Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutJPBMinutes_2010_06_16BROOKINGS CITY/COUNTY JOINT POWERS BOARD MEETING Wednesday, June 16, 2010 The Joint Powers Board met on Wednesday, June 16, 2010 with the following members present: Alan Gregg, Dennis Falken, Mike Bartley, and John Kubal. Also in attendance were Stephanie Vogel, Jeff Weldon, and Mark Kratochvil. REGULAR BUSINESS Chairperson Gregg called the meeting to order and a quorum was established. Motion by Kubal, seconded by Falken to approve the minutes from the May 26, 2010 Joint Powers Board meeting. Vote: 4 ayes, 0 nos. Motion carried. Bartley said that the city council would like the Joint Powers Board to review the different types of delivery methods once again and either take no action if the recommendation remains the construction manager agent or to take action to change the board’s recommendation. Falken said that his understanding was that the city council preferred design/bid/build with a project manager and then after discussion at the joint city/county meeting they were willing to look at a construction manager at-risk delivery method. Falken said he would like to know the major differences and whether this board should change their initial recommendation. Bartley said that he felt the construction manager at -risk was a compromise suggestion from Councilman Bezdichek, but feels all three delivery methods were still on the table. Falken said that there is going to have to be a compromise at the city level and he doesn’t want to get to the point where the county approves something and the city doesn’t. He said that he doesn’t think design/bid/build is the way to go and would just as soon look at the construction manager at-risk as opposed to the design/bid/build. City Manager Jeff Weldon said that due to the added criteria required in RFPs fo r construction managers at-risk, it would put the project at least a month behind. Bartley said that in all the discussions he’s heard, he sees no compelling reason for this board to change their initial recommendation to go with a construction manager ag ent. Kubal said that this board unanimously agreed to that, but it doesn’t matter if they can’t get the city council to buy into it. Commissioner Gregg said he doesn’t think this board should be compromising this early in the process or they’ll be compromising throughout the entire project. He said that they’ve gone through the paperwork and shouldn’t be second guessing information that most of the council members and commissioners haven’t seen. Gregg said he’d like to keep their original recommendation and send it to the county and see what happens. He said it’s not an easy decision, but it’s the best decision as he doesn’t think he can be convinced that a construction manager at-risk is a better delivery method. Falken said that all three delivery methods will get the building built and he’s concerned with hanging onto the construction manager agent type at all costs. Bartley said if they change to a construction manager at-risk and the county doesn’t approve it, then their right back in the same position again. He said that the council members have had two opportunities, at the city council meeting last week and at the joint meeting this week, to hear all the arguments. Bartley said that if the joint powers board comes back with the same recommenda tion, he’s confident the county will pass the CM Agent method and he believes the council wants to move forward as well. But they wanted everything aired out and to know that there’s a process that has taken place to hear all the sides. He said that he thinks the council will ultimately approve the CM Agent contract. The board discussed the differences between construction managers at -risk and construction manager agents. Commission Assistant Stephanie Vogel said a construction manager agent cannot bid on the project. Weldon added that construction managers at -risk prepare the bid documents and can then bid on those packages, so they could write the bid specs to fit their needs. Falken said the only way he’s comfortable with the construction manager ag ent is if the city council passes it first. He said the county shouldn’t be the one having to approve everything first. Kubal asked if it was prudent to have a fall-back position that the joint powers board is willing to accept. He said his biggest concern with the design/bid/build with a project manager is that manager’s lack of power and he wondered if they went that direction could they draw up a contract to increase that person’s authority. Deputy State’s Attorney Mark Kratochvil said that it would in essence make him a construction manager then. Kubal said that he believes there are a lot of talented people in the community that could handle being a project manager and be the eyes and ears for the county and city. However, he believes the construc tion manager agent is the way to go, but he doesn’t get the impression that they’ve convinced the council that it would work. Weldon said that a project manager would have no say over the ways and means of the construction of the project, but he believes they would absolutely have to have authority to tell the contractors if the specifications aren’t being followed. Falken asked how they would be able to give someone that authority because they can’t use a project coordinator with a general contractor delivery system. Kubal asked how adamant the commission is on the construction manager agent delivery type. Falken said that if it’s going to change, they’re going to have to convince the commission of that change. Bartley said that the county understands the purpose of the joint powers board and the council doesn’t get it. He understands why the county is upset that they’re even in this position because they thought these types of decisions would be decided by this board. But, Bartley adds, the power of this board has been challenged. He says he believes the process in choosing a delivery method has been fair and he hasn’t been given any compelling reason to change it. Bartley thinks this board needs to keep its initial recommendation to go with a construction manager agent. Gregg said that he is putting discussion and action to approve the contract with Bossardt Construction on the agenda for next Tuesday’s commission meeting. Falken said that with the county approving this contract before the city, it could pull the commission apart just as it has the city council. The board reviewed the state statutes on preparing RFPs for construction managers at -risk. Kratochvil said that it’s not impossible, but it would definitely delay the project. Bartley al so noted that both the commission and council would have to approve the RFP for a CM at -risk and is concerned that someone may feel it was written to exclude someone which could open up another can of worms. He said that no matter what they decide, someon e won’t be happy. Kubal said that if they have a fall-back position it may seem like this board isn’t confident with the CM agent delivery system as well. Gregg said that this isn’t an easy decision, but they need to keep their original recommendation and move forward. He said the contract for Bossardt Construction as construction manager agent for the project will be on the commission agenda next Tuesday. Falken noted that the council voted to change the delivery system to design/bid/build at their last meeting. Bartley said that if the county commission passes the Bossardt contract, then the city gets the ball back in its court. Weldon updated the board on the Historic Preservation case review, property acquisition and the seller removal process. He said that there has been one report of vandalism at one of the properties. Weldon also updated the board on the asbestos inspection. Weldon updated the board on the schematic programming process. He said they’re getting close to showing some designs. He said they’ve grouped offices with the highest traffic on the first floor, those with less traffic on the second floor and they put the commission/council chambers on the third floor. Weldon said the architects are also planning on some growth with th e properties on the south side of the alley, as well as the basement of the facility for mechanical and record storage with the option of underground parking. Weldon gave the board a draft contract for specs for a demolition contractor to remove the structures left after the auction. The board discussed safety concerns once the hole is dug for the building. Motion by Kubal, seconded by Bartley to approve the following claims for payment: $7500 to Cannon, Moss and Brygger for project start-up costs, $7500 for survey work, and $2500 to Gary Snow for the asbestos inspection. Vote: 4 “ayes,” 0 “nos.” Motion carried. Weldon said that a construction account has been set up at the city and a copy of all the bills and invoices are sent to Vogel. Weldon says that he will eventually be getting bi-weekly or monthly finance reports prepared for the joint powers board. The board discussed the process of the removal of trees from the construction site. The board set their next meeting for Wednesday, June 23, 2010 at 7:30 a.m. ADJOURNMENT Motion by Kubal, seconded by Bartley to adjourn with all members voting aye. Motion carried.