Wright County Board Minutes

FEBRUARY 12, 2008
The Wright County Board met in regular session at 9:00 A.M. with Heeter, Sawatzke, Mattson, Russek and Eichelberg present.
The minutes of 2-05-08 were corrected as follows: Page 2, 1st paragraph, 3rd to last line, sentence should read, “Russek said the Board may be called upon to establish an interest rate” (Russek); Page 2, 2nd paragraph, 1st line, change from “Independent” to “Independence” (Sawatzke); Page 3, last paragraph, 5th to last line, change from “courthouse” to “Government Center” (Sawatzke). Russek moved to approve the minutes as corrected, seconded by Sawatzke, carried 5-0.
Petitions were accepted to the Agenda under Items For Consideration: #6, “County Futures Project” (Heeter); #7, “Update On Gravel Mining Conference” (Russek). Heeter moved to approve the Agenda as amended, seconded by Russek, carried 5-0.
The Consent Agenda was discussed. Mattson questioned whether the claims listed under the Auditor/Treasurer were reviewed by the Owner’s Committee. Sawatzke confirmed this and said they are part of the Owner’s Committee Minutes that are being reviewed later in today’s meeting. Bob Hiivala, Auditor/Treasurer, said the claims being approved for the Jail/LEC project, as listed on the Consent Agenda, will be paid at the end of the month. On a motion by Russek, second by Mattson, all voted to approve the Consent Agenda:
1. Performance Appraisals: W. Augustin, W. Cordell, C. Webb, Hwy.; W. Stephens, P&Z; R. Gongoll, D. Weed, Sheriff.
2. O/T Report, Period Ending 1-25-08.
3. Authorize Signatures, Partner Agreement, Supporting Buffalo School Districts Application For Readiness & Emergency Management For Schools (REMS) Grant Funds.
4. Authorize AMC Delegates To Attend Legislative Conference, April 9-10, 2008, St. Paul.
5. Schedule Budget Committee Of The Whole Meeting, 9:00 A.M., 3-10-08.
6. Approve Charitable Gambling Application Form LG220, Church Of St. Mary Of Czestochowa, 1867 95th St. SE, Delano MN 55328 (Franklin Twp.).
7. Authorize Signatures On MN Cities Participation Program (First Time Homebuyer) Application & Authorize Payment Of $18,487.62 To The MN Housing Finance Agency.
1. Claim - AP Midwest - $64,684.41 - Jail/LEC.
2. Claim - AP Midwest - $136,508.53 - Jail/LEC.
3. Claim - Standard Iron $3,524.50 - Jail/LEC.
4. Claim - Old Castle Precast $406,742.50 - Jail/LEC.
5. Claim - Stellar Concrete $15,823.38 - Jail/LEC.
6. Claim - Cornerstone Detention Products, Inc $6,650.00 - Jail/LEC.
7. Claim - Phasor Electric $9,500.00 - Jail/LEC.
8. Claim - Thelen Heating $206,568.00 - Jail/LEC.
9. Claim - Hanson Structural Precast Midwest Inc $420,993.22 - Jail/LEC.
10. Claim - Tekton Construction Company $36,962.60 - Jail/LEC.
11. Claim - RTL Construction $24,476.74 - Jail/LEC.
12. Claim - KMH Erectors $135,850.00 - Jail/LEC.
13. Claim - KMH Erectors $8,550.00 - Jail/LEC.
14. Approve 2008 Tobacco License Renewal: Cruiser’s (Monticello City).
1. Authorize Continued Participation In Joint Powers Agreement With Mn Dept Of Public Safety For Delivery & Use Of IBIS RDT4 Units (Identification Based Information System Remote Data Terminates) By Sheriff’s Office.
1. Authorize Steve Jobe, County Surveyor, To Attend The National Surveyor’s Conference In Spokane, Washington, March 4-9, 2008.
Bob Hiivala, Auditor/Treasurer, presented the claims listing for approval. Heeter moved to approve the claims as listed in the abstract, subject to audit. The motion was seconded by Russek. Mattson asked about the process for payment of R/W claims. Hiivala explained that the R/W payment is made directly to the person. With regard to the Braddock Avenue project, the Road & Bridge fund is reimbursed from the Capital Fund. The motion to approve the claims carried 5-0.
A Building Committee Of The Whole Meeting was held on 2-05-08. At today’s County Board Meeting, Heeter moved to approve the minutes and recommendation, seconded by Russek. Mattson said taxpayers should be aware that the County is not moving fast on moving the Courts project because of the money involved. The motion carried 5-0:
REQUEST TO REMODEL COURTROOMS 1 & 5. Nordeen re-distributed her handout for the “Courtroom 1 and 5 Remodel Request” (see attached). Nordeen stated that this item was originally presented to the Building Committee on 12-12-07. The primary objective is to provide space for Court Clerks. Their current workspace is a typewriter table. The volume of files they handle has increased greatly, and the current workstations do not accommodate for that. Nordeen stated that she took the initiative to address the long standing security issues within the design objectives. Her Department has looked toward the future in regard to its growth. At a minimum, the Courts won’t be moving to the Jail/LEC site for another 8-10 years. The Committee had requested that Nordeen obtain a consensus from the Judges on what they would like remodeled. She stated that they have all agreed to the plan and design objectives laid out by Wold Architects. She stated that for clarification, the judges are not driving this project. She stated that she is requesting the Board provide for the clerks, address the long standing security issues, and additional space for felony level trials. Nordeen stated that she has itemized the objectives for the remodel, and noted that they are listed in a prioritized order. She stated that the cost estimates are very high, as Wold designed the courtrooms to contain expensive finishing features ($505,000 – $635,000 total estimated cost for both courtrooms). Mattson asked if there is more than one statute that outlines the States funding responsibilities to the courts. Nordeen stated that there is primarily one statute that specifically entails the State’s funding portion. The statute does not require the State to fund the facility. Sawatzke stated that with the cost estimates Wold provided, a free-standing building could be built for the same price. Nordeen requested that the Board not focus on the cost estimates as they are inaccurate to the needs of the Department. Sawatzke stated that the cost of the remodel is integral to this discussion. Nordeen stated that she was asked to come up with a plan that the judges could agree to. The architect came up with the cost estimate and design at no charge. Heeter asked if the priority is to get two clerks into the courtrooms. Nordeen stated yes. She stated that she could reasonably foresee another felony jury courtroom in the next ten years. Sawatzke noted that courtroom 1 has seating for 7 jurors. He questioned how often cases arise that only require 7 jurors. Nordeen responded that there are several cases that require seven jurors. Nordeen stated that courtroom 5 is also the custody courtroom which makes it difficult to schedule a jury trial. She stated that the Sheriff’s Department prefers courtroom 5 for ease of transport. Sawatzke questioned the seating arrangements for the defendants in courtroom 5. Nordeen stated that currently, both sides are crammed at one table. The proposal would be to design for two counsel tables. Sawatzke stated that it is his opinion that the Board should concentrate on bringing in another clerk, addressing the main priority. Heeter stated that there is a need to make the jury box larger in courtroom 1 in addition to bringing in two clerks. She added that she does foresee that the Courts will move north of town. For now, she believes that the remodeling could be done nicely and economically. Per the law, the County is to provide space for the Courts. Hayes stated that he took the initiative to walk through the Courts area with Cliff Buikema, KKE Architects. Upon review of Wold’s design and cost estimates, Buikema stated that he felt the cost estimates were too high. KKE stated that they could provide detailed elevation drawings, written scope of work and cost estimate for a not-to-exceed amount of $4,500. Russek stated that he felt it was too early to engage the services of an architect. He stated that he felt the Board needs to make a decision on the extent of work needed to meet the Courts needs. Sawatzke questioned whether an architect is needed. He proposed that a cabinetmaker may be the more suitable contractor to draw the type of seating/desk/storage area for the court clerks. Sawatzke asked if changes are necessary for the witness stands. Nordeen stated that the witness stands are not wheelchair accessible. Nordeen added that the witness stand is not large enough to accommodate a large framed person. Sawatzke asked if there would be any changes to the judges’ benches. Nordeen stated that there would not be any changes in courtroom 5. Courtroom 1 would need to be brought into compliance with ADA standards. Sawatzke stated that to address the highest priorities, he presumed the work could be completed for hundreds instead of thousands of dollars. Hayes stated that the proposals also include updating the sound systems. District Court just spent $50,000 to update four of the courtrooms. The proposals indicate that it would take an additional $15,000 for each courtroom. Heeter questioned the necessity of meeting ADA standards. Nordeen explained that the courts area was built just prior to the ADA guidelines. During remodeling, it is a requirement to bring the areas that are changed up to ADA standards. Nordeen stated that it was her understanding that the jury, witness stand and judges bench would be brought down to floor level. She explained that in courtroom 1, there is a large closet that would be gutted to allow second row seating for the jury area. Tearing apart, the closet would require that the jury area and judge’s bench be rebuilt and brought to ADA compliance. Mattson asked Nordeen when she is anticipating the need for the remodel. Nordeen replied that she needed the work completed two years ago. Sawatzke stated that he would like to see specific prices on each of the priority design components as well as a bid for the voice and data upgrade. He stated that by seeing specific pricing, the Board would be able to determine the most reasonable projects. Eichelberg asked if Ernst would be able to provide a quote. Hayes clarified that if the project has a value of $50,000 and over, the County would have to receive sealed bids. Hayes proposed that by dividing the project into smaller components, the project could then be quoted separately. Heeter asked Nordeen how often multiple felony cases are scheduled at one time. Nordeen explained that it is common that the courts will schedule a civil and a felony trial, both requiring jury trials. Scheduling becomes difficult as the judges do not want to lose jury trial space in courtroom 5. Nordeen stated that courtroom 5 is preferred by the Sheriff Department due to the security door and ease of transport. Sawatzke asked Nordeen if she foresees the need for another courtroom. Nordeen stated that she anticipates another courtroom within a ten year timeframe. Hayes stated that within ten years, the District would likely receive another judge which would require a chamber, with space for support staff. Heeter stated that due to the amount of unknown variables, she would not recommend making any large changes. She would support creating a space for another staff person. Norman noted that there was nothing budgeted for this project. Nordeen clarified that if the Board opted not to expand the jury box, the closet would not be torn out. Heeter stated that she would be in favor of seeing itemized costs. Sawatzke stated that he agrees with Heeter adding that since the Judges aren’t pushing for the remodel, he’d like Nordeen to present an estimate for the highest priority items. Eichelberg requested that Nordeen work with Hayes to secure cost estimates. RECOMMENDATION: Pursue cost details on the highest priority items to be presented at a future Building Committee Meeting.
LONG-TERM STRATEGY FOR MEETING SPACE NEEDS. Norman opened this agenda item by stating that the Building Committee of the Whole met on 9-25-07 to discuss Melvin’s space study and determine the future use of space vacated by the Sheriff Department. The Board Members requested that Administration perform a study determining the available space and the needs of each department. Melvin presented his “Maximum Capacity Report” (see attached) to the Committee Members. The purpose of the Report was to determine which departments would be bursting at the seams in terms of growth. The goal of the study was to also determine the cost of transporting inmates to and from the Jail/LEC to Court. Melvin stated that the Sheriff Department has a transition team who will determine the number and timing of transports from the Jail/LEC to Court.
Melvin explained the process behind putting together the Report. He stated that he met with each of the Departments and walked through each department to look at the current space. Melvin reviewed his Report findings discussing how there is a dire need for records storage. Records storage is a central theme among departments, meaning that they are in need of storage within their department. The County-wide annex basement storage area will be full at the end of 2008. Melvin discussed how they have brainstormed short-term ideas on how to accommodate space needs. He stated that the largest under-utilized space is the Government Center hallways. He has stressed to departments that imaging of documents is an important factor in storage space. He stated that most departments are doing as much imaging as possible. Departments are trying to put records on computer versus physical storage. He stated that Human Services has been experimenting with a process known as the “landing pod”. The idea is to assign 3-4 workers to an enlarged cubicle space. Through scheduling, the employees work in the field and have alternating scheduled office hours. He also proposed that by utilizing technology and remote access, space expansion could be pushed out even further. Melvin stated that eight out of the 16 departments will need additional space by 2010. Currently, three departments do not have a need for additional space: Law Library, VS/CD, and Auditor/Treasurer. The Recorder’s office has concern regarding security, as the public is often brought back into the office area to view documents. Departments such as Planning and Zoning, Assessor, Auditor/Treasurer, and Recorder are impacted by the housing market. With the downturn of the housing market, space isn’t an urgent need for these departments at this time. Melvin stated that he enlisted the aid of the Surveyor’s office and had the entire courthouse building GIS mapped. He stated that the mapping could be a valuable tool in the future when pursuing space reconfigurations. Sawatzke commended Melvin for his work, stating that the Report is a nice overview. Heeter agreed with Sawatzke and added that after reading the Report, there isn’t as much pressure to make immediate changes. Melvin stated that upon vacating the Sheriff Department, the County would be restricted on what to do with the space, as it will most likely need to be remodeled and configured differently. Russek asked how many square feet the Sheriff Department utilizes. Melvin estimated that they consume 13,000 square feet, not including C118. Melvin proposed that when the time comes, moving Human Services to the area may make the most sense as the third floor has the oldest mechanicals and would be an ideal candidate for an upgrade. Human Services currently utilizes 9,000 square feet. However, with the configuration of their current offices and hallways, the footprint of the Sheriff Department would have to be significantly changed. Once Human Services moved to first floor, third floor would then allow for additional storage and offices for the Attorney and Court Services Departments. Russek asked if anybody has determined how much storage space the County would save if it had a full-time records retention person. Swing stated that Russek presents a difficult question. Swing stated that he, Norman, and Hayes visited Anoka and Dakota County to study their records management. Swing stated that the County’s current storage area needs to be expanded by a factor of 4 and requires a full-time records management person. He added that if the County were to leverage technology, it would have a major impact on the amount of space it uses for storage. Swing stated that the County does have remote access and could support satellite offices. Swing stated that a decision would need to be made on which employees would be candidates for an alternative way to work. Sawatzke stated that satellite offices and telecommuting are not conducive for all employees or job positions. Some employees require daily supervision, and some job positions do not allow them to do their work elsewhere. Swing stated that he believes most Department Heads understand that. He stated that he is making the Board aware that the County does have the technology that would make it a candidate for some sort of remote access. Kramber stated that if the County were to get serious and start thinking outside of the box, it might even consider leasing space, rather than remodeling or building new. Melvin sought direction from the Board. He asked the Board if they would like him to start putting together options or scenarios. Eichelberg asked Swing if he knew how many counties have a full-time records management person. He asked if those counties have recommendations on how much storage space the County should seek to create. Russek proposed partnering with another county to provide records management. Norman stated that he and Swing have spoken about records retention extensively. Recently, the topic about space availability turned to taking over the Sheriff Department’s outside recreation area because of its height. Melvin noted that the recreation area is located off the back of the Administration offices. Sawatzke questioned whether a consultant would be a better investment as opposed to bringing somebody on full-time. Swing stated that he would like to resurrect a job description from Carver, Anoka, and Dakota Counties who each have a full-time records person. He stated that it was his understanding that the position would facilitate reinforcement of records retention policies and would have the knowledge of available storage-related technologies. He stated that based on his Department’s experience, there is a need for centralized policies, a person who is familiar with the processes, and a person that is constantly interacting with the departments. Swing proposed another tour to Anoka, Carver, and Dakota Counties to give the Board a better idea of what all is involved in a successful records management system. Norman stated that he would propose to the Committee that they start looking at the footprint of the Sheriff Department to come up with a plan on how to best utilize the area. He noted that the Sheriff Department would move into their new location within eleven months. He stated that eleven months is not a lengthy timeframe to address the space needs of the County. Heeter stated that she is not in favor of moving a department down to the vacated Sheriff Department for the sole reason of filling the space. She stated that the County needs to take the time to look at the County’s long-term needs. Sawatzke stated that he agreed with Heeter, because based on the comments in the Report, the housing market drives the service and space needs of a lot of departments. In eleven months, the needs of the departments may drastically change from what is reported in today’s Maximum Capacity Report. Russek stated that he too is concerned about making the best decision that would address the County’s long-term needs. Melvin stated that the Report is just the beginning stage in determining the needs of the County. His role will be to keep the Report updated in order to develop options that would fit into the overall strategy of the County. Mattson stated that the Board needs to be conscientious of its taxpayers. Melvin stated that he is looking toward the future with a long-term perspective; keeping in mind that it is the goal of the County to be efficient. Mleziva stated that he has done a fair amount of research on pilot projects using remote access. He stated that with good planning, and determining who would be the proper candidates for telecommuting, the County could go along way towards foregoing the cost of bricks and mortar. With proper planning, his Department could start getting more employees out of the office and into the field. He stated that he would appreciate having some latitude on presenting opportunities to discuss this item further with the Board. He stated that it would be his goal to introduce some sort of pilot program within one to three years. Establishing the research could eliminate the need for expansion. (End of Building Of The Whole Minutes)
Scott Glup, U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, said that in July, 2007, he submitted a North American Wetlands Act Grant proposal requesting funding for the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service (FWS) to purchase land on Pelican Lake. Wright County partnered in the grant and agreed to contribute $5,000 (payable on the condition that the grant was approved and land purchased). They were unsuccessful in obtaining the grant. He consulted those who review the grant applications for ideas on how to more successfully improve the application. One of the issues relayed was that the grant application was too focused in one area. They favor broader-scoped projects. Glup would like to submit another grant application in early March. He requested that Wright County partner with the FWS, again providing the $5,000 direct match funding. In addition, he requested that the County include as match the Stanley Eddy Park acquisition by Wright County (acquired in early 2007). The funds which will be expended in December, 2008 on the acquisition will serve as the match. A total of $1,000,000 was spent of the acquisition of the Park (Wright County-$400,000; LCCMR-$100,000; and the PCA, $500,000). Each entity will become a partner in the grant by agreeing to allow their funding to be used as a match and supplying a partner contribution statement to that effect. In addition, Wright County will be required to provide a Notice of Grant Agreement. The Agreement would stipulate the Park is becoming part of a long-term grant. Wright County would agree to continue to manage the Park as planned. Any proposed changes that would result in significant habitat destruction would require approval and could result in Wright County having to pay back some of its match. The LCCMR and the PCA do not need to supply a Notice of Grant Agreement as they do not hold title to the land. Russek asked whether this grant application would affect the County’s ability to apply for other grant funding. Marc Mattice, Parks Administrator, said this grant is different than what they applied for in Stanley Eddy Park. The grant the Parks Department applied for was a remediation grant for the DNR and funding was appropriated through the PCA. Deed restrictions on land use were imposed. The resource management protection criteria reflect the Park must be managed and maintained. He did not feel there were any stipulations with the proposed North American Wetlands Grant that were not already in existence with the current grant for that property. Discussion led to the $5,000 funding request. Sawatzke thought that if the County was willing to expend $5,000 nine months ago, they would be willing to make the same commitment at this time. He thought the FWS was trying to be more proactive in acquisitions. He felt $5,000 was a small contribution toward leveraging $1 million in Federal funding. Sawatzke moved to approve the request to pledge $5,000 as a partner in the North American Wetlands Grant and to authorize use of the Stanley Eddy contribution of $400,000 as a match. The motion was seconded by Mattson. Richard Norman, County Coordinator, felt the motion should also reflect authorizing signatures of the Board Chair on the North American Wetlands Conservation Act Proposal as presented. Glup asked that the document language be printed on the County’s letterhead and mailed back to him to forward with the application. The motion and second were amended to include authorizing signatures on the document. Glup said if the grant is approved, he will be supplied with a list of other items which must be submitted. At that time, he will forward the information to the County for review. The motion carried 5-0.
Steve Jobe, Surveyor, presented discussion on the 2008 Aerial Photography and LiDAR project. Wright County received six proposals by the 2:00 p.m. deadline on 1-30-08:
Aero-Metric, Inc. $467,748.00
Ayres Associates $699,073.43
Fugro Horizons, Inc. $374,200.00
Merrick and Company $425,985.23
Optimal Geomatics, Inc. $920,259.00
Sanborn Map Company, Inc.
A Selection Team was formed and includes Steve Jobe (County Surveyor), Peter Jenkins (Head of the Mn/DOT Photogrammetric Unit), Mike Minnick (Senior Survey Technician), and Mike Pooler (Senior GIS Specialist). The team met on 2-05-08 to evaluate and score the proposals. Technical Merit was scored, followed by cost. Additional evaluations were conducted through phone interviews. Based on Technical Score before considering cost, the proposals ranked as follows:
1) Merrick and Company - 229 points; 2) Optimal Geomatics, Inc. – 217 points; 3) Ayres Associates – 213 points; 4) Sanborn – 210 points; 5) Aero-Metric, Inc. – 207 points; and 6) Fugro Horizons, Inc. – 204 points. Based on Technical Score and Cost, the Total Score for the proposals ranked as follows: 1) Merrick and Company – 356 points; 2) Fugro Horizons, Inc. – 344 points; 3) Aero-Metric, Inc. – 323 points; 4) Ayres Associates – 270 points; 5) Sanborn – 255 points; and 6) Optimal Geomatics, Inc. – 221 points. The total budget for this project was $550,000 and three of the proposals were over that amount. The low bid was from Fugro Horizons, Inc., who proposed to do processing in China. The proposal submitted did not meet the standards of the County. The Selection Team recommends Merrick and Company at a cost of $425,985.23 which includes 6.5% Minnesota Sales Tax. Jobe consulted Brian Asleson, Chief Deputy Attorney, and learned the County may not need to pay sales tax. This would bring the project cost to just under $400,000. If approved, he requested authorization to finalize the contract with Merrick and Company. In two weeks, he would bring back for Board approval the contract reflecting the total cost. The aerial flight is anticipated for April, 2008. Merrick and Company has the technology available to complete the aerial photography and LiDAR in one flight. The 2008 Aerial Photography and LiDAR project will be funded by the Recorders Compliance Fund. Jobe said the Land Records Technology Committee met last week and reviewed preliminary figures so they are aware of the approximate $150,000 fund balance which will remain after the expenditure. On a motion by Mattson, second by Russek, all voted to approve the recommendation to proceed with Merrick and Company for the 2008 Aerial Photography and LiDAR project. Jobe explained that LiDAR is light detection and ranging equipment. The process includes an aerial flight involving a light beam that calculates the difference between terrain and plane. An elevation model can be built. They are anticipating a 2’ contour but the data may be a little better than that. At the end of the project, there will be 2’ contours of the entire County. If the information is managed properly in the future, they will be able to selectively fly smaller areas for updates. Russek questioned whether the technology will reflect mining activity in gravel pits. Jobe said with this dense coverage, the model will reflect what has happened with slopes and contours. The information will be incorporated into GIS technologies. Sales of material will help to fund the cost of the project. Those fees will need to be developed. The project is anticipated to be delivered November 30th. Some products will be realized in the summer, with final products being delivered in the fall and ready for distribution early in 2009. The project is contingent upon weather variables (ice thaw and snow melt/rain).
An Owner’s Committee Meeting was held on 2-05-08. At today’s County Board Meeting, Norman referenced Item I, A&P, Application for Payment. At the Committee Meeting, the recommendation was made to approve Pay Application #8 for a total of $1,468,283.88. Since that time, it was discovered that the total did not include one contractor, KMH Erectors, at a cost of $8,550.00. The minutes should be corrected to reflect a total recommended payment of $1,476,833.88. Sawatzke corrected Page 2 of the minutes, Item II, A, KKE Project Update, 4th paragraph, 4th line, change from “Annandale” to “Annandale Contracting”. Heeter suggested that in the future, pay applications be presented to the Owner’s Committee for review prior to being presented for Board approval. She will bring that suggestion forth at today’s Owner’s Committee Meeting. Norman became aware of a couple of change orders that were presented for the Board Chair’s signature that had not been reviewed by the Owner’s Committee. Discussing the process, it was determined that not all change orders were being presented to the Owner’s Committee. Those approving change orders under $5,000 didn’t understand the process but that has been clarified. The Owner’s Committee will be updated on all change orders. Sawatzke moved to approve the minutes and recommendations, seconded by Heeter. Mattson referenced the precast cells being unable to carry the load as anticipated. Sawatzke said KKE was under the impression that the stairs would be able to be attached to the balcony of the precast cell, and the cell would support the weight of the steps. Castle Rock, the Engineers of the cells, have now indicated the cells will not support the weight. Another method to support the weight will have to be developed. It appears there was a misunderstanding on what would support the steps. Mattson said these are professionals involved that have designed other cells. Sawatzke said it was an oversight that should not have occurred. The motion carried 5-0.
Norman requested that Agenda Item III be added, “Discuss Change Order Procedures.”
A. APPLICATION FOR PAYMENT. Recommendation: The Committee recommends approval of Pay Application #8 for a total of $1,476,833.88.
B. PROJECT UPDATE: A&P. Streich reported that in Area A, the roof work continues with roof blocking and framing. The roofers started today and will have Area A of the LEC watertight by the end of the week. Electrical, wire mesh, and in-floor heating are being placed in the 2nd level deck. The 18,000 sq. ft. deck will be poured on 2-07-08. On 2-12-08, the upper area will be fire proofed and duct work will be installed. The ground level electrical and plumbing is being put in. Sand and gravel is being hauled into the basement. On 2-07-08 they will pour the basement up to “e” line, which is about half the basement. In Area B, they are finishing structural steel now that all the cells have been set. They can then enclose Areas A, B, and C, and then work their way to F. They are installing the decking, roof drains, and roof blocking. They will start roofing that area next week. In Area C, they are setting the precast walls, columns, and plank. They are working on temporary window enclosures, caulking, precast panels, and hanging temporary lights. They will grout the precast wall panels on Wednesday-Friday of this week. The temporary heater came this week for the sally port. That area will be thawed out. That is another area where they will have storage. In Area F, the detention frames are coming on 2-08-08 so block is being laid. They are thawing ground in Area E for underground plumbing starting 2-06-08 and footings will be next week. Streich met with Bill Swing, Information Technology, this week and provided him with a detailed schedule so he is aware of when he can start the interior work. Streich reported that weather has affected the project slightly. Torfin added that weather has slowed down a couple of aspects of construction but the project has not suffered as a whole.
Buikema said shop drawings are pretty much caught up. They are reviewing additional requests for change. One change relates to a cost increase for support of the stairs in the dayrooms. The precast cells will not carry the load anticipated. KKE continues to work with A&P on this issue in an effort to keep costs down. The first cost request was approximately $60,000 and is now projected to be around $40,000 when finished. Another change relates to the PA system for the entire building. The specifications were not included in the bid documents but were within the drawings. The specifications section is divided by chapters and that particular section didn’t make printing. This was discovered a few days prior to bids being due so it was too late to include the specifications. Price quotes have been requested from Phasor Electric and All State. Estimated cost is $25,000-$33,000. Buikema explained that Phasor Electric is asking for additional money to install conduit and wiring. KKE is questioning this as the boxes were shown on the roof in the drawings. They will continue to work on this. The third potential change relates to louvers. Louvers function for air intake and exhaust. The louvers are currently shiny aluminum and are as large as 10’ wide by 20’ high. KKE and A&P suggest they be changed to a champagne color. Repainting is not required in either option. The total cost of this change is $2,900 ($2,600 for color change & $300 for size changes). Norman questioned whether there was an update between the City and State on what is installed underground. Blotske was in contact with David Rey, Civil Engineer. Rey spoke with the State Plumbing Inspector and it was agreed a paint seal will be used around the inside of the manhole. Blotske is waiting for written confirmation. Rey has contacted Annandale Contracting to see if this can be done. This option would be substantially minor compared to the other alternative which is a rubber boot. It involves the pipe coming into the manhole. The seal is anywhere from 3’ to 6’ below the hole. Recommendation: Support the change of the louvers (size and color) at a cost of $2,900.
III. Change Order Procedures. Norman had staff research minutes of past Owner’s Committee Meetings relating to change orders. At the 5-08-07 Owner’s Committee Meeting, Sawatzke proposed that any change orders over $5,000 and under $25,000 be addressed by the Owner’s Committee. At the 6-12-07 Owner’s Committee Meeting, Sawatzke requested that all change orders be brought to the attention of the Owner’s Committee. Martin explained that what is being presented at the Owner’s Committee Meeting are potential changes orders. Once they have been approved, the formal document is signed by the Board Chair. Change orders are either approved by Torfin (if less than $5,000), by the Owner’s Committee (if under $25,000), or by the County Board. Recommendation: The Owner’s Committee will be updated on all changes orders (what the issue is, what the change is, and total dollars associated) by A&P. (End of Owner’s Committee Meeting)
There will be an Owner’s Committee Meeting today at 1:00 P.M. Mattson asked that the Committee re-address the cell/stair issue to make sure that a change order will not be presented, costing the taxpayers additionally. Norman said KKE may not be at today’s Owner’s Committee Meeting as it is not the regular meeting date. In addition, Buikema will not be present for the next three weeks. He may be able to provide more specifics on what happened.
Sawatzke moved to appoint Joe Holthaus and Ken Scadden to the Wright County Aggregate Resources Task Force. Holthaus and Scadden live within the boundaries of the proposed area. The motion was seconded by Mattson and carried unanimously.
Heeter moved to schedule a Transportation Committee Of The Whole Meeting for 2-20-08 at 9:30 A.M., Public Works Building. The Agenda will include: 1) Discussion with the City of Mn/DOT on funding options for the TH 55/CR 134 and TH 55/CSAH 12 Projects; and 2) Discuss Traffic Signal Funding Policy with the City of Delano. The motion was seconded by Sawatzke and carried 5-0.
Heeter moved to adopt Resolution #08-09 dealing with Spring Load Restrictions. The motion was seconded by Russek. A resolution is adopted annually setting the restrictions. After approval, the 2008 weight restriction map will be placed on the County’s website, and maps will be sent to townships and cities for display. The motion carried 5-0 on a roll call vote.
Heeter provided an update on the County’s Future’s Project. At the last Leadership Team Meeting, it was decided to continue the effort to partner with other local government entities. A meeting was recently held and attended by Heeter, Richard Norman (County Coordinator), Gary Miller (Sheriff), Bruce Johnson (City of Cokato Mayor), Karen McDougall (Township Officers Association), and Sarah Berg (U of M Extension Service). The School Representative and City Administrator were unable to attend. The purpose is to work toward strong partnerships with other governing entities. Some of the issues discussed included animal control, 800 Mhz, foreclosures, empty homes, reduced revenues, and the economy. The next meeting will be held on 4-07-08 in Room C118, Government Center. An 800 Mhz presentation is scheduled at the upcoming township and mayor’s association meetings. Animal control will also be discussed with township officers. Mattson suggested that all discussions involving the County Board should be approved. Heeter responded that one of the things discussed at the meeting was the benefit of the meetings Mattson called with townships. Today’s report was an update to inform the Board of the Leadership Team’s recommendation.
Russek recently attended the Aggregate Mining Conference in St. Cloud. The Conference provided information on aggregate mining and use. The metro area estimates their supply will only last for an additional 13-20 years. Transport costs double every 10-20 miles. Russek said reclamation is an important issue that is being addressed by the Planning Commission. Russek felt prior to approval of gravel mining, a meeting should be held with landowners, mining companies and the township to discuss reclamation and timeline. He will bring this issue up at the next Planning Commission Meeting.
Russek said that as part of the last meeting, the County Board authorized a $10,000 expenditure toward a grant application for a weed control program in Wright County. He understands that the SWCD Board voted (4 to 1) to authorize $10,000 in support of the grant application. Russek said this is in an effort to control wild parsnip.
Bills Approved
Albion Township. $16,376.13
American Institutional Supply 547.11
American Messaging 674.62
Ameripride Linen and Apparel 137.59
AMI Imaging Systems Inc. 124.15
Ancom Technical Center 998.00
City Annandale 872.40
Daniel Anselment 169.95
Aramark Correctional Services 5,702.58
Arrow Terminal LLC 390.19
Atrix International Inc. 1,387.00
Beaudry Propane Inc. 365.97
Blaine Lock & Safe Inc. 190.00
Boyer Truck Parts 230.18
Buffalo Clinic 254.88
Buffalo Hospital 952.00
Buffalo Township 17,243.10
City Buffalo 37,019.39
Cargill Inc. - Salt Division 14,177.46
Center Point Energy 17,691.75
Centra Sota Lake Region 23,274.68
Chamberlain Oil Co. 4,398.16
Chatham Township 12,302.95
Clearwater Township 14,212.92
Climate Air 12,558.73
Cokato Township 16,818.69
City Cokato 1,044.10
Corinna Township 24,703.55
Cottens’ Inc. 2,753.91
Craguns Lodging & Conference 485.86
Dash Medical Gloves 227.60
Deatons Mailing Systems Inc. 159.75
City Delano 4,341.70
Dental Care Assoc. of Buffalo 361.00
Carter Diers 508.39
Nicholas Eastman 150.00
Election Sys. & Software 33.195.00
Envirotech Services Inc. 2,819.88
Federal Signal Corporation 2,483.65
Dennis Fehn Gravel & Exc. 68, 811.20
Maria Felger Ramos LLC 244.80
Franklin Township 28,707.55
French Lake Township 14,629.27
Gateway Companies Inc. 1,102.30
GCS Service Inc. 292.28
Janet Gholson 259.20
Raymond Glunz 110.00
Greenview Inc. 489.60
H & H Sport Shop Inc. 119.00
City Hanover 1,787.80
Karla Heeter 230.78
Hillyard Floor Care Supply 5,231.81
Holiday 19,785.75
City Howard Lake 2,539.70
Neal Huemoeller 324.18
International Code Council 161.08
International Public Management 345.00
Chris Jahnke 159.08
Jerry’s Towing & Repair 133.13
Kaplan Professional Schools 795.00
Donald Klaers 18,646.00
Lakedale Communications 435.30
LaPlant Demo Inc. 546.11
Law Enforcement Training Serv. 400.00
Lawson Products Inc. 366.07
Loberg Electric 1,081.23
Maple Lake Lumber Company 534.20
Maple Lake Messenger 196.68
Maple Lake Township 22,093.40
City Maple Lake 519.60
Martin-McAllisters Consulting 1,050.00
Marysville Township 19,513.57
Richard Mattson 192.40
Douglas McNamara 2,424.01
Menards - Buffalo 573.82
Middleville Township 14,871.89
MN Asphalt Pavement Assoc. 175.00
MN Assoc. of County Offic 305.00
MN Juvenile Officers Assoc 210.00
MN Onsite Wastewater Assn. 530.00
MN Sheriffs Association 150.00
MN Surveyors & Engineers Socie 111.00
Monticello Ford Mercury Inc. 19,359.00
Monticello Township 32,657.36
City Montrose 635.80
Morrell Towing Inc. 213.00
Morries Parts & Service Group 1,293.31
Motorola Inc. 3,257.38
MTI Distributing Inc. 260.19
National Assn. of Cty. Engineers 900.00
Neil Nelson & Associates 1,500.00
Nextel Communications 717.79
North Suburban Towning Inc. 159.75
Office Depot 2,524.82
Olsen Companies 195.38
Lynn Peavey Company 144.30
Performance Kennels Inc. 154.02
Powerplan OIB 168.21
Redwood Biotech Inc. 188.75
Stoffel Reitsma 600.00
Rhodes Lock & Glass 173.15
Rockford Township 29,551.94
City Rockford 2,446.90
Garry Roehl 26,622.00
Royal Tire Inc. 2,849.95
Scenic Signs 109.80
Scharber & Sons Inc. 163.38
Silver Creek Township 24,060.34
Sirchie Finger Print Laborator 129.35
Sno-Plane Groomers Inc. 42,931.40
Software House International 567.65
Southside Township 14,060.99
City St. Michael 7,198.55
Stockholm Township 13,545.94
Super Express 210.87
William Swing 252.69
Tech Depot 248.04
Uline 168.32
University of Minnesota 420.00
Victor Township 15,947.83
City Waverly 428.20
Janelle Webb 214.12
Harold Welter 14,805.00
Michael Woodford 109.08
Woodland Township 13,663.43
Wright Co. Human Services 290.00
Wright Co. Journal Press 433.10
29 Payments less than $100 1,530.31
Final total $781,550.15
The meeting adjourned at 10:12 A.M
Published in the Herald Journal March 3, 2008.