WRIGHT COUNTY BOARD MINUTES
OCTOBER 15, 2013
The Wright County Board met in regular session at 9:00 A.M. with Husom, Sawatzke, Daleiden, Potter and Borrell present.
Borrell moved to approve the 10-08-13 County Board Minutes as presented. The motion was seconded by Husom and carried 5-0.
Petitions were accepted to the Agenda as follows: Human Resources Director Item #2, “Approve Candidates For Second Interview, County Coordinator, & Schedule Interview Date” (Tammy Bigelow). Daleiden moved to approve the Agenda as revised, seconded by Husom, carried 5-0.
On a motion by Daleiden, second by Potter, all voted to approve the Consent Agenda:
1. Performance Appraisals: B. Lutes, K. Wolff, Atty.; M. Cogley, A. Duerr, K. Gunnerson, Aud./Treas.; D. Chapman, P. Czech, Bldg. Maint.; S. Denzer, Ct. Svcs.; K. Kangas, R. Nevala, Sher.
2. Approve Revision To Wright County Personnel Policies Revision 508.03 Flex Time.
3. O/T Report, Period Ending 9-28-13.
4. Claim, Madden, Galanter & Hansen, LLP, $1,671.07 (September, 2013 Services).
Bob Hiivala, Auditor/Treasurer, presented for approval a draft Summary of Fact and Findings for County Ditch 38. The document reflects County Ditch 38 where it was originally established and subsequently extended by evidence of minutes of redeterminations being presented to the County Board. This resulted in the current listing of benefited parcels. Hiivala referenced a map provided with the Summary of Fact and Findings. The blue line depicting the ditch is not mapped to the legal description of the Ditch. Hiivala said the Ditch viewers will look at all parcels in and around the area and determine benefits. It will include the most northern outlined parcel. Borrell asked whether the outlined areas south of Hwy. 12 will be included. Hiivala responded that those parcels may be owned by the township or DNR and it does not mean it is part of the benefited area. The initial legal description of the Ditch identifies areas south of Hwy. 12. Hiivala anticipated having the Surveyor’s Office assist with reading the legal description and updating the map accordingly. That updated map will be what is presented for the public hearing for redetermination of benefits.
Discussion led to benefited lands that have been annexed into cities. Sawatzke recalled that there is a County policy whereby the city is assessed for the parcels that are annexed and they determine whether to redistribute the cost to the parcel owners. Hiivala said the County has not acted consistently in this fashion. Sawatzke said when a city annexes the benefited land, they are responsible for that percentage of costs. Hiivala said the City is also responsible for maintaining that portion of the ditch. Sawatzke said it is important that the County move forward in this fashion. Otherwise, assessments will be divided in such large numbers that it could be a serious bookkeeping problem. Hiivala said assessment notices are not sent when the cost to send notice is more than the actual assessment. Daleiden said the viewers can determine the benefitted landowners. Subsequently, the Board can look at this process and talk with the cities. Hiivala said they will start this dialogue with cities to turn these assessments over to them.
Borrell moved to adopt Resolution #13-36 approving the Summary of Fact and Findings on the Ditch Location of County Ditch 38. The motion was seconded by Daleiden and carried 5-0 on a roll call vote. Sawatzke requested that a copy of the Ditch viewer’s findings be sent to the Commissioners. Brian Asleson, Chief Deputy Attorney, said that all Commissioners need to be involved in the Public Hearing process on Ditch 38. Sawatzke said that will be a good time to discuss parcels that are located in the city. Hiivala anticipates holding the Public Hearing in 2013.
Hiivala presented the September Revenue/Expenditure Guidelines for approval. The Guidelines include expenditures for some departments where the transfers have not yet been completed. The County is also awaiting some grant funding. Personnel expenditures are also being held down. Potter moved to accept the September Revenue/Expenditure Guidelines. The motion was seconded by Daleiden and carried unanimously. Hiivala stated this information will be posted on the County website.
The claims listing was reviewed. Daleiden referenced the following claims:
• Page 10, MN Department of Labor & Industry, $2,337.64. The claim is for the September Surcharge and is coded to Staff Training, Planning & Zoning. Hiivala will pay the claim and assure it is coded properly.
• Page 11, Grainger, $123.92 for a toaster at the Government Center, coded to Repairs & Maintenance, Building Maintenance. Lee Kelly, Interim County Coordinator, believes the toaster was purchased for the new lunchroom. Commercial units are purchased for durability. It was the consensus that the claim should be coded to Operating Supplies.
• Page 13, Dune Temporary Tattoos Inc., $506.00, for Drug Education Items coded to Publications & Brochures, Sheriff. Lt. Todd Hoffman, Sheriff’s Office, said the temporary tattoos are used with the DARE Program.
On a motion by Daleiden, second by Husom, all voted to approve the claims as listed in the abstract, subject to audit, in the amount of $167,284.64, with 174 vendors, and 248 transactions.
Bill Swing, Information Technology Director, provided an update on web streaming of the County Board Meetings. Procedures are being tested. He suggested going live with web streaming on 11-05-13. The County currently provides a VCR tape of the Board Meeting to Charter Communications. He suggested that a letter be sent to all cable companies within the County stating the Board Meetings are being streamed. The cable company will have the opportunity to download the meeting and provide that service to their customers. Swing did not support continuing with providing a VCR/DVD copy of the meeting to one cable provider (Charter) because of the extra work involved. Board members agreed. The County will continue with the six-month retention of the streamed meetings, as required through records retention. Borrell asked about the expense of retaining streamed meetings longer, because of issues that may come back before the Board. Swing said that will impact the Storage Area Network, which will be upgraded in 2013. The County is trying to keep the records lean. Sawatzke asked whether the streamed meetings could be downloaded onto another device. Swing said that would involve second tier storage. The hosting site for streaming does retain the streamed meetings for an indefinite period of time. Asleson said that there is a Statute dealing with official records, including the requirement that minutes are kept permanently. When the data retention schedule is re-examined, there are other statutes that may pertain that should be examined as well. Decisions should be made based upon that. Daleiden asked if the official minutes are required to be kept in written form. Asleson said that is his understanding. This was provided as an informational item.
Tammy Bigelow, Human Resources Director, said the County completed a Classification Study a couple years ago. A Compensation Study was not completed as part of that. She asked that the County Board refer discussion on a Compensation Study to the Personnel Committee Of The Whole to discuss the pros and cons of completing a Study in 2014. Sawatzke is a member of the Negotiation Committee and recognizes how this Study will interplay with the union negotiation process scheduled to begin next summer. Also, the overwhelming majority of employees are part of a union. He suggested the meeting be held in Closed Session with Frank Madden, Labor Law Attorney, who can provide input on how this will impact negotiations and what the County may gain from the Study. Others that would be in attendance would be the County Board, Lee Kelly, and Tammy Bigelow. Potter moved to direct Bigelow to obtain potential dates for a Negotiation Committee Of The Whole Meeting from Frank Madden. The motion was seconded by Husom. Sawatzke said that Madden can verify whether this meets the Closed Meeting protocol. The motion carried unanimously.
Bigelow stated her recommendation is to advance Lee Kelly and Patrick Melvin to the second round of interviews for the position of Wright County Coordinator. She asked the Board to set a date for the interviews. Potter moved to schedule a Personnel Committee Of The Whole meeting on 10-25-13 at 9:00 A.M. The motion was seconded by Daleiden and carried 5-0.
A Committee Of The Whole Meeting was held on 10-08-13. At today’s County Board Meeting, Borrell moved to approve the minutes and recommendations. The motion carried 5-0 on a second by Daleiden. The minutes follow:
I. Corinna Township Shoreland Zoning Administration
Riley offered a condensed history of the Corinna Township request for Shoreland Zoning Administration authority. In 2010, Tom Salkowski, the previous County Planning & Zoning Administrator, met with Oleson, Quiggle and former Commissioner Rose Thelen. They proposed a Joint Powers Agreement (JPA) between Corinna Township (Township) and the County Planning & Zoning Office to share planning and zoning duties. The JPA was adopted in late 2010 with the intent that it would be on a one-year trial basis, after which the Township would be allowed to request shoreland authority from the County Board in 2011.
Riley referred to a section entitled “Shoreland Management By Townships” within a document regarding the relevant issues of the Township’s request that was included in the packet of information distributed to the Board. The packet also contained a memo to the County Board from Oleson, and a copy of the Memorandum Of Understanding (MOU) between the County and the Township (see attachments). Riley said the relevant statute related to shoreland zoning authority is MN 6120.3900, Subp. 4a, Shoreland Management By Townships.
Riley said the Township has presented requests for shoreland authority a number of times. To designate shoreland management control to the Township, the County Board must first officially convey the authority to the Township as a local unit of government. The ordinance is then submitted to the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (DNR) for approval. During the last several years, the duties of building and sewer inspectors were removed from the JPA and incorporated into a separate service contract between the Township and the County. The current service contract ends 12-31-14. Riley said the service agreement designates all professional inspections and permitting functions to the County Planning & Zoning Office. The Township Planning Commission and the County Board of Adjustment (BOA) administer land use, both in shoreland and out of shoreland.
Riley explained that the shoreland zoning administration has been delegated to the Township on a year-to-year basis in recent years under the JPA. The JPA changed to the MOU for calendar year 2013. Riley said the intent of the MOU was to avail the Township of a more favorable insurance rate. Riley said Oleson presented a summary regarding their past planning system. He and Oleson have worked together on this issue for several years, sharing information and providing feedback. In November 2012, the previous County Board made the decision to ask the Township to return at this time in 2013 to submit a request to designate shoreland authority to them. Since there are four new Commissioners this year, Riley said the Township decided to request a Committee Of The Whole meeting to provide an opportunity for the entire Board to discuss the request.
Borrell asked how the Corinna Township shoreland authority request compares to Middleville Township. He understands that Corinna has more lakeshore. Riley replied that the Middleville-Stockholm Township agreement dates further back. The Corinna Township agreement has undergone a more formal process; however, all the townships would have the same authority. Riley said the difference between the Middleville-Stockholm and the Corinna contracts is that the County does not provide professional services to Middleville-Stockholm.
Husom asked if Middleville and Stockholm Townships have shoreland authority along with planning and zoning. Corinna currently has the planning and zoning authority but not shoreland. Riley responded that Corinna has shoreland authority under the current MOU.
Husom said during the last legislative session, the DNR tried to obtain shoreland authority on all Minnesota lakes. The County must abide by their rules. Riley concurred, and said the DNR requires that the County Board must determine whether to designate shoreland authority to the Township, after which the DNR must approve the Township’s shoreland ordinance.
Daleiden asked if the County would be involved with Township sewer, treatment systems and inspections under a new agreement. Riley referred to the attached MOU which includes stipulations regarding the professional services provided by the County. This contract expires 12-31-14, and is separate from the agreement regarding designation of shoreland authority.
Oleson has discussed Township shoreland management with the DNR and referred to Minnesota Statute 6120.3900, Subp. 4a. There are two requirements: 1) The Township ordinance must be as restrictive as the County ordinance; and 2) Township administration must be as effective as County administration.
Oleson assured the Board that the Township will be as restrictive as the County. Regarding the administrative side, Oleson said the DNR does not define these requirements clearly. There are a number of documents over the years that mention record keeping, experienced zoning administration, and budgetary issues. Oleson said he tried to address them in his memo. He said the Township has met all the requirements. The relationship with Riley and County Planning &Zoning staff is good, and the Township expects that to continue. The Township has not heard of any specific concerns from the County regarding their methods of operation.
Daleiden asked whether the attached memo to the County from Oleson stating that the County may not be as restrictive in some areas as required by the DNR is accurate. Oleson replied that his understanding is the County ordinance went into effect shortly before or after the DNR made rule changes. This spring, when he sent drafts to the DNR, Oleson noticed that wording of some County rules did not correspond to the DNR model. He reiterated that no part of the Township ordinance will be less restrictive than the County ordinance. Oleson added that the DNR would have notified the County if their ordinance was not restrictive enough.
Sawatzke said the issue spans back into the 1990s. When the Salkowski retired, the Board received a letter from the DNR agent who administers shoreland in Minnesota. The DNR official said Wright County set the standard for lakeshore protection and adherence to state shoreland regulations. The DNR has never suggested that the County change their methods. He asked Oleson to bring any such items to Riley’s attention.
Oleson said when reviewing the requirements language, he noted that the wording used by the DNR was not the same as that utilized by the County. He was just making sure their ordinance was correct. Oleson said he discussed these points with Riley.
Daleiden asked why the Township wants shoreland authority. Oleson said he has worked with other townships that have made the same request. In general, it originates from a desire for local control. It is closer and more convenient for residents to contact the Township than the County. There are areas where the Township wants to be more restrictive. While it is possible to do that with the County acting as the shoreland authority, it is potentially more confusing. In a few cases, Oleson said the Township has been more restrictive. They also want to avoid having two sets of ordinances.
Daleiden asked for an example where the Township is more restrictive than the County. Oleson said they are more restrictive with erosion control measures, as well as different mining and sign ordinances, none of which are shoreland related. Oleson added that the County requires public meeting notification to people within 1/4 mile and 500 feet of an affected area; whereas the Township requires that residents within 1/2 mile be notified. Sawatzke said township ordinances may be stricter than county ordinances, as long as they are enforceable, if a township is under the County Planning & Zoning Ordinance.
Oleson said shoreland is more complicated than other land use issues. The DNR drafted a policy a number of years ago that expressed their concern about townships picking and choosing the ordinances they wished to enforce. Hence, the DNR requires that townships follow all the requirements.
Husom said other townships make recommendations and come to the Board for final approval. Sawatzke said that is true for both recommendations and ordinances.
Oleson said prior to the Township adopting its own ordinances, the Town Board approved planning & zoning applications. Now the Township has a Planning Commission and a Board Of Adjustment that reviews applications, holds public hearings to get public input, and has more time to review the facts. A staff report is prepared that describes all the pertinent details of the situation. The Township now conducts a more detailed review of applications and potential consequences.
Husom asked how transferring shoreland authority to the Township would affect Township taxpayers. Oleson said the Township pays his fee and per diems. Revenue generated from applications offsets some of those costs.
Husom asked how the revenue is split between the Township and the County. Oleson explained that the Township receives fees for variance applications. The Township keeps those revenues. The Township splits building code and sewer permit fees, with the County receiving 75 percent and the Township receiving 25 percent. All variance applications, conditional use permits, subdivision and land use application fees go to the Township to offset costs. The Township fees are the same as the County fee schedule.
Borrell favored local control. He said Middleville and Stockholm Townships already have shoreland authority. He believes those residents are pleased with that arrangement. He saw no reason why Corinna Township could not manage their shorelands effectively.
Borrell continued, saying several people in Corinna Township have expressed confusion regarding when they should go to the County and when they should talk to the Township. He thought it would be good to have one place in the Township where residents could transact business.
Daleiden suggested holding a public hearing for the residents of Corinna Township to let them know what is being discussed and to receive their input. Quiggle said they hold monthly public hearings at the Township Planning Commission meetings. Daleiden said it would be an opportunity to familiarize Township residents with the changes that will occur if the Township assumes shoreland authority at the end of the MOU term.
Carlson asked if the public hearing would be held prior to the County Board giving final approval, and if all the Commissioners would be present. Sawatzke responded that the hearing would be held prior to a final decision. All the Commissioners will attend. Daleiden suggested it be a joint public hearing. Riley said he would talk to Terrie Piram, Planning & Zoning Office Manager, regarding taking minutes at the meeting. Sawatzke said Riley and Oleson could give a presentation regarding the history and future of Corinna Township shoreland management, and give the public opportunity for input.
Kryzer suggested the meeting be scheduled as a County Committee Of The Whole. The location will be in Corinna Township. Sawatzke asked Riley and Oleson to draft an agenda and send it to him for review. Oleson should also ask the Township Board to review the agenda.
Sawatzke said the joint public hearing will be held during a Committee Of The Whole meeting on Wednesday, 11-06-13 at 7 P.M. at Corinna Town Hall. The County will advertise in the Maple Lake Messenger and the Annandale Advocate. Kryzer, Riley and Oleson will collaborate on drafting an agenda and a notice for the newspapers. Sawatzke asked them whether they would create a PowerPoint presentation, overhead transparencies, or handouts. Once the Committee receives input from the public, a recommendation could be made or the feedback could be taken under advisement.
Husom asked how shoreland areas are separated from the rest of the land in the Township. Kryzer said the Township has authority over planning and zoning in areas that are not classified as shoreland. Shoreland encompasses any land within 300 feet of any stream or river or 1000 feet from a lake. Any land outside of those buffer zones falls under regular planning and zoning regulations.
Sawatzke explained that the shoreland has special regulations. The Township only receives shoreland authority if the County agrees. Authority for planning & zoning was given to the Township for land use management.
Daleiden asked if a staff person was at the Township Hall every day. Naaktgeboren said someone is there four days per week. Sawatzke said there is no Planning & Zoning official present. Oleson said he is not physically in the Township office, but is available by email. He offices in Alexandria. Daleiden asked if he employs anyone else in his company. Oleson said he is the only one.
Recommendation: Conduct a Committee Of The Whole meeting at 7:00 P.M. on 11-06-13 at Corinna Township Hall.
(End of 10-08-13 Committee Of The Whole Minutes)
The Board reviewed a draft Local Government Sponsor resolution regarding the Park Legacy Grant, Phase 7 Funding, for Bertram Chain of Lakes Regional Park. This was submitted by Marc Mattice, Parks Administrator. The backup material provided reflects that on 8-06-13, the County Board authorized Mattice to prepare and submit a grant application to the Park Legacy Grant Program, which is administered through the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources. This application relates to the seventh phase of a series of planned purchases as previously presented. The resolution is part of the grant application process and is due 10-25-13. The resolution indicates Wright County is the sponsor and authorizes the Parks Administrator to submit and execute agreements as necessary. Daleiden moved to adopt Resolution #13-37, seconded by Potter, and carried 4-1 with Husom casting the nay vote. Husom noted that she voted against the grant application previously.
The meeting recessed at 9:50 A.M. and reconvened at 10:06 A.M.
Hiivala introduced Bryce Cruey from Wenck Associates who presented recommendations on the County Ditch 10 repair bids. The Engineer’s estimate is $115,773.75. The bids are as follows:
Minnesota Native Landscaping; $189,747.90
Blackstone Contractors, LLC, $148,557.95
J. F. Jedlicki, Inc., $317,210.15
Cruey recommended awarding of the bid to Blackstone Contractors, LLC, the low bid in the project. Cruey has worked with Blackstone on other projects and highly recommends them. Borrell was in contact with the local contractors who did not bid on this project. They indicated to Borrell that it was too large of a project given the timeline. Although he did not want to be critical of Wenck, he said that the specifications were fashioned where only a large contractor could bid. Borrell thought the $115,000 estimate may even be high. He suggested that the work could have been bid as different sections. Although there is an advantage to having one contractor, there is a disadvantage as it ruled out the small contractors.
Husom asked Cruey for an explanation as to why the Engineer’s Estimate is so much lower in some areas than the contractor’s bids. For example, the tree removal bid by the contractor is twice that of the Engineer, and Ditch Reshaping is almost three times more. Cruey explained that the Engineer’s Estimate was determined under the assumption that the trees would be left on site. Only after the specifications were distributed did they note that the language reflected the trees would be taken off site. Wenck was going to send an addendum to correct that as they had all decided at Wenck to leave them on site. However, a recommendation was made by Hiivala and Borrell (email) that it would not be changed and the trees were to be moved off site, and that significantly increased the price. Ditch reshaping costs were based on other jobs Wenck has completed. Contractor bids can vary in this area depending on their interpretation of ditch reshaping. Husom said it is puzzling when the high bid shows a mobilization/demobilization cost of $7,800 and the low bid shows $25,000. She said it doesn’t appear that bidders are necessarily bidding the same things. Cruey stated that this is a tough project to bid. A trend in the last couple of years is for contractors to come in with a lot higher unit pricing than in the past. Other ditch projects they have completed this year have had similar results.
Sawatzke referenced the tree removal component and whether negotiating with the contractor to leave the trees on site would result in a considerable cost savings. Cruey said he could not speak to what any contractor would agree to. The unit prices do reflect the low bidder was about double the Engineer’s estimate on this item. Hiivala stated that he was contacted by a resident on the Ditch system who said a contractor approached them inquiring whether the trees could be left on site. The caller was adamant that the trees would need to be removed. Sawatzke said Blackstone would need to remove the trees if that is what the specifications call for. Otherwise, there is the potential for the County to be liable for removal if an agreement between a landowner and the contractor goes awry.
Cruey said there are many properties involved and there are around 172 trees. The specifications reflect that tree removal involves cutting, treating stumps, and taking the trees off site. Trees smaller than 6” would be included in clearing and grubbing, and those are specified to be removed off site as well. There is about 22,000 lineal feet involved. Hiivala said the County is limited to assess $100,000 per year on repairs. It is anticipated that the work will be done this fall, and he would present an assessment roll of $100,000 this year and the balance next year. Hiivala said Wenck had several informational meetings with landowners who understand the work that will be completed. The bid is to remove the trees within the Ditch system. He wanted the Board to understand that the Ditch will not have a flat buffer strip on both sides. He stated the landowners are aware of this. Cruey said that part of the contract field work is to mark the trees that need to be removed. That work has not been paid for yet.
Borrell said work was recently completed on a Joint Ditch 15 lateral. It was a large job involving trees being cleared and burned. The cost was about $4.00/foot. He said the cost on Ditch 10 comes to $6.00-$7.00/foot. In hindsight, Ditch 10 became too large of a job and he would have favored quoting each segment. In response to Borrell, Cruey stated there are 10-12 segments on Ditch 10.
Asleson cautioned the Board not to start negotiating with a contractor prior to awarding the bid. It would not pose a problem to award the bid and then implement change orders during the project. He recommended the Board award the bid today or decide to reject all bids. Sawatzke asked whether awarding the bid would result in the loss of negotiating power. Asleson said some landowners may be more willing than others to have trees disposed of on their properties. The cost of the contract can be negotiated once the project has been started. He reminded the Board that the reason this project is so expensive is because of the amount of trees involved. The Board, as Drainage Authority, did not take care of the Ditch. Sawatzke responded that ditches are owned by residents and it is up to them to bring forward requests for repair. There is no obligation for the Board (Drainage Authority) to do this. Potter said the landowners on Ditch 10 want repairs completed.
Husom moved to award the bid for Ditch 10 repairs to Blackstone Contractors, LLC, for $148,557.95, seconded by Potter. Borrell stated that when he ran for the position of Commissioner, he didn’t have knowledge on ditches and was not involved with the Ditch 10 Engineering Study. His idea would be to start at the outlet with repairs and work back. The work that is being proposed is in ten locations. Daleiden said he too is learning a lot about ditches. He assumes the contractor will be willing to work with the County on change orders or different ways of doing things, as the contractor may want to work with the County in the future. Borrell suggested that all trees in the Ditch be removed instead of marking the trees that should be removed.
Cruey referenced Borrell’s suggestion on bidding the sections separately so local contractors can bid. He thought there would be the risk of higher costs because of mobilization. Cruey said they met with the landowners on the Ditch who identified the problem areas. There are large sections that need to be cleaned. When he walked the Ditch sections that were identified, there were many trees and he did not feel they could all be removed. They decided to rely on the Field Engineer’s judgment, who indicated the trees that were causing an immediate problem in the Ditch. Those trees standing straight on the top of the Ditch were not causing the problems that were referenced by landowners. Those leaning over the Ditch were the ones selected to be removed.
Borrell referenced the lateral work completed on the Stamer property, which involved a clean out of over 1500’ for $6,600. The contractor was asked to remove trees on one side of the Ditch, but both sides were completed. The trees were burned on site. Borrell was impressed with the work that was completed. The cost was about $4/foot. The contractor will seed the 16.5’ buffer at the top of the Ditch and the farmer has agreed to this. Borrell said when work is completed on a ditch, it should be done correctly so that trees are not left in the buffer strip due to maintenance issues. Potter voiced concern that if the County does not move forward, the costs to complete the work will continue to rise. Borrell said he would be willing to compromise and move forward. He suggested asking the STS crew to clear out what trees remain on Ditch 10 after the work is completed by the contractor. Borrell restated that he would not bid a job this way again. Cruey was unsure if the County would save money by bidding each section. There are some areas with trees so dense it could cost $100,000 with most contractors to clean them out to the way Borrell is referencing.
Discussion continued on negotiation of the contract to burn trees on site. It was agreed that whether this happens will depend on the willingness of the property owners. If a property owner does not agree to have this done, then the trees must be removed per the specifications in the contract. Sawatzke questioned whether the County would be required to pay for trees that are burned on site. He asked whether the contractor would be able to negotiate with landowners to leave the trees on site and burn them, saving money in transport costs. Asleson said the County would not want to see that situation, where the County pays for something that is not being done. Cruey said the specifications are for the contractor to remove the trees.
Borrell asked if the County accepts the bid and then attempts to negotiate with the contractor for on-site burning and the contractor declines, could the contractor then approach landowners on their own to do the same. He asked whether that would be a violation of the contract. Asleson said he would tend to agree with that. That is a scenario that would have to be dealt with as it arises. The specifications can be enforced. Any negotiations should occur before the work is started. Asleson said it is good to have the Engineer on the project to keep tabs on these types of things.
Sawatzke asked whether it needs to be made clear in the motion that the County is accepting the contract, but the removal of the trees means removal from the ditch area and adjacent properties. It does not mean a separate agreement to pile and burn the trees. That would result in a reduction of the bid. Borrell did not think the County would be able to do this because of private property being involved. Potter said the contract reflects the trees must be removed off site. The contractor could remove them five feet off the site and burn them. Sawatzke said he thought that would have to be made clear in the motion.
Asleson said the motion before the Board is to award the bid. What the Board is referencing could be clarified in the contract with Blackstone that will come to the Board for signatures. The contract is based on the specifications, but if there are particular areas of concern it could be reflected in the contract. Borrell said if the contractor can dispose of the trees on site or nearby, the contract should be lowered.
Sawatzke asked Cruey whether the contractor has any plans of burning the trees on site, based on Cruey’s understanding of the specifications and what the contractor bid. Cruey said that is not in the contract. Sawatzke thought there should be a reduction in bid price if trees are burned on site. Cruey thought that could be negotiated with a change order after award of the bid. Sawatzke said this is something that can be negotiated and the contractor should not approach landowners for permission to burn on site. Sawatzke asked Cruey for his definition of “on site”. Borrell felt this would be 16.5’ from the top of the ditch on each side. Cruey said he would have to review the language. He assumed removal off site means removal off the premises (not piling on someone’s property and burning). Borrell asked why Wenck included this in the specifications because it is not the norm. Daleiden said that is what the County asked them to do.
Sawatzke said the Board could approve the motion and clarify with the contractor that the bid is to remove the trees from the site. Once that is clarified, discussion can occur relating to the County’s attempts to locate on-site burning areas in an effort to lower the bid. Borrell asked how many trees will be left after the work is complete. Cruey said if Borrell is referencing the 16.5’ buffer on top of the Ditch, there will be a lot of trees remaining. Sawatzke asked Husom and Potter to amend the motion to include clarification that removal of the trees means from the site and adjacent areas. Husom and Potter agreed to this amendment. Cruey said that once the bid is awarded, that can be clarified with the contractor. Sawatzke said part of the bid award is that clarification includes removal of the trees. If the contractor indicates it is not, then it should probably come back to the County Board to decide if the bid will be accepted the other way. He said if that is the case, they technically did not bid to specifications. The motion carried 5-0.
Ameripride Services 133.65
Anesthesia Assoc. of St Cloud 508.20
AP Technology LLC 1,055.00
Aramark Services Inc 6,846.48
Asplin Travel Plaza/Kirk 102.00
Bachman Printing 383.79
Black Box Resale Services 375.00
Bureau of Crim. Apprehension 8,430.00
Center Point Energy 135.81
CliftonLarsonAllen LLP 9,540.00
Corporate Payment Systems 4,016.28
Dune Temporary Tattoos Inc 506.00
ECM Publishers Inc 117.20
Emergency Auto. Tech Inc 1,061.53
Ernst Gen. Construction Inc 3,592.00
Excel Systems 474.10
Farm-Rite Equipment Inc 290.96
Fyles Excav. & Honey Wagon 175.00
Greenview Inc 15,878.53
Hardings Towing Inc 187.03
Hewlett Packard 126.22
Hillyard Inc - Minneapolis 1,810.72
ID America 208.41
Intereum Inc 255.95
Karels Towing 159.32
M & M Express Sales/Service 1,078.02
Martin-McAllisters Consulting 2,600.00
Mini Biff LLC 830.50
MN Assn. of Co. Probation Ofcrs 490.00
MN Counties Comp. Coop. 14,645.32
MN Counties Ins Trust 100.00
MN Dept. of Labor & Industry 2,337.64
Monticello Towing LLC 181.69
Moore & Moore Advantage 150.00
Morrell Towing Inc 157.70
North American Salt Co 18,449.09
O’Ryans Conoco Marathon 135.00
Office Depot 1,086.03
Peterson’s Towing & Recovery 165.66
Ratwik, Roszak,& Maloney 3,267.00
Regents of the Univ. of MN 38,326.89
Rockford Township 1,005.75
Scuba Center 1,320.00
St Cloud Hospital 867.47
Verizon Wireless 7,916.76
Village Ranch 275.00
Waste Management-TC West 2,445.37
Wenck Associates Inc 930.00
Wright County Highway Dept 504.48
Wright Soil & Water Cons Dist 263.29
27 Payments less than 100 1,142.80
Final Total 167,284.64
The meeting adjourned at 10:45 A.M
Published in the Herald Journal Nov. 4, 2013.