is more than $300,000 over estimate. Martin said the estimate provided was not good. KMH is currently the only contractor for miscellaneous and structural steel. The advantage is that they are responsible for both and this eliminates change orders or finger pointing. The reason these were not bid together is that the drawings were not ready at the time the structural steel drawings were required. Otherwise, they never bid these items separately.

3. Bid Category 8A-Glass & Glazing. Buikema said the design was based upon a certain manufacturer who they felt would provide the most superior product. The manufacturer provided advice. They opened the bidding to others during the bid process. There was one other manufacturer for the general windows. Moduline was the base bid. Wausau Windows was allowed to bid but they did not want to bid the security windows. They then approved another security window manufacturer to bid. Buikema called Northern Glass and National Windows and encouraged them to bid. National Windows indicated they would bid but did not. Buikema was in contact with W.L. Hall, the only bidder, who obtained prices from Wausau Windows and Moduline. They were unable to obtain a price from another vendor. They also bid out the erection with several different installers. Buikema said National Window told him that they would be bidding but did not. Glass will be presented next Tuesday for approval. Another item which was added was the glass railing for the Lobby area. This was not included in the DD Drawings and is an alternate. The glass railing allows staff to observe other levels and comes at a cost of $87,000. Sawatzke was happy to hear that the company that bid did not know they would be the only bidder.

4. Bid Category 27A-Communications. Swing had concern with qualifying bidders. His vendor of choice did not bid. Swing did not realize the bid process had commenced and therefore did not inform the vendor. Martin contacted the low bidder and confirmed they were certified and had included conduit. Re-bidding was discussed. Sawatzke asked Swing whether he had reason to believe the bidder was incapable of completing the work. Swing said he would request re-bidding because of the spread between the numbers and wanting the vendor he has worked with to bid as well. Swing said the criteria includes more than just cost. Wiring is felt to be critical. Buikema said it would be appropriate to ask for information from the bidder in order to qualify them. Martin suggested that she and Swing meet with the bidder and qualify the bid received. Buikema said if the bid is within budget and the County would decide to re-bid, the design would have to be changed.

The plan is to work with the building exterior and then move inward toward finishes. Bids are good for 30 days. Martin will ask for County Board action at the 10-09-07 County Board Meeting on the following Bid Categories: 5C-Metal Fabrications, 5D-Metal Fab. Erection, 6A-Miscellaneous Carpentry, 7A-Wall Panels, 7B-Roofing, 8A-Glass & Glazing, and 9A-Drywall (if time permits as she is qualifying the bidder on Monday).

5. Alternate A3-Railings. This alternate is to provide at Stair S2002 and Upper Lobby S2005, in lieu of glass and aluminum railing system indicated on Drawings and specified in Section 05 73 13, provide painted steel railing as indicated on Drawings and specified in Section 05 73 19. There is an extra $31,000 in the steel bid with install at $7,000. The apparent low bidder didn’t recognize the alternate so Martin will inform them they will have to paint it at no cost. W.L. Hall had a deduct of $87,000. Those numbers added together would reflect a deduct of $49,027. The original bid included glass and the deduct of $49,027 would be to add the steel railing. The railing will be located in the Lobby between the Jail and LEC levels to allow staff to view other areas. Buikema said the law now requires rails to be 4” apart which would result in the view of a lot of metal railing. The design is vertical. Discussion followed on manpower required to paint steel versus glass cleaning. The glass railing, which is 1/2” thick, will not include a top railing. There will be a hand railing on the stairwell. Martin said aluminum looks much better than painted steel. Recommendation: The Committee recommends the glass railing.

6. Alternate 7B-Roofing. Hayes previously discussed roofing with Buikema and requested that an alternate bid be included for a fully adhered white membrane roof. He understood that time didn’t allow for this. The options are a rubber ballast roof (similar to the roof of the Government Center) or a built-up roof. The built-up roof is recognized as a premier roof. The rubber ballast roof is normally a 15-year roof. The company that was low bid for the rubber ballast roof is not low bid on the built-up roof. The second low bidder is located out of state and Hayes had concern with this. Buikema said two alternates were bid. The rubber ballast roof (60 mil) is a little better than what the County currently has (40 mil) and carries a 10-year warranty. Sawatzke noted that there are not many mechanicals located on the roof so there should be limited foot traffic. Hayes stated that there is additional traffic outside of maintenance for things such as cameras, satellites, etc. There will be walkways on the roof to all of the major components. Sawatzke said most jails use a rubber roof and the County is familiar with the vendor, McDowall Company. Hayes was comfortable with the vendor. The proposed decking under the roof makes it last longer. Buikema felt it would be the County’s prerogative on whether to re-bid using the white membrane roof. One concern he had with that type of roof is that it is all glued down so application would need to be completed during warmer weather. Hayes suggested the County hire someone to test the built-up roof if it is selected. Buikema said the secret to a roof performance is the workmanship. There is less workmanship required on a rubber roof and normal observation can occur. With a built-up roof, the State hires a testing agency to assure things are completed daily. If a built-up roof is recommended for the Jail/LEC project, Buikema suggested hiring an inspector to provide additional testing. That could result in the roof lasting 20-30 years. Hayes said the Government Center rubber roof has lasted 18 years but has required some patching. It is due for replacement. Recommendation: The Committee recommendation is to accept the bid from McDowall Company of $641,940 for the rubber ballast roof.

7. Alternate A2-Finishes. This is to provide alternate prices for providing the following interior finishes in lieu of those specified as Base Bid finishes:

A. In lieu of linoleum flooring (LIN) scheduled and specified in Section 09 65 16.16, provide vinyl composition tile (VCT), specified in Section 09 65 19. Provide the following alternative materials:

1. VCT-1 in lieu of LIN-1.

2. VCT-2 in lieu of LIN-2.

3. VCT-3 in lieu of LIN-3.

B. In lieu of the rubber tile, stair treads and raisers (RUB-F) scheduled for concrete filled metal pan stairs and landings, provide vinyl tiles, stair treads and raisers, each product specified in Section 09 65 19.

C. In lieu of rubber base (RUB-1), provide vinyl base, in same height and style, each product specified in Section 09 65 19.

D. In lieu of carpet type CPT-1 scheduled, provide CPT-1A, and in lieu of CPT-3, provide CPT-2, each product specified in Section 09 68 00.

E. In lieu of vinyl-coated wall coverings (VWC) scheduled, and specified in Section 09 72 16, provide painted gypsum board finishes (ES PT), specified in Section 09 91 00.

Considerable discussion occurred on wall and floor finishes. Hayes said there is no way to qualify rubber versus vinyl cove. Both will require finishing. The County currently spends $11,000/year to finish the floors in the Jail. Martin said if Alternate A2 were accepted, the total credit would be $81,000 if the low bid is accepted ($25,679 deduct for vinyl wall covering and $55,372 deduct for floor finishes). With regard to the wall finish, Hayes said the standard for all offices and halls has been vinyl wall covering. Painted walls in offices will be a downgrade from this standard. Hayes supported vinyl wall covering for the lobby and halls as they are high traffic areas. The County’s experience shows vinyl wall covering replacement after about 15 years. With regard to flooring, Buikema said linoleum will outlast vinyl. Vinyl tile is more problematic. Carpeting was discussed. Carpet tiles will be used throughout which is slightly more expensive than rolled carpeting. It was the understanding of Committee members that Roxanne DeCoster from KKE did not recommend carpet tiles. Recommendation: The Committee recommends the alternate but the consensus was to include vinyl wall covering in the lobby and hallway areas. Buikema is to consult with DeCoster to determine whether carpet squares are to be used. The preference is roll carpeting.

At today’s County Board Meeting, Sawatzke said the Committee recommends not accepting the deduct for wall finishes of $55,372 and supports vinyl covering on the walls as opposed to paint. Since the Committee Meeting, it was also learned that the carpet tiles will be used in the Day Room areas only. There was discussion on whether more expensive carpeting should be selected. Sometimes carpeting is replaced because of stains and not due to wear. With regard to the preference of Building Maintenance on linoleum versus vinyl flooring, Craig Hayes, Purchasing Agent, said linoleum last longer than vinyl but the maintenance is similar for either product. Mattson asked when architectural drawings are laid out and bidders don’t read them properly, if a bidder sues do they sue the architect over the drawings or the County over the bid letting. Sawatzke did not have an answer but did not feel there were issues of concern. With flooring and wall coverings, the same contractor will be selected regardless of alternates. With electrical, one bidder withdrew their bid and two did not. With wall panels, two submitted correct bids and one did not. With ceramic, eight or nine submitted correct bids and one may not have. If the overwhelming majority submitted bids correctly, the question would be who was making the mistake.

D. Other. Martin said an exterior retaining wall was not included in Bid Package #2 and will be addressed as a Proposal Request. The wall is to retain the dirt outside of the main entry way. Buikema said this was a result of a misunderstanding between the contractors for interior structural concrete work and the site concrete work. Another item that is needed is a stair down the side of the building that will require footings. The added value for the retaining wall is $25,000-$30,000 (contractor’s estimate). Martin said this will result in a change order. Heeter said the County will pay for the work but should not pay a percentage to A&P for the change order. Martin confirmed this and said the amount will be paid from the contingency fund. Once the change order is signed by KKE, it will be presented to the Owner’s Committee and County Board for approval as it may be above the $25,000 change order threshold. Streich said the retaining wall is needed due to the elevation and grade changes. The footings will be 7’ wide underground to support dirt on one side and nothing on the other side. Rebar is included. They are at the point where they need to proceed on stacking the dirt for this retaining wall. Recommendation: Martin will consult with the vendor. The Committee authorizes proceeding with the work if it can be completed for $25,000. If the cost is over the $25,000 threshold, the change order will be brought forth at the 10-09-07 County Board Meeting for approval.

At today’s County Board Meeting, Sawatzke said the exterior retaining wall was included on the drawings but not included in the bid specifications. There will be a poured concrete wall which will act as a retaining wall at the building entrance. The footings are 70’ long by 7’ wide. The contractor originally estimated the cost at $25,000-$30,000. Since that time, the contractor has agreed to the cost of $24,880. This is under the $25,000 threshold of the Committee so the recommendation is to give authorization to proceed based upon this threshold. A change order in the amount of $24,880 is forthcoming. Sawatzke moved to approve the Owner’s Committee minutes and recommendations, seconded by Heeter, carried 5-0. (End of 10-02-07 Owner’s Committee Minutes and discussion)

The Owner’s Committee Meeting scheduled for 10-09-07 at 1:00 P.M. was cancelled because there were no Agenda items.

On a motion by Eichelberg, second by Heeter, all voted to schedule a Technology Committee Of The Whole Meeting for 11-14-07 at 10:00 A.M.

Heeter moved to adopt Resolution #07-54, final acceptance for the CSAH 2 Bridge Project, Contract #0601, with Redstone Construction Co, Inc. of Mora, Minnesota, including final payment of $34,760.04. The motion was seconded by Eichelberg and carried 5-0 on a roll call vote.

Bills Approved

Brian Abrahamson. $204.18

Aggregate & Ready Mix 450.00

Allina Hospitals & Clinics 2,311.12

Allina Medical 205.62

American Institutional Supply 147.86

American Messaging 673.78

Ancom Communications Inc. 2,637.47

Ancom Technical Center 998.00

Aramark Correctional Serv. 5,623.88

B & B Products - Rigs & Squa 229.60

George Bakeberg 473.19

Bauerly Brothers Comp. 18,909.52

Lawrence Bauman 557.67

Beaudry Propane Inc. 340.58

Blaine Lock & Safe Inc. 165.00

BP Amoco 4,261.98

Bureau of Crim. Apprehen. 8,430.00

Ryan Busch 520.40

Cellular Sales & Service 1,123.39

Climate Air 7,579.84

Comm. of Transportation 450.00

Corinna Township 1,194.50

CPU Options Inc. 1,487.80

Cub Foods 123.20

Deatons Mailing Sys. Inc. 192.66

Ralph Douglas 635.80

Nicholas Eastman 125.00

Embarq 162.34

Tom Feddema 164.90

Firehouse Auto Repair 202.35

GCS Service Inc. 705.10

Geocomm Inc. 4,400.00

Janet Gholson 260.44

Greenview Inc. 13,675.68

H & H Sport Shop Inc. 133.00

Hillyard Floor Care Supply 3,679.20

Holiday Inn - Duluth 185.32

Integrated Recycling Tech 140.00

Intereum Inc. 3,163.65

International Assn. of Assess 190.00

Kaplan Professonal Schools 795.00

Lake Superior College 600.00

Lakedale Communications 390.91

LaPlant Demo Inc. 602.11

M & M Bus Service Inc. 175.64

Marco 885.02

Marco Inc. 1,828.81

Menards - Buffalo 150.36

The Metro Group Inc. 4,478.43

Midland Corp. Benefits Svc 997.75

MN Counties Comp. Co-op. 4,279.14

MN Co. Attorneys Assoc. 400.00

Monticello Auto Body Inc. 133.13

Nat’l Graphic Supply Corp. 182.06

Nextel Communications 2,337.76

N Suburban Towing Inc. 170.64

Office Depot 2,652.57

Pella Windows & Doors 279.71

Photo 1 629.19

Ragan Communications 129.00

Redstone Construction Co. 34,760.04

City Rockford 2,598.10

RS Eden 8,360.25

Jack Russek 212.91

Ruttger’s Bay Lake Lodge 1,514.43

Savance 625.00

Software House Int’l 361.04

State of MN-Office Enterprise 965.00

Stockholm Township 355.80

Stratus Tech. Ireland 8,675.39

Tech Depot 117.60

Verizon Wireless 202.22

Waste Management TC W 1,586.84

Gordon Weber 308.20

Wright Co. Hwy. Dept. 720.28

32 Pymts. less than $100 6,945.88

Final total $177,520.23

The meeting adjourned at 10:27 A.M

Published in the Herald Journal Nov. 5, 2007.