Wright County Board Minutes

AUGUST 26, 2008
The Wright County Board met in regular session at 9:00 a.m. with Sawatzke, Heeter, Mattson, and Eichelberg present. Board Member Russek was absent.
Heeter made a motion to approve the minutes of 8-19-08 as presented. The motion was seconded by Sawatzke. Mattson stated that it was his understanding, based on page 3 of the minutes, that a breakdown of expenditures regarding the Emergency Management Performance Grant, would be presented to the Board. Mattson stated that he has yet to see the list. Sawatzke requested that Richard Norman, County Coordinator, contact the Sheriffs Department to obtain a breakdown of the grant program expenditures including our matching requirements. The motion carried 4-0.
The following items were petitioned onto the Agenda: Items for Consid. #3. “Ways and Means Committee” (Norman)”. On a motion by Heeter, seconded by Mattson, all voted to approve the Agenda as amended.
The Consent Agenda was discussed. Mattson asked if Consent Agenda Item C1 should be referred to the Building Committee Of The Whole, not Building Committee as referenced. Sawatzke questioned why the Item is listed under Parks. Marc Mattice, Parks Administrator, stated that he is a member of the Wellness Committee. He brought the item forward under Parks because he is the Department Head serving on the Committee. On a motion by Mattson, second by Sawatzke, all voted to approve the Consent Agenda as presented.
1. Performance Appraisals: K.Green, Aud./Treas.; R. Hill, J. Stoppelman, Bldg. Maint.; D. Jore, Hwy.; T. Finch, R. Rolfzen, C. Torkelson, Sher./Corr.
1. Wight County Jail & LEC Application For Payment #14, $3,102,151.38 (July 2008).
2. Seasonal On Sale 3.2 malt Liquor License For St. John’s Education Center (Cokato Twp.).
1. Refer To Building Committee Discussion RE: Wellness Committee Suggestion To Consider Preserving The Basement Workout Area & First Floor Showers/Locker Room For A County Employee Fitness Area & Locker Room.
1. Authorize Signatures, 2008 Annual County Feedlot Officer Report And 2009 County Feedlot Program Delegation Agreement & Work Plan.
Bob Hiivala, Auditor/Treasurer, stated that he is seeking a motion from the County Board to approve a $2,000,000 permanent transfer from the General Fund to the Capital Projects Fund based on findings from the year-end review and discussions at the Budget sessions. On a motion by Mattson, seconded by Sawatzke, all voted to approve the transfer.
Hiivala presented the July Revenue/Expenditure Guidelines. He stated that upon review of the Guidelines, he had found that Budget 100-5001 Property Taxes – Current (page 8), appeared to show that only 48% of the budgeted property taxes were collected. He stated that he researched this item and discovered that a portion of these taxes are paid by the State through Market Value Credits. Heeter asked if the discrepancy is due to the number of foreclosures in the County. Hiivala stated no. As the counties make their levies, the State determines how much they will pay. The County has not received the funds yet. Mattson questioned the high expenditure on Budget 100-6204 Animal Impounding Charges. Hiivala stated that $2,500 was budgeted, and $5,025 was expended mostly to board buffalo. Heeter stated that buffalo are expensive to board. The 2009 budget has been increased from $2,500 to $5,000 to account for any unforeseen situation such as this. Heeter made a motion to approve the July Revenue/Expenditure Guidelines. The motion was seconded by Sawatzke, and carried unanimously.
Hiivala submitted the claims listing for approval. On a motion by Mattson, second by Heeter, all voted to approve the claims as listed in the abstract, subject to audit.
Mattice stated that he received a letter from the Friends of Lake Mary Lake Association, Maple Lake, requesting financial assistance in the application of Bac-ta Clear treatments in Lake Mary. Mattice stated that the County has interest in the lake as it is home of Ney Park. The County has provided financial assistance to two other lake associations for maintenance efforts: Pleasant Lake and Beebe Lake. Ney Park is a low maintenance facility as the shoreline is natural. There are no facilities on the lake. Ney Park has a Nature Center and trails that are located north of the Lake. The public access is owned by the DNR. Pleasant and Beebe lakes have maintained beaches. The letter does not request a specific dollar amount. Mattice stated that the estimate for two applications of milfoil treatment is $11,000. Heeter asked Mattice how much the County assisted Pleasant Lake and Beebe Lake. Mattice stated that the County allocated $600 to Beebe Lake, and a one time donation of $500 to Pleasant Lake. Sawatzke asked if the funding for the treatments will be divvied up based on number of property owners, or percent of lakeshore owned. Mattice stated that he did not know. The lake has 2.36 miles of lakeshore. The County park owns 1.19 miles of the total shoreline. Mattice stated that $11,000 divided by 2.6 miles of lakeshore is approximately $0.89/foot, equating to an approximate County share of $5,600. Sawatzke asked Mattice how many property owners are on Lake Mary. Mattice stated that he did not know. Heeter stated that she is in favor of participating in financially assisting in the milfoil eradication efforts because the Park owns a lot of the lakeshore. She asked Mattice if the Lake Mary Lake Association has a milfoil fund. Mattice stated that he would assume so. Mattice stated that the Association has told him that “any contribution” is appreciated. Eichelberg stated that he is concerned that if the County approved assisting this effort, other Lake Associations would expect the Board to follow suit. Mattson stated that this lake is a unique situation as Ditch 22 drains through Ney Park and back into the Lake. Heeter asked if there is a deadline. Mattice stated that the Association would like to start the treatment in early September. If the funds are not available at that time, they will attempt the treatments in the spring. Sawatzke moved to authorize $500 to the milfoil treatments for Lake Mary. Heeter seconded the motion for discussion. Heeter asked Sawatzke if he would consider a contribution of $1,000 since the County owns nearly half of the total lakeshore. Mattice proposed taking the funds from Budget 521-6605 relating to the Pleasant Lake Access pavement overlay project and applying it toward this effort. Sawatzke stated that he would be in favor of initially offering $500 as the lakeshore owned by the County is natural and undeveloped. He stated that the Association is welcome to approach the Board and request additional funding. Eichelberg stated that he feels the Board would set precedence in granting financial assistance for this effort. Mattson stated that he feels a $500 contribution is well within the means of the County’s budget. Mattice proposed that the Association might be able to apply for grants for their treatment efforts. The motion carried 3-1 (Eichelberg).
Mattice announced that Great River Greening is hosting the Fall 2008 Lakeshore Restoration Volunteer Project at Collinwood Regional Park, Cokato, on 9-13-08 at 10:00 a.m. Invitations to the event were included in the Board packets. Lakeshore restoration training and planting of native vegetation to stabilize the existing beach areas are the sole events planned for the day. Mattson asked if Meeker County is involved in this project. Mattice stated that the Meeker County land owners are invited to participate and learn of these best practices. Heeter stated that this project is a nice partnership between the Great River Greening, Wright County Parks, Mid-Minnesota Mississippi River RC&D, Wright Soil & Water Conservation District and lakeshore owners. Mattice stated that volunteers can register through the Greening Volunteer Program. Lunch will be provided.
Mary McBrady, Friends of the Maple Lake Library (Friends), stated that they continue their effort to bring an independent library to the City of Maple Lake. A request to establish a library in the City of Maple Lake was made in November, 2006 to the Great River Regional Library (GRRL). The GRRL Board turned down the request citing budget constraints. Since that time, Friends has found a space to serve as an independent library in the old City building. People have donated $48,000 worth of books, and volunteers have labeled the books and stored them offsite. The City Engineer has found the building to be suitable, and stated that the building passes all safety regulations. Friends continues with its fund raising efforts. John Meyer, Maple Lake City Economic Developer, commended McBrady on her diligence and determination to bring a library to the City of Maple Lake. He stated that a planning model has been developed, and a list of equipment and materials has been formulated. He stated that he has calculated that it would take $30,000 annually to facilitate the building and the library effort. He stated that the City Council has offered $15,000 for utilities and rent. Friends is asking the County Board to match $15,000 for fixtures and furniture. McBrady stated that by joining the national chain of Friends of the Library, they have been provided with useful information and insurance. Eichelberg asked for clarification on whether the Maple Lake Library would be part of the GRRL system. Meyer stated that they will not be affiliated at this time. Heeter commented on how the library effort is a grassroots endeavor. She stated that although the GRRL Board turned down the request for a Maple Lake Library, the Friends group has found momentum in terms of continued planning and fundraising. Eichelberg asked Meyer if their request for $15,000 from the County would be a one-time expenditure. Meyer responded that Friends may ask for an additional $15,000 next year. Eichelberg asked Meyer if he knew how many other towns do not have libraries and are making similar efforts. Meyer stated that Montrose does not have library and may possibly pursue a similar effort. Meyer commented that Friends feels they may have a better chance of joining the GRRL once they get a library up and running. Mattson asked if Friends is requesting the $15,000 prior to the end of the year, or as part of their 2009 budget. Meyer stated that the funds would be needed as part of their 2009 operating fund. Sawatzke stated that as a member of the GRRL Board, he was the only member in attendance that day who supported their initiative. Sawatzke stated that Waverly, Otsego, South Haven, Albertville, and Hanover do not have libraries. Heeter stated that the timing is right for the Friends request, as the County Board is in the process of completing its 2009 budget. The levy is to be certified on 9-09-08. Maple Lake is passionate about having a library. Eichelberg expressed his concern that if the Board honors this request, other communities will seek support from the County as well. Heeter stated that the Board should not deny this request for fear that others may come forward requesting funding for their library efforts. Sawatzke stated that he assumes the reason the GRRL Board denied the request was because of Maple Lake’s proximity to other cities that have libararies. Wright County has more libraries than other counties, partly due to our higher number of cities. Maple Lake has shown a desire to establish a library through its efforts to raise funds and seek financial backing. Sawatzke stated that he is not in favor of supporting financial backing of $15,000.00 He stated that he would encourage the Friends to approach the Board again in three months. Heeter asked Sawatzke what would change in three months. Sawatzke responded that he did not know, however, he is not willing to support the request today. Sawatzke asked Meyer if he was familiar or knowledgeable in the criteria regarding a public library versus an independent library. Meyer stated that he is familiar with the levy process, has done research, and enlisted the aid of the City Attorney to render the opinion of how the City can meet the definition of an independent library. McBrady stated that Friends has accumulated a lot of information regarding the definitions, rules, organization, and structure of a public library versus an independent library. Eichelberg asked if the Friends foundation would qualify for grants through the State and Federal grants. Meyer stated that the organization cannot apply for grants for the ongoing operation of an independent library. The organization could possibly seek aid from foundation grants. Heeter stated that in recognition of the community effort, Friends has become a nonprofit 501 (c) (3), sought book donations, building space, and City support. Heeter stated that she would like to match the City support with a $15,000 allocation and view this as a pilot project in the County. She stated that she feels this library is important for the future of Maple Lake. She stated that she would like Friends to maintain its momentum. Heeter moved to allocate $15,000 to the Friends of the Maple Lake Library in its effort to provide furniture and fixtures for the new Library space. Mattson seconded the motion. Heeter stated that the City of Maple Lake is willing to take a risk. Sawatzke stated that he would encourage Friends to appear before a full Board of five Commissioners as Commissioner Russek is not present today. Mattson stated that there is a library in Delano and did not see how Russek’s absence, or attendance, would affect today’s decision. Heeter stated that Friends is trying to lay the groundwork so that they can become a part of the GRRL system. Sawatzke stated that he understands the Friends goal. Heeter responded that the GRRL will not allow them to be part of their system. Sawatzke responded by stating that there are other communities who desire a library and have not made similar efforts. McBrady stated that Friends hasn’t made a serious effort in conducting a petition, however, a petition has been circulated that generated over 800 signatures. Sawatzke stated that his decision to deny the motion is based on his feeling that the Board is making a decision blindly. He stated that the County may not have $15,000 to give; the County may not be able to levy for it. Eichelberg reiterated that he would encourage the Friends to come back after the 2009 budget process has been completed and when all five Commissioners can be present. Mattson stated that with the City of Maple Lake coming forward with its support of $15,000, he would encourage the County to also support the library efforts by making a $15,000 contribution. Sawatzke asked Meyer who would be allowed to use the library. Meyer and McBrady both commented that the library could be accessed by everybody. The City’s Attorney has looked into the legalities of an independent library. City residents can use both the GRRL services, as well as the independent library. The motion did not pass on a 2-2 vote (Eichelberg and Sawatzke opposed). McBrady stated that when Friends reappears before the County Board in three months, their plans would be more concrete. Mattson asked Norman if this topic should be placed on the Building Committee Of The Whole agenda as part of the 2009 budget process. Norman stated that the final draft of the budget would be presented to the Board on 9-02-08 to prepare for a resolution or action on 9-09-08. Norman informed the Board that this topic could only be brought back to the Board if it were requested by an opposing Commissioner (i.e. Sawatzke). Sawatzke asked Meyer if he could get a copy of the Library’s proposed budget, itemizing both the expenditures and revenues. He asked for a detailed list of how the County’s money would be put toward fixtures and furniture. Meyer stated that he could honor Sawatzke’s request.
Wayne Fingalson, Highway Engineer, presented a draft resolution authorizing an Agency Agreement with Mn/DOT to act as the County’s agent in accepting Federal aid in connection with the proposed TH 55/CSAH 12 improvements. He stated that this resolution is a housekeeping item. On a motion by Heeter, seconded by Mattson, roll call vote carried 4-0 to adopt Resolution #08-33 for Authorizing Agency Agreement With Mn/DOT For The Proposed TH 55/CSAH 12 Improvements.
Fingalson stated that the Transportation Committee Of The Whole met on 8-22-08. The minutes from that meeting are not completed, however, a recommendation made during the meeting is time sensitive. Fingalson presented a draft resolution for the Agreement to State Transportation Fund Local Road Improvement Program Grant Terms and Conditions. The signed resolution is needed before 9-01-08 to advance the County’s request for safety project funding. The County is eligible to receive a minimum of $84,666 for a local safety improvement project. Adding a bypass lane at CSAH 27 and County Road 119 is a potential candidate for this type of funding. On a motion by Sawatzke, seconded by Mattson, roll call vote carried 4-0 to adopt Resolution #08-34 for Agreement To State Transportation Fund Local Road Improvement Program Grant Terms And Conditions.
Sawatzke presented the 8-19-08 Owner’s Committee minutes and recommendations. Discussion and action at today’s County Board Meeting is reflected in italics:
Blotske requested adding Agenda Item #E3, PCO#094 – BP#3 PR045 – Addition Of (4) Windows At Dayroom J1600. Hoffman requested adding three Agenda Items under Item III: Mailing System Update, Moving Update, and Clarification On FF&E Expenses. Norman requested adding a discussion to the Agenda regarding “Building Supervisor Accommodations”. Sawatzke added Norman’s item as Item VI.
I. A&P.
A. PROJECT UPDATE. Streich provided a project update (see attached “Schedule Look-A-Head 2 Week”, dated 8-19-08). Streich stated that the facility now has permanent power. The electrical room is locked. Only electricians are allowed into the room as it contains live power. Streich stated that OSHA was on site yesterday to provide a consultation. They found minor violations (i.e. fire extinguisher that was not properly charged). He stated that the recent OSHA consultations have been beneficial. Because of the consultations, OSHA cannot perform site visits without notice. OSHA has scheduled its last consultation which will take place in eight weeks.
B. PROJECT SECURITY. Streich stated that a security guard was on site over Memorial Weekend. A&P anticipated that project security would only be needed for three months. He had ordered aluminum door frames 16 weeks ago, and they are not anticipated for delivery until October 1st. Streich stated that he recommends continuing the security for another month, as well as provide 24 hour coverage on weekends. Final wall coverings are scheduled for installation this weekend. Blotske stated that security costs approximately $6,000/month. Sawatzke calculated that 24 hour coverage on weekends would cost an additional $2,000. Russek stated that he was in favor of the additional coverage as the project site is at a vulnerable stage. Torfin asked if 24 hour coverage would be provided on Labor Day. Streich stated yes. A consensus was reached regarding hiring 24 hour security coverage on weekends until 10-01-08, at a cost not to exceed $2,500. Streich added comment by stating that the folding partition doors in the sally port are scheduled for installation during the first weekend of September. However, the aluminum store fronts are holding up the construction schedule.
C. APPLICATION FOR PAYMENT #14. Blotske presented Application and Certificate for Payment #14. The Application amount is $3,102,151.38. She stated that the Board can expect to see the mechanical and electrical
applications decrease in value. The majority of their equipment is now on site. She stated that the project is now on the downward slope. The project is billed at approximately 80% completion. She stated that A&P is holding payment of retainage to contractors until A&P is in possession of warranties and final certificates of completion. Once received, Blotske stated that she would request that the Board release retainage payments. Sawatzke questioned the cleaning efforts and related charge in A&P’s payment application. Streich stated that A&P had two persons cleaning for approximately three weeks. Blotske stated that Sentenced-To-Serve (STS) would be desirable for site cleaning. Torfin stated that he could arrange a cleaning schedule for STS to perform exterior pickup and weed whipping around the trailers. Streich requested that Torfin update him on the schedule for STS as he will arrange for a dumpster. Sawatzke inquired on creating a burn pile of the construction debris. Streich stated that a burn permit would need to be acquired. RECOMMENDATION: Approve and process payment of Application and Certificate for Payment #14 for $3,102,151.38.
D. PCO’S APPROVED BY CAPTAIN TORFIN. The following PCO’s were approved by Torfin: 1. PCO #089 – BP#3 PR#039 Skylight Enclosure Above Booking Desk - $4,910.00. 2. PCO #90 – BP#3 PR#040 Revised Lighting - $4,840.20. 3. PCO#98 – BP#3 RFI#186 Install Additional Gypsum Board Soffits - $1,014.00.
1. PCO#79 – BP#3 PR#035 Revision To Lighting Control $20,371.71. Torfin stated that the revisions are due to a refinement meeting that was held with EDI and A&O. Lighting control was originally designed inefficiently and was exposed to inmate access. Changes were made between the security control lighting and building controlled lighting. The lighting will now be controlled through the security system, via touch screens, accessed by the Corrections Officers. Sawatzke asked if the touch screens would be located in the pods with the Correction Officers. Torfin stated yes. Torfin stated that the switches to turn on/off the lighting in the upper levels were accessible to inmates. Blotske stated that the change order amount is for the difference in price to perform the lighting control changes. Blotske stated that the original change order was for approximately $24,000, and with revisions, the amount was reduced to $20,371.71. Torfin stated that these changes were made because seeing the building and how it functions appears differently than it did in the conceptual drawings. The Committee unananimously agreed to approve and proceed with PCO#79 – BP#3 PR#035, Revision To Lighting Control - $20,371.71.
2. PCO#85 – BP#3 PR#038 Under Counter Lighting At Officer Desks - $6,919.95. Buikema stated that the architectural drawings show under counter lighting in each of the pods, however, the electrical engineer missed the detail. He explained that at night, the overhead lights can be turned off, and the under cabinet lighting can be used as primary lighting. Torfin stated that officers working at their stations need task lighting. The proposed change will delete the number of fixtures and outlets needed. The fixtures will be hardwired and many fixtures would be lit with only one outlet. Russek asked if the fixtures and related electrical work were included in the specifications and missed in the bidding documents. Buikema stated that the details were included in the architectural drawings, however, the electrical engineers didn’t pick it up and provide the detail. The Committee unananimously agreed to approve and proceed with PCO#85 – BP#3 PR#038 Under Counter Lighting At Officer Desks - $6,919.95.
3. PCO#94 - BP#3 PR#045 Addition Of Four (4) Windows At Dayroom J1600 - $10,347.00. Blotske stated that this requested change order is to add four windows in a dayroom that is currently receiving a minimal amount of natural daylight. Buikema explained that in the housing unit, most dayrooms have outside windows. The interior cells use “borrowed” natural light via windows. Buikema stated that recently, it was discovered that from a mezzanine in the men’s dayroom, one can see into a female dayroom. Buikema stated that an option would involve tearing out the windows and replacing them. Buikema stated that the opinion of KKE is that the windows are small and do not provide much natural light. He stated that KKE recommends leaving the windows as is, adding another set of windows above the existing, and placing a film over the lower windows. The film would prevent clear viewing via distortion, however, would allow borrowed daylight to enter the room. Sawatzke asked why KKE feels there is a need for new windows. Buikema explained that the dayroom does not have an exterior window. The current windows are small and borrow natural light from other areas within the Jail. Torfin also stated that the windows are small and don’t provide a lot of natural light. Exposure to natural lighting is a DOC requirement in new Jail construction. Sawatzke questioned whether there are rules or standards regarding the placement of film over windows and a required amount of filtered natural light. Buikema stated that he does not believe there are specific rules pertaining to natural light as it relates to window film. He stated that KKE’s recommendation is based on judgment and past building experiences. Buikema stated that the concern is there is not enough daylight coming through the current windows. The window film will distort the clear view, however, the concern would remain that there is not enough natural daylight. Sawatzke stated that it is his opinion that the
County would not be violating any rules as the DOC previously reviewed and approved the plans. Buikema stated that the plans appeared adequate; however, now that the construction is complete, it is apparent that more light is needed. Buikema stated that KKE is attempting to project what the DOC will determine. Sawatzke requested that KKE wait before making a decision on the four additional windows. Buikema stated that the amount of natural light into the dayroom is not adequate. Sawatzke stated that it appears there is no specific ruling on the amount of natural light as it pertains to window film. Sawatzke asked if there are light fixtures in the area. Buikema stated yes. Miller asked Torfin if he recommends the four additional windows. Torfin stated that it is his opinion that the room is too dark. Torfin stated that something has to be done to absolve the line of site issue. Sawatzke requested that Buikema confirm that there are no specific DOC rules pertaining to window film and natural light. Buikema stated that he would verify the rules. Buikema stated that KKE’s recommendation is based on a subjective determination. Sawatzke stated that a building inspector has to rule based on his code book, not on subjective opinion. Blotske asked if the Committee is acceptable to moving forward with placing film on the current windows. Sawatzke stated yes. Blotske stated that she would put together a separate change order request for the window film.
F. PROJECT CONTINGENCY $1,110,370.00. Blotske stated that the current contingency amount is $734,752.80. The current contingency amount accounts for the PCOs approved by Torfin. Buikema stated that KKE is still well under 1.5% contingency.
G. PROJECT FF&E BUDGET $1,879,314.00. Blotske stated that the current FF&E Budget is $1,467,242.00.
B. FF&E SCHEDULE. Norman noted that the FF&E schedule was attached to the Agenda packet. He noted that page 24 summarizes the previous pages.
III. EQUIPMENT FOR BUILDING CARE AND MAINTENANCE $73,500. FUND OUT OF FF&E. Sawatzke asked if the Committee has a copy of the items needed for Building Care & Maintenance. Norman stated that the items were discussed at the 8-07-08 Budget Committee Of The Whole. The initial thought was to take it out of the Building Maintenance budget. The list that was presented to the Budget Committee was comprehensive, yet may not encompass all needs. The list contained such items as: ladders, lift, mop buckets, hand tools, wet/dry vacuums, radios, doormats, Jail bathroom supplies, and radios. Hayes stated that he anticipates a repeater will be needed to amplify the custodial radio signals throughout the building. RECOMMENDATION: Authorize purchase of the Building Care & Maintenance equipment out of the FF&E Budget for $73,500.
A. SHERIFFS DEPARTMENT EXERCISE EQUIPMENT. Hoffman inquired on whether the exercise equipment for the Sheriffs Department would stay at the Government Center. He proposed that if the equipment was to stay, new exercise equipment for the Jail/LEC should be purchased out of the FF&E budget. Norman stated that the Wellness Committee is to present to the Board the idea of keeping the Sheriffs Department work-out equipment in the Government Center to use for an employee work-out facility. Sawatzke and Russek both commented that this is the first they had heard of this topic. Sawatzke stated that it is his opinion that having an unsupervised, on-site work-out facility, would pose a liability. Russek stated that he has concerns with the County competing with the local exercise industry. Hoffman stated that the current work-out facility is utilized by Law Enforcement Officers and Correction Officers.
B. MAILING SYSTEM UPDATE. Hoffman stated that he has an update on the Mailing system as discussed at the 8-05-08 Owner’s Committee. Hoffman stated that he spoke with Brad Polivany, Officer-in-Charge, at the Buffalo Post Office. The Post Office will deliver and provide an “inside” pick-up service. He stated that with the convenience of pick-up and delivery, he would recommend the purchase of the NEOPOST IS420 Mailing Machine for $2,212.00. Sawatzke stated that he agreed that the postal machine would be of value. Miller stated that he thought it would be more cost effective to have a postal machine at the new Jail/LEC. Sawatzke asked if this machine is the same machine that the Auditor/Treasurer’s Office utilizes. Hayes stated that the IS420 is a smaller machine. The Sheriffs Department does not have the same volume of mail as the Auditor/Treasurer’s Office. Hayes stated that the postal machines have a replacement life of 3-5 years. The servicing companies often will not repair or service machines any older than 3-5 years. Hoffman reminded the Committee that the yearly maintenance fee would be included in the Sheriffs annual budget. The Committee unananimously agreed to authorize the purchase of the NEOPOST IS420 Mailing Machine and 10 lb. scale for $2,212.00 and fund it out of the FF&E Budget.
Sawatzke asked Torfin if he received a response from the City of Buffalo on the address for the Jail/LEC. Torfin stated that he spoke with Laureen Bodin, Assistant City Administrator, City of Buffalo, who commented that if he had not heard anything, to assume the County’s request to officially use the 3800 Braddock Avenue NE address.
Torfin stated that after speaking with Bodin, he received an email that confirmed the County’s request.
C. MOVING UPDATE. Hoffman stated that he received quotes from three moving companies: Triple AAA Moving Co., McCollister’s Transportation Group, and Barrett Moving & Storage. Each company has made a site visit and provided quotes to move files and paper supplies. Triple AAA quoted 168 manhours at $9,100 ($54/hour); Barrett proposed 224 manhours at $9,800 ($43/hour), and McCollister’s provided a quote for $13,983. McCollister’s did not provide an estimate for anticipated manhours. Intereum uses and recommends Barrett, and Triple AAA is located out of Rogers. Hoffman stated that both Barrett and Triple AAA propose to use two trucks during each of the four moving phases. Both companies provide insurance (included as part of the hourly rate) at $5/lb. for electronics, and $0.68/lb. for paper. Hoffman stated that it is up to the Committee to determine if it is worth paying approximately $10,000 to have a professional moving company perform the move, rather than using County employees and rental vehicles. Russek asked if the file cabinets would be moved to the new Jail/LEC. Hoffman stated that the high density storage units would stay; the 5 and 3 drawer lateral cabinets would be moved. Hoffman stated that Torfin has indicated that his staff would move all of their own property. Staff would move firearms, ammunition, and property evidence. The moving companies provide boxes, crates, and moving equipment, including I.T. bags for computers and related technology. They color code and plastic-wrap (seal) the boxes. County personnel would be assigned to work with the moving company to assist in signing off on the boxes, coordinating, directing, and answering questions. Sheriffs Department staff would be responsible for packing the boxes, and unpacking at the new location. Sawatzke asked if the County would have to perform background checks on the moving company’s employees. Hoffman stated that both Barrett and Triple AAA have done background checks on their employees prior to employment. Russek asked Hoffman when a decision should be made. Hoffman stated that if the County opts to use a moving company, a decision should be made within 2 months, and earlier if utilizing County employees and vehicles so that a schedule can be created. Hayes stated that he thinks it makes sense to consider Barrett as Intereum recommended them. Sawatzke asked if Barrett would agree to a “not-to-exceed” amount. Hoffman stated that he would check with them. Hoffman stated that both companies have informed him that they will perform the move during the worst time of the year. The carpets may need a film or paper covering to protect from foot traffic. Norman asked if Hoffman envisioned the movers using the sally port. Hoffman stated that both companies have indicated that they will take the shortest routes possible. He thought that they would access the Sheriffs Office garage or front entrance to use the elevators. All three companies are aware that they will need to use a lift truck due to the lack of a loading dock. Sawatzke asked if the Committee was in favor of using Barrett. Russek stated that he is in favor of using a moving company. Sawatzke asked if Hoffman could verify that Barrett would agree to a not-to-exceed amount of $10,000. Hoffman stated that he would check with Barrett as they did not provide a copy of a contract with their proposal. Sawatzke asked that Hoffman return to a future Owner’s Committee with an update.
IV. BUILDING SUPERVISOR ACCOMMODATIONS. Norman stated that the new Building Maintenance Supervisor would begin his employment on 9-02-08. Norman stated that it appears his office would not be completed by 9-02-08 and asked if an accommodation could be made for a temporary office space. After much discussion, it was determined that a space could be made for him in the Sheriffs trailer so he has access to a full set of construction plans. A phone will be made available to him. A determination will be made on how he can acquire computer and internet access. Blotske proposed purchasing a Sprint card to allow the Supervisor to work on a wireless laptop. (End of 8-19-08 Owner’s Committee Minutes and discussion.)
At today’s County Board Meeting, Sawatzke noted the following corrections: The recommendations under Items IE1, IE2, and IIIB, should not be listed as recommendations as the Committee has the authorization to approve PCOs and purchases valued under $25,000. The Owner’s Committee did authorize proceeding with PCO#79, PCO#85, and the purchase of the NEOPOST IS420 Mailing Machine out of Budget FF&E. Sawatzke moved to approve the minutes and recommendations made by the Owner’s Committee. Mattson stated that he had concerns regarding the additional cost related to PCO#85 due to an oversight by KKE’s electrical engineers. Mattson stated that if the detail had not been missed, the overall cost of the electrical fixtures and wiring would have been less. Now that the project is a change order, there is an additional overhead and profit charge. Sawatzke stated that he agreed with Mattson. Sawatzke added comment that in light of the oversight, the amount of change orders related to this project have been kept to a relative minimum. The motion was seconded by Heeter and carried 4-0.
Sawatzke announced that today’s Owner’s Committee was cancelled.
Norman stated that Genell Reese, Director of VS/CD, cannot attend the 8-27-08 Ways And Means Committee regarding the discussion of the Use Of The EOC. Reese has requested to be present for the meeting. Norman asked
8-26-08 County Board Minutes Page 8 of 8
if the item could be laid over to the 9-10-08 Ways And Means Committee Meeting. Sawatzke stated that the Human Services Board has also requested that this item be rescheduled for 9-10-08. On a motion by Sawatzke, second by Mattson, all voted to lay over agenda topic “Use Of The EOC” to the 9-10-08 Ways And Means Committee Meeting.
Bills Approved
AAA Striping Service Inc. $45,198.92
Allina Hospitals & Clinics 387.92
Allina Medical Laboratories 104.70
Allina OCC Med 150.00
Ameripride Linen and Apparel 451.07
Ancom Communications Inc. 929.75
Ancom Technical Center 127.05
Annandale Rock Products 2,213.90
Assn. of Minnesota Counties 225.00
Auto Glass Center Inc. 528.40
B & B Products - Rigs and Squa 133.46
Barnes Distribution 130.71
Boyer Truck Parts 718.05
Bureau of Criminal Apprehension 120.00
Careertrack Inc. 195.00
Cartegraph Systems, Inc. 10,150.00
Center Point Energy 2,059.95
Centra Sota Lake Region LLC 50,123.37
Central Hydraulics 614.40
Climate Air 611.20
City Cokato 400.00
Commissioner of Transportation 2,453.29
Continental Safety Equipment 397.03
Cub Foods 116.62
Eagle Point 3,491.16
Emergency Physicians PA 377.25
Dennis Fehn Gravel & Excav 229,746.76
Firstlab 148.00
Frontier Precision Inc. 200.73
Gopher State One Call 247.00
Granite Pest Control Services 144.58
Greene Espel PLLP 606.00
Helena Chemical Company 2,012.85
Highway Technologies Inc. 461.73
Hlllyard Floor Care Supply 4,261.87
Indianhead Specialty Co. Inc. 368.54
Intereum, Inc. 8,148.70
Interstate Battery Systems of 144.73
Junction Towing and Auto Repair 668.83
LaPlant Demo Inc. 556.31
Littana International Inc. 200.00
M & M Express 122.42
Marco 477.05
Marco Inc. 1,484.64
Mathiowetz Construction 404,063.91
Merrick & Company 34,226.20
Mid-Minnesota Hot Mix Inc. 2,301.62
MN American Planning Assn. Ad. 200.00
MN County Attorneys Assn. 375.00
Moore Medical Corp. 200.74
Morries Parts & Service Group 2,629.23
North American Salt Co. 13,553.14
Office Depot 1,863.55
Qwest 226.29
Frank Ramacciotti 700.00
Thomas Richards 100.00
City Rockford 806.88
Royal Tire Inc. 1,880.34
RS Eden 1,395.45
John Russek 244.53
Sherwin Williams 142.41
Sprint 761.05
SRF Consulting Group Inc. 3,979.88
St. Cloud Stamp & Sign Inc. 105.95
Stevens Drilling & Environment 200.00
Total Printing 393.25
Trimin Government Solutions 9,709.60
TW Vending Inc. 125.14
Verizon Wireless 804.97
Victor Township 2,040.20
Walmart Store 01-1577 950.49
Watchguard Elect. Home Mon 8,771.75
West Central Industries 2,650.31
Westside Equipment 264.50
Wood Chip of Princeton Inc. 1,964.76
Wright Hennepin Co-op Elect. 4,894.46
Wright Hennepin Electric 805.69
Xcel Energy 601.02
Zee Service Company 301.16
Zep Sales & Service 183.60
28 Payments less than $100 1,317.92
Final total $878,143.93
The meeting adjourned at 10:22 A.M
Published in the Herald Journal Sept. 29, 2008.