Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutJPBMinutes_2010_06_30BROOKINGS CITY/COUNTY JOINT POWERS BOARD MEETING June 30, 2010 The Joint Powers Board met on Wednesday, June 30, 2010 with the following members present: Alan Gregg, Dennis Falken, Mike Bartley, and John Kubal. Also in attendance were Stephanie Vogel, Jeff Weldon, Steve Britzman, and Mark Kratochvil. REGULAR BUSINESS Chairperson Gregg called the meeting to order. Motion by Bartley, seconded by Falken to approve the minutes from the June 16, 2010 Joint Powers Board Meeting. Vote 4 ayes, 0 nos. Motion carried. Bartley noted that the Joint Powers Board needs to come to a compromise. Bartley suggested that we look at the proposals that were received when the RFP was released from instate businesses only. He doesn’t think we need to look at releasing a new RFP. However, if interviews need to be conducted again that is fine. His concern is that we are really delayed in the process. The next time the full city council will be together is July 13th. Chairperson Gregg asked if they are concerned with instate or local meaning Brookings. Bartley thought they meant state wide. Stephanie Vogel noted that six instate proposals had been submitted previously. Falken noted that he wants assurance that the city will accept a CM from a local instate firm before he goes back to the county board with a recommendation. He would also want to know this information prior to going through the interview process and negotiations with the companies who had submitted proposals. He also noted that people from the public are talking about the city and county wasting money because of the length of this process. Weldon mentioned that these applications may not be valid anymore because the businesses may have accepted other work. Chairperson Gregg also noted that businesses may not want to bid on the project because of the length of the process. Chairperson Gregg said that he never got an actual definition of what the city is wanting. They want a compromise but he isn’t sure the city knows what they want. Weldon then referenced that Kubal’s motion on design/bid/build won with a 5-1 vote with a Project Coordinator/Manager. Kubal noted that this person would be doing the same thing that a construction manager would do. This position with have authority over this project. Kubal also noted that he doesn’t know that using a Construction Management Agent even if local would satisfy the board and council. Falken noted that the Project Coordinator/Manager would be an extra expense to the design/bid/ build process. Bartley noted there are two options to compromise. The one he suggested earlier which still needs more clarification. The second option is the design/bid/build with a project manager. Pro’s – one person does it and you know what the cost is going to be. The con is that everything the architect does has to be moved to that format. We are back to this board making all the decisions. There is no construction management agent to filter out the details and topics the board is not experts on. Falken asked if the architect firm has an inspector with them that could assist on the project. Jeff noted that it would be something we would need to look into. He also noted that it would be an added expense. Weldon said another option would be to go to TSP which has construction management services and ask for CM light. This would be a CM inspector. Bossardt may be willing to do the same thing but they are not local. Even with the design/bid/build you cannot guarantee anything local. He also noted that Carl Sanderson from Minneapolis has said that they will be here bidding on the projects. Chairperson Gregg asked for clarification to determine if the CM Agent would be okay if it was local or instate, but he needs clarification on specific details of instate vs. local. Britzman noted that based on his research that a construction manager ’s duties can be customized to the needs of a project. Bartley relayed a conversation with that he has had with a local contractor. They have no problems with CM’s, and generally no problems with a general contractor. Bartley said he would prefer not to use design/bid/build. Weldon said that this Joint Powers Board had the authority to select the delivery method and that according to the strict interpretation of the Joint Powers Board contract that this never needed City or County approval. However they did need to approval for the architect. The board was in agreement that it’s too late politically for the board to not get approval from the city and county at this point. Falken noted that he has had little response from the public either way on the process. Britzmen noted that the board may want to review their bid package layout. Design/bid/build will occur under each method. With the CM there will be more of a breakdown but they are both going to be design, bid, and build because we will have a contractor in charge of the bid process. One involves a project coordinator that may have different duties and have a broader range of duties than that of a CM. Weldon noted that the only thing they have in common is the inspection. The project coordinator can only inspect but they would work for the general contractor. The subcontractors would be working for the general contractor. Falken noted that the county board may accept the design/bid/build process with a general contractor if they feel we will have someone looking out for both parties. Weldon noted that with this new proposed process with the project coordinator/manager there will be added cost to this project. Bartley noted that the time we have lost is also costly. He feels the board is not qualified to write an RFP for a project coordinator/manger. Vogel also noted that there will be increased cost for the architects to have to change their plan s. Falken brought up the suggestion of reviewing the contract with Walz. He reminded the board that Walz cannot bid on the project. Bartley noted that he would not be comfortable with Walz being the CM agent because they have no experience. However he mentioned that there are some from Sioux Falls that are legitimate agencies with experience. Falken again noted that before we call the 6 instate companies who previously submitted proposals that we need to confirm that the city is comfortable wit h someone within the state of South Dakota not just within Brookings. Stephanie Vogel noted that if the board agreed on the Project Coordinator/Manager method that the preconstruction services would not be covered. To date the discussion has only been in place for the project coordinator to be working during the construction process. Vogel is concerned without the preconstruction services that there may be conflict with the county board. Bartley will be checking with the council to see if they would be co mfortable with a Construction Management Agent method as well as their definition of local. Britzmen suggested that a special council meeting be scheduled to discuss the CM agent. However, the board decided that a special meeting was not needed. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, Chairperson Gregg declared the meeting adjourned until 7:30 a.m. Wednesday, July 7, 2010. It is the policy of Brookings County, South Dakota, not to discriminate against the Handicapped in Employment or the Provision of Service. The County of Brookings is responsive to requests for communication aids and the need to provide appropriate access, and will provide alternative formats and accessible locations consistent with the Americans with Disabilities Act. ____________________________________ Stacy Steffensen Deputy Finance Officer Brookings County Finance Office Published once at the total approximate cost of _______________.