HomeMy WebLinkAboutSP March 25, 1980
~ 01 ANDOVER
SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING - MARCH 25, 1980
t~INUTES
A Special Meeting of the Andover City Council was called to order by Mayor Jerry
Windschitl on March 25, 1980, 6:08 p.m., at the Andover City Hall, 1685 Crosstown
Boulevard NW, Anoka, Minnesota, for the purpose of interviewing engineering consulting
firms.
Councilmen present: Jacobson, Lachinski, Ortte1, Peach (arrived at 7:50 p.m.)
Councilmen absent: None
Also present: Charlie Vieman, Dave Almgren
The Counc il met with representat i ves of the fo 11 owi ng three consu It i ng engi neeri ng
firms: Bonestroo, Rosene, Anderk1ik & Associates; Consulting Engineers Diversified,
Inc.; and Comstock & Davis, Inc. Representatives gave a brief background of
their firms~ experiences and qualifications. Afterwards the Council discussed
various questions including billing, the feasibility study for the proposed utilities
improvement project in the southwest portion of the City, staffing, etc.
Bonestroo, Rosene, Ander1ik & Associates, Inc.
Representatives from the firm were Otto G. Bonestroo, Robert Schunicht, and Dave
Olson.
* The firm was formed in 1956 by Otto Bonestroo.
* They presently employ approximately 80 people with 10 crews in the metropolitan
area at all times.
* The firm works only for municipalities and does its own cOnstruction surveying
and staking on their projects.
* They reviewed the last paragraph of the second page of their introductory letter
in their proposal relative to the reasons for a successful project, especially good
documentation.
* They stress "people engineering", involving people in the project.
* Mr. Olson explained that 1/3 of his time is spent talking with prospective
clients, 1/3 working on grants, and 1/3 in the community during projects trying to
eliminate problems before they reach City Hall.
* Memos are written on all things that happen for documentation.
* They reviewed the firm's resume, noting they are civil engineers totally,
very specialized, and on top of everything going on in their field.
* They reviewed the clients they have served, noting their broad experience in
handling any municipal project with experience in water, storm drainage, streets,
parks, municipal buildings, etc.
* Two engineers are assigned to a community with the idea that the continuity
is important to the Ci ty. One of those engineers is a principal. ~1r. Bonestroo would
be the principal engineer for the City of Andover. They feel that engineers
assigned to projects should be experienced. They have not selected a second engineer
for Andover because they preferred to talk with the Council prior to making that
selection. For the most part, Mr. Bonestroo would be coming to meetings, holding
public hearings, etc.
* Their legal counsel keeps the firm and all its employees up to date relative
to the legal aspects of the business.
Special City Council Meeting
March 25, 1980 - Minutes
Page 2
(Interview with Bonestroo, Rosene, Ander1ik & Associates, Continued)
* Reviewed their proposal for the utilities improvement project in southwest
Andover as they saw it, noting that they had talked with several people in the
City, had studied the City's comprehensive sewer, water and storm drainage plans,
and had inspected the project area. They estimated an area of approximately 500
acres needs to be studied for the feasibility report for storm sewer, sanitary
sewer, streets, and in some areas, central water. Mr. Schunicht reviewed their
proposal for the extension of the sanitary sewer trunk line, noting the feasibility
report will need to look at the size of that trunk, the area that will be serviced
with the Coon Rapids trunk interceptor, the area to be serviced by the CAB interceptor,
the exact location of that trunk extension, the question of a proposed lift station
in the area of Auditors Sub. 82, and the location of the laterals. Their experiences
have been that the operation and maintenance and cOnstruction of lift stations are
very expensive and that a gravity-fed system is much more cost effective. Their
crew shot basement elevations in Auditors Sub. 82, and they feel that that area could
be serviced with gravity if the trunk is sized based on the comprehensive plan.
* Mr. Schunicht reviewed the alternatives to be studied for water to those
areas which are requesting it, including looking at buying water from Anoka, having
Andover build its own water well with storage by either attaching to the Anoka system
or building a pressure tank to operate off the well, or building its own supply and
its own storage. The feasibility report would have to look at the ability of this
area to finance an elevated tank at this time. He also reviewed a map showing the
proposed location of water mains.
* Mr. Schunicht then reviewed storm sewer alternatives for the various areas
that would require storm sewers, noting that the feasibility report would contain a
detailed storm drainage plan including ponding to take care of the area at saturation
development.
* Mr. Schunicht also noted that the feasibility report would look at the alternatives
and present cost estimates to various street standards.
* They felt the project is very complex and estimated it to be around $4 or $5
million worth of construction work. It is very important that the residents and property
owners have a thorough understanding of the project before it is constructed, that
they also be aware of what is going to be happening during construction including
providing a handout to property owners during the public hearing showing cost and where
it is going to go. "People Engineering" in this type of project is very important --
keeping people informed for a smoother running project.
* For $4,000, they will do the feasibility study for the area looking in detail
at the sanitary sewer, water main, storm sewer, and streets for the entire area,
attend all council meetings, prepare exhibits and slide program necessary for the public
hearings, and carry it through the public hearing stage. That fee would be credited
in full toward the fee on any construction project that may be ordered from the
feasibility report.
* On Schedule "B" in the cost estimate section of their proposal, the hourly
rate is used as is with no multiplier. The mu1tip1er used is around 1.7, 1.8.
The $40 per meeting is a set rate regardless of the number of people attending a
meeting. There are no charges for public hearings as that is related back to the
project. Mileage at 20 cents is only for out of town meetings, etc., not for mileage
to and from the city. They do not add anything onto their billing.
Special City Council Meeting
March 25, 1980 - Minutes
Page 3
(Interview with Bonestroo, Rosene, Ander1ik & Associates, Continued)
* The Appendix "A" Engineering Fee Schedule is the only curve they used and is a
guaranteed maximum for all projects, and includes fees all the way through the
construction stage, but it does not include staking or inspection.
* They have a full-time inspector on the project, 8-10 hours a day, while the
project is going if the City desires. Another type of inspection is critical-time
inspection, but then they televise when a project is done. They insist on televising
all projects.
* Staking is a billable item by the hour. Critical-time inspection is also
billable by the hour.
* No matter what kind of inspection they have on a project, they still lamp it
themselves, pressure test it, and still recommend televising it. They stated the City
could have its own inspector do the inspections.
* They estimated that the costs of inspection would be 2.1 percent of the
project cost with a full-time inspector; and the staking of the project would also
cost 2.1 percent of the project cost. Their staking is usually less than a full-time
inspector. Televising is 19 cents a foot, and they strongly recommend it.
* They microfilm all their work, keep one copy, and give one to the City.
They keep theirs in a vault for 6 years for legal reasonS. They will provide mylar
copies if the City desires.
* They feel the city should have complete control. They do not work for
developers, and would be looking out for the city's interests when reviewing plats,
etc. They think it is best for the city to have any engineering work done in the
city go through a City Engineer. They like a city to have its own City Engineer for
reviewing plats, etc., and would be willing to help if it is needed.
* Many times a contract with a city is preapred by the clients. They try to
work with a municipality.
Consulting Engineers Diversified, Inc.
Peter R. Raatikka, Principal and Director of Operations, and Robert Isakson, Project
Manager, represented CED.
* The firm was founded in 1954; has offices in Brooklyn Park and Lakevi11e with
a staff of approximately 85 employees; offers essentially all of the engineering
services required of municipalities; has their own surveying department; offers land
surveying and construction staking; has an in-house internationally recognized
graphics department. They then reviewed communities CED serves in the general area.
* The firm policy is that a princpa1 works with every client. Mr. Raatikka
would work for the City of Andover. They believe in long-term service, in budget
method of cost control, and in good communications. "CED is large enough to do the
job, but small enough to know our clients."
* CEO offers a project manager for every project. Mr. Isakson would be the project
manager on the proposed utilities improvement project in southwest Andover.
* They take photographs of areas prior to construction, prepare monthly reports
On the status of projects for the City Council, prepare action notices to eliminate
problems on projects, and encourage one-year warranty inspection prior to the release
of the contractor's bond.
Special City Council Meeting
March 25, 1980 - Minutes
Page 4
(Interview with Consulting Engineers Diversified, Continued)
* CED offers a flat charge for Council and public meetings. CED discusses with
the Council the tasks to be done and the budget for these tasks to reach an agreement
as to what services are to be provided and the cost. They also offer itemized
billing. They do not charge for Council calls or mileage. They believe that cost
control is essential.
* If CED were selected to represent the City, prior to any billable services
being done, and at no cost to the City, they would do an orientation of the City --
review existing systems of sewer, water, etc., review operating records pertaining
to the project, confer with City officials on operating policy, and offer a summary
report to the City Council, and would familiarize themselves with any unfinished
projects within the City.
* They reviewed the feasibility study for the proposed utilities impruvement
project in southwest Andover as noted in CED's Proposal to the City of Andover for
Engineering Services. They will do a feasibility study for a fixed fee of $6,000,
which will be credited toward the fee if the project is ordered after the feasibility
report.
* They recommended having informal public hearings prior to the actual public
hearing because of the magnitude of the project. They also reviewed a chart showing
the steps of a project of this size and scheduling -- preliminary study, environmental
assessment worksheet or environmental impact statement, public hearing, final plans
and specs, bidding process, right-of-way acquisition, permits, construction progress,
assessment process, hookups, and one-year warranty inspection.
* They reviewed the personnel assignments on the projects -- resumes included
in the Proposal to the City of Andover for Engineering Services.
* They reviewed the fee schedule proposing billing on both an hourly basis and
on a fee curve providing the project goes beyond the public hearing stage. Part of
the basic fee would include the feasibility, plans and specs, and project administration.
Hourly rate would cover inspection, staking, and easement acquisition. Hourly rates
are based on a multiplier of 2.15 times the salary costs, salary costs being the base
pay and benefits to each employee.
* They presented an example of plans for a Blaine project and a copy of that
feasibility study. For a project similiar to what Andover is contemplating that CED
has recently done for sanitary sewer, water mains, storm drainage and streets, the
feasibility estimate on the project was $682,550; actual construction cost was
$589,257; surveying on the project was 3.4 percent of the construction; inspection
amounted to 2.5 percent of the construction; basic fees amounted to 6.4 percent of the
total project cost of $661,932, which is 97 percent of the feasibility cost. Total
engineering fees of the project amounted to'12.3 percent of the construction cost.
* A 2.15 multiplier is used for those other than the principal representative;
however, a maximum charge for any employee would be $35.
* According to the fee curve for public improvements, assuming a million dollar
project, an additional 6.5 percent would be added for remaining services of staking,
inspecting, etc.
* Mr. Raatikka stated that Mr. Keith Caswell no longer owns any property within
the City of Andover, as both properties have been sold. Mr. Caswell doesn't have
any interest in the County Road 9 project.
* They basically do just about everything in-house -- staking, surveying,
graphics, etc.
* Mr. Raatikka would start out taking Council meetings, and Mr. Isakson would
be taking over.
Special City Council Meeting
March 25, 1980 - Minutes
Page 5
(Interview with Consulting Engineers Diversified, Continued)
* Mr. Raatikka estimated that to construct a rural-type street, according to
the latest feasibility study he has done, it would cost $9 a front foot including
engineering costs, road to consist of a 3-inch base with l~-inch bituminous, 24-foot
width with 1-foot gravel shoulders. It varies depending on the existing condition
of the street. They mainly shape the existing street and try to keep restoration to
a minimum.
* They don't have any prob 1em wi th other engi neers des ïgn i ng the sewer and water
in plats. TRey have no preferences as to whether that work is done by the developer's
engineer or by them as the City Engineer, although they have better control over it
if they do it.
* They estimated the improvement project for Andover would be in the millions
of dollars, but they haven't worked up an estimate.
* Civil engineering students and technicians are hired to take care of inspections.
For a project of this size, one of the senior technicians would be assigned as head
inspector. Some times graduate engineers are assigned out in the field who would
probably work under the senior technician. They emphasized that they recognize the
importance of proper inspections.
* The number of bidders varies from project to project. They have been getting
6-10 bids for sanitary sewer, water projects and 3-4 bids on simple street-work projects.
It is usually the same firms bidding all the time.
* They do grants work. One person is assigned, plus Mr. Isakson does much of
the EPA grants.
* The municipality usually provides for final inspections -- the public works
superintendent on major projects.
* They felt CED should be hired because they emphasize cost control on projects,
they believe in a long-term working relationship with a community, they feel they could
do a good job, and they would like to work with Andover. They also presented a
brochure to the Counci 1 on their firm.
(Councilman Peach arrived at this time)
Comstock & Davis, Inc.
Mr. Comstock introduced some of the key people who would be working on the Andover
project: Dennis Johnson, Chief Draftsman; Jim Juneau, in charge of field operation;
Skip Kimports, Chief of Inspection Division; John Bearden, Executive Vice President
of Comstock & Davis in charge of all design work; and Ron Murphy, Land Surveyor and
Vice President of Comstock & Davis, Inc. Comstock, Bearden, and ~1urphy then stayed
for the interview before the Council.
* Mr. Comstock, Mr. Bearden, and Mr. Murphy are the owners of Comstock and
Davis. They noted the longevity with some of their clients and noted some of the
projects they have done.
* They reviewed the Proposal for Consulting Engineering Services to the City of
Andover relative to Comstock & Davis, Inc., Commissions of related Experiences,
experience of the principals of the corporation, and a list of clients.
* They stated there are nO cOnflicts in working for the City of Andover for the
proposed project and they do not intend to do any work for the surrounding cities or
for any of the agencies that will need to be coordinated with this proposed project.
Special City Council Meeting
March 25, 1980 - Minutes
Page 6
(Interview with Comstock & Davis, Continued)
* They reviewed their proposal for engineering services for the three projects
in southwest Andover: sanitary sewer trunk; potable water trunk system including
source, storage, and watermain; sanitary sewer laterals; streets; and drainage;
consisting of preliminary report, final design, and in-construction by the consultant;
city's responsibilities; Schedule "A" listing salary cost ranges for personnel;
and Curve B, median compensation for basic services.
* Comstock & Davis has a proven record of providing high quality performance
in a personalized manner. Work is completed on schedule and at a reasonable cost.
The City's work would be performed by or under the direct supervision of the
principals of the firm.
* Normal engineering service is charged at the rate of 2.2 times the hourly
rate listed under Schedule A ; a minimum hourly charge is normally billed for
meetings. But meeting charges vary depending on the volume of engineering work in
the city, or it could be on a retainer basis which would include a certain number
of meetings per month and routine matters.
* The cost of staking and inspecting varies quite a bit with the different
projects, and estimated them to be approximately another 6 percent over the basic
engineering services on a project.
* They have two ways of charging for mileage, depending on whether employees
need to come to the office or to the jOb site first. If they come to the office and
are assigned to a job, they are paid for mileage one way. If it is an on-going pro-
ject where employees report to work on the job, then no mileage is charged. Mileage
would be charged only as it relates to additional services.
* Secretarial staff is charged out separately but is not charged on a fee-
basis project.
* Once the project is ordered, Comstock & Davis would bill for detailed plans
and specifications, engineering services, general supervision on the basis of the
curve and wou 1d reduce the bi 11 by the amount of the pre 1 imi nary as it re 1 ates to
that job.
* If multiple projects in the city are done within a one~year period, they
would use the combined total construction costs of the projects to determine
engineering fees based on the curve.
* Page 4, Section 4.5: When plans and specs, etc., are sent to the Council,
they would expect the Council to either approve them or render some written comment
as it relates to the Council action on the document.
* Page 5, Preliminary Report, estimated charges: 5.1.1: approximately 300
man hours by Consultant; cost not to exceed $8,500: 5.1.2: approximately 200 mãñ hours;
not to exceed $5,700; 5.1.3: 850 man hours; not to exceed $24,100. ---
* Except for those key persons here earlier this evening, the City would be
working with Mr. Comstock and Mr. Bearden at all times.
* They have reviewed the documents related to sanitary sewer, water, and storm
drainage plans done by TKDA and have no argument with the philosophy of the design.
* They felt there is a difference in the depth of the feasibility studies pro-
vided by the various firms and felt the number of hours for Project C could be reduced
by utilizing the 2-foot contour maps; however, some things do not show up on those
contour maps. They felt they would be doing a lot of surveying, especially in the
undeveloped areas and that this would not be done in one preliminary report. They
felt the present developed areas could be done under one report. Some of those areas
Special City Council Meeting
March 25, 1980 - Minutes
Page 7
(Interview with Comstock & Davis, Continued)
will be done by the developer insofar as street alignment, elevation, etc., and
would be handled as part of their project without the necessity of a public hearing.
In doing the report, the data must be collected and possible alternatives developed
in determining the most cost-effect1ve solution. If the money is spent on collecting
data which is a part of the plans and specifications phase, then it will be utilized
in the overall project. The entire cost of the preliminary report would be subtracted
from the fee of the ordered project.
* Page 5, 5.1, normally payment would be made within 90 days or when monies are
received to pay for the project, and is negotiable if the project is ordered and bond
monies are not received immediately.
* They saw no problem with implementing the trunk lines of the project in 1980;
although there is the question of whether or not the Legislature is going to resolve
the bond problem.
Discussion on Oversizing Drainage Pipe Across Round Lake Boulevard
Mayor Windschitl explained that Good Value Homes is now requesting the oversizing
of the drainage pipe across Round Lake Boulevard to be increased from 36 inches
previously requested and approved by the Council to 48 inches. Because of the
question of assessing Good Value Homes for the additional amount, Mayor Windschit1
phoned Mr. Voth at this time. Following the phone call, Mayor Windschit1 reported
that Mr. Voth stated Good Value will accept responsibility for the cost of the
increased size in the drainage pipe from 36 inches to 48 inches.
MOTION by Ortte1, Seconded by Peach, entering the following Resolution: Whereas the
owners of the 80 acres of property on the northeast quadrant of Round Lake Boulevard
and Bunker Lake Boulevard, Good Value Homes and their President, Frank Voth, have
shown the need for additional storm water drainage capacity in the culvert passing
under County Road 9; and Whereas the owners of that property have requested in writing
in a letter dated March 25, 1980, that the City join in a Joint Powers Agreement with
the County to increase the size of that culvert to 48 inches; and Whereas the owners
of the property have agreed in writing to accept the responsibility for the additional
cost for the oversizing; and Whereas the owners of the property have requested that the
public hearings be waived under the 429 proceedings; the City Hereby requests that the
County of Anoka provide for the oversizing of that drainage pipe in the letting of
the bids. (See Resolution R24-80) Motion carried unanimously.
Discussion on Selection of Engineering Firm
Council di6cussion was on the procedure to be used for selecting an engineering
fir. It was felt that no decision on procedure could be set until the remaining
four engineering firms are interviewed on Thursday. Dave Almgren, Building
Inspector, was asked to contact various contractors asking their opinion on working
with the consulting engineering firms being considered by the City. Mr. Almgren
stated he could have that available for the Council for Thursday's meeting. Council
members are also to do their own reference checks on the various engineering firms.
MOTION by Ortte1, Seconded by Jacobson, to adjourn. Motion carried unanimously.
Meeting adjourned at 9:05 p.m.
Respectfully submitted.)
~,-"t~'- ~~-L
,
Marcella A. Peach
Recording Secretary