Committee meeting 6:45 p.m. Brainer Council Chambers. Uh we currently have six items on the agenda and I believe we're going to be adding one. Is that correct? All right. So, we'll have seven items. Uh the first of which is going to be improvement 2602
large patching project. [clears throat] >> Mr. Sandy. >> Thank you, Mr. Chair and members of the committee. So, [clears throat] pursuant to other council action authorizing uh to get quotes for our 2026 large patching project, staff did solicit
those quotes, um and we did receive one quote back from Knife River. Um in the attached quote, uh you'll see the total price for the scope of work that was identified in that solicitation. Oh, shoot. I just lost my computer. It shut
off. So, I'll do this up here. Uh you can see from the solicitation um that the total You want to go down to the quote max? I'm sorry. I was doing an update and it decided to restart on me. The the total price for
the work is $65,537.90. You'll recall from when the council uh first um saw this scope of work, there was discussion about doing some over excavation um on a portion of Andrew Street to uh gain a um more standard
typical section across that entire street. When you come off of 371B and turn onto Andrew Street, um that typical section for that section of street is 4 in of aggregate and 2 inches of batuminous. And then as you travel
further into the development, thank you. As you travel further into the development, um it uh changes into more of our standard uh street typical section, which is like an 8 in uh gravel base and three and a half inches of batuminous. Uh the area that um was part
of this large patching project um is in the area with the lighter typical section. So staff recommended that they do some over excavation and put some more gravel in and patch that um into a more standard typical section. That cost of that work was uh just for the over
excavation you can see on the screen is $11,025 and that does put us over the allocated budget for this project. Uh in the capital improvement plan there's 55,000 um allocated for this work. Um with that staff um is recommending that we only do
the patching um on Andrew Street which would just be removal of the tuminous and replacement. Um you know Andrew Street will probably um likely need a resurfacing project in the next 10 to 15 years. So, um staff does feel that the just normal patch uh taking off the
asphalt and putting it back down will be sufficient to get us by for a while until we actually have a full uh resurfacing or reconstruction project at which time we can address that issue, that underlying uh pavement structure issue. Um we do think this will get us
by uh long enough until we have a larger um infrastructure project in the future. >> Go ahead, Jeff. >> Okay. What's the total uh length of the patching or is it just is it segmented? >> It's very segmented. Uh >> okay. And then on this particular portion that you want to over uh u put
the base down is how much is that is that all of it >> where you're going to patch or >> so that area on Andrew Street was um >> 295 ft by 24 ft. >> Okay. And then what's the total patching of this whole project of that Andrew
Street? You know >> that's it. 295 by 24. >> So everything is going to be over. Okay, that's all I needed. Thank you. >> But it's not going to be overbuilt or over. >> Yeah. If if you take staff's recommendation, if you um don't take staff recommendation, we would um be
paying the 65,000. Um if you do if you take staff's recommendation, it would be at that 54. >> Are you ready for a motion? >> I'm ready. >> I'll move forward with staff's recommendation to not do the overbuild and go with the original amount of 50. Well, if you don't mind, Jeeoff, here's
the I'll just reiterate this the recommendation if that's fine. Staff recommends approval of the quote from Knife River >> North Central in the reduced scope amount of 54,512.90 for the 2026 large patching project. >> That's what I said.
>> That's because it's exactly and I will second um any further discussion hearing none. Those in favor signify it by saying I I motion carries. All right, our second item. This is a scope and fee amendment for SE for
professional services uh for trunk highway 371B and Willow uh roundabout project. Mr. Sandy. >> Thank you, Mr. Chair, members of the committee. Um so attached uh to your agenda tonight, you'll see a uh fee amendment for SE um for the trunk
highway 371B and Willow Street roundabout project. Um to kind of preface this, so we we as staff have been um se has been tracking these items for um over the last year and we were hoping that um by the time the project got finished, we would have
enough fee remaining to cover these items that were identified as out of scope work during um the project. Um that has not come to fruition. we've um extended into this season mostly with uh top soil uh repair and growing season um
items where SE has had to be on-site a few days here this spring to observe uh contractor operations with some seeding and top soil repair. Um but the the three major items that are um kind of gone over in this fee amendment are one is the big one. It's a design change
that happened right before construction kind of started. um staff and mindot uh reviewed the project site in the original design of the project. Um and the when we were designing it, it was kind of contemplated at the beginning
that we would remain or leave the majority of the road core, all the existing gravel and things in place and build the roundabout um around that area and not disturb those in place soils. When we started getting into construction and realizing the extent of
the utility work and the difficulty with trying to keep um materials segregated enough and not contaminate the gravel materials, the fabric and things that were placed during the 2018 project um we we authorized to do a design change
during that time. Um which basically changed that whole area into a reconstruction. So instead of basically pulling the pavement off and building the roundabout on the existing grade, the whole area, all the gravel was removed off of the project. All the quantities changed for the roundabout and so it was a significant design
change. That is what a large majority of this fee amendment is. Um, in other areas of this fee amendment, you'll see there's um there was a large material delay from procurement of the RRFB materials which required a lot more coordination between SE and the
contractor. Um, the Speedway signed relocation coordination. Uh, SE performed a extensive amount of coordination with Speedway. It was about a four-month coordination effort to get a decision about where that uh Speedway sign would get relocated. And it was
talking with multiple um entities, legal councils during that time trying to get that work and keep the project on schedule. And as I kind of inferred before in 2026, the project has extended into this year with turf restoration items. We had a lot of vehicles drive
over curbs over the wintertime, um disturbing the top soil, um kind of wrecking the final seating that was out there. contractor was remobilized and had to be on site during that time to inspect those operations. You can see in the fee amendment um they are requesting
an additional 106 hours for those four items that I outlined. Um the total cost of the amendment is $18,785. It staff is recommending approval of that fee amendment. >> All right, thanks Paul. Um
[clears throat] question for you. All four of these items I mean these were I think I read in the packet they were directed by the city at the time. >> Yes. >> Okay. So wasn't okay. It wasn't led by them and that it made the especially the
core removal. That makes sense to me especially with cell six having been redone in 2018. We're wanting to you know use as much of that material as we possibly can. Turns out it was a little optimistic to, you know, once he got down in there and found out what, you know.
>> Yeah. And I would say, Mr. Chair, that we did use, we we reuse the materials. It was just the complexity of um removing the gravel off of the trench area, digging underneath the fabric, and keeping all those materials separate. We find it we found it a lot more efficient to basically remove all of the gravel
off the entire roundabout area which then uh changed the excavation quantities on the site, the replacement quantities and the basically that whole roundabout area had to be redesigned kind of on the fly as we went through. >> Understood. Jeff, any questions, comments?
>> So, was was that contemplated before you ever uh put the design out? >> No. No. This literally happened. We let the project out for bids. >> Okay. Um, and that was the direction that we had received from Mandot and staff at the time concurred with that design recommendation because of the
really recent reconstruction going through there. >> So once you got in there, you started you go, "Uhoh, >> we're not going to be able to keep material separated and not contaminate all these materials together." Um, we made the executive decision to say this is going to be a lot easier to build. >> Now, if if at that time, and I I think I
know the answer, if you would have said, "Oh, we got to get proof from council." You're you're delaying delaying delaying, right? Just it's it's more efficient sometimes to just end the field say go ahead and do it. We'll >> Yeah, exactly. And like I said, you know, kind of begin with a lot of times we will
>> with large project budgets like this. This project had over 500,000 I think in engineering fees. We try to hold off until the end. We track these items as staff and we make sure that we're being diligent about tracking them, but we hope at the end of the day they fit into the fee that we have set aside already
for the project. Sometimes that doesn't work out. Many times it does where there's a lot of field changes that happened and we have the consultant track that time. Um but at the end of the day their fee was enough their fee that we set at the beginning of the project was enough to cover those additional costs and score changes.
Well, and I would add to Paul, correct me if if you feel I'm wrong, but I mean if if we one, as Jeff you laid out, if we waited for council action, one delays, costs incurring there, but had you stuck with the original proposal that would have, you know, separating
all that would have, I would imagine, taken a lot longer costs associated with that as well. So, I think that's probably, as you mentioned, the most efficient path forward. So, >> with that, >> I would move approval of all four of these.
>> All right. Thank you. Um approval of detached fee amendment for professional services. The total amended amount 18,785 was the dollar amount. I would second that if that's your motion. >> No. >> And uh any further discussion?
>> Um yeah. Um, is there a chance, Paul, that this project was completed last fall? >> And you said that this the very first thing I think was identified probably shortly after construction
began, I think, or right before. Is that something you could as your as your position you could share with us as these things go on in the future if it happens to kind of keep us uh >> because right now it's the first I've heard of any of these and yet we've known about them since essentially they
happened >> just maybe in your report. >> Yeah, I can certainly do that. >> Yeah, you could. Okay. >> I just it'd be kind of nice to know what's going on, >> but other than that, that's all I got. >> All right. Thank you. And let's vote. Those in favor say I. >> I. I those opposed same sign of course
the motion carries all right and then this is maybe where we want to interject our additional item since it's similar in nature um so Mr. Understanding is another um scope [snorts] uh amendment. Is that correct? >> That is correct. >> B and scope amendment.
>> So I think Max has a document that I was uh sent uh here by earlier today. So this uh topic came up um actually on Friday last week. Um we were discussing with MDOT um compaction testing for the
utility trenches um on Highway 210. So, we're replacing water main and the sewer main in Highway 210 um with Mindot during their reconstruction project. Uh during original negotiations back in February, there's email correspondence between Jesse Dean at the time and the
project manager with Mandot um about a multitude of items in the cooperative construction agreement. One of them being um who is performing the construction materials testing for compaction over the MDOT utility trenches. So to kind of preface this,
Mandot has standard percentages that if they are going to perform contract administration um tracking quantities or doing materials testing on the behalf of an agency, there's a standard percentage that they usually charge. So, we are
paying on this project right now a 3% contract administration um line item to MDOT to administer the city's uh construction contract. So, obviously our construction work is part of MDOT's contract, but to take our quantities,
administer pay vouchers, help with change order preparation, and administering the contract as a whole, we're paying MDOT 3% of our estimated construction costs. In order for MDOT to do the materials testing on behalf of
the city that there was a 1% a um agreement cost that would had to have been incorporated in the original construction agreement and that 1% is right around $37,000. Um so we had some discussions with mind about you know can the contract
administration fee cover the materials testing that in these trenches that um on behalf of the city. Um, and the discussion was no, the Mandot did not charge the 1% fee for materials testing uh to the city for this project. And if
if we do want to move forward with that, they would need to amend the existing agreement between the city and MINDOT um to add that 1% or $37,000 that we would need to pay Mandot to perform that service for us. In lie of that, I talked to SE today and they were able to throw
together a quick proposal to do these services on our behalf rather than having MDOT do it. And in the um it didn't come through >> and my computer is finally up. It's right around $6,000 to have do that
for us. Um >> Paul, do you want to move on? We can save this to the end of the agenda if that's helpful. Yeah. >> Want to move forward with the other items while you're waiting for that to come through? >> I apologize. I will get in right now. Actually, I
think. >> Yeah. So, I mean, the the fee amendments for $6,000 is what put together today. Um what staff would recommend. We don't have an agreement um to present tonight. What we would like to see the committee do is agree to the fee amendment amount
of right near $6,000 and allow staff to amend that agreement with for that amount um to get materials testing going during construction and I can get the exact amount here in one second. >> Are they in need of material testing
like today? >> Um it will be later this week. >> Okay. I mean, yeah, if you >> I guess moving forward as long as I see the actual dollar amount and see the item here, but having not >> get it up, I guess I would
>> I got it up right here. The uh amount in SE's proposal is $5,725 and that's about 40 tests over the two-year construction period. >> And we've got What's your degree of confidence that that will satisfy MDOT's
concerns with it? Oh, 100% it'll satisfy that. Yes. >> Yep. That recommendation came from Mandot. They basically said we can amend the contract between the city and Mandot and add that $37,000 that the city would pay
MDOT or the city can contract their own services to do that trench compaction testing, which the latter is the one I'm recommending. >> So that 1% that's of the total project cost that >> 1% of the city utility cost. >> Okay. which is about $37,000.
>> Oh, the the 1% is the six. No, I'm sorry. What what what dollar amount is the 1%? What? I'm confused there. >> 1% of the city's utility cost is about $37,000. So, >> okay. >> This materials testing is strictly related to trench compaction testing of
the >> So, the total utility cost is about 33 3.7 million. >> Yes. Okay. Thank you. I it's a but we got a budget of like five something right now >> that includes street lighting and all that other ancillary. >> Okay, that's where I was confused. So,
>> okay. What do you think there, Mr. Chair? You ready for a motion? >> I'm ready. >> Okay. I would move staff's recommendation of paying approving uh extending their contract include the uh soil testing over the uh utility trenches at >> and just to be certainly clear here,
it's different from the soil testing we talked about. It's the compaction testing. It is. So, Mindot will be doing their own soil and compaction testing for the roadway itself and any of the storm sewer utilities that they're putting in. This is only related to our water main, our sewer main.
>> Yeah. Under the the soil testing for the utility trench. >> Yes. >> The city of Brainard utilities. >> So, compaction testing soil. >> Correct. >> Yep. >> All right. >> For $5,750. >> Is that Is it
>> 57? Uh 5,725 >> 725 that was >> all right. Thank you. >> Thank you Jeff for the motion. I would second and further discussion >> hearing none. Those in favor signify by saying I. >> I. And motion carries.
All right. So that was essentially 2B. And now we're moving on to our third item which is really our fourth change order uh three improvement 2314 Hawkins Ronald Joseph resurfacing project and Mr. Sandy. Thank you, Mr. Chair and
members of the committee. I got my computer back up, so I'm back in action here. Um, attached tonight for the council's review is a staff directed change order associated with uh the Ronald and Joseph Alley reconstruction project. Um, the change order reflects
work that we directed um to be performed by J&J Excavating while they were excavating utilities. Um this was something so you'll kind of recall back early on in this project the um it was a petition to this be a resurfacing
project after some time um the BPU elected that they wanted to replace water mane um in this alley and as we got into construction and we're getting into some of the the deep sanitary sewer in this alley um we popped a couple of manhole lids and we're kind of looking
at um the and inspecting the manholes and specifically our street department foreman Sean Mida uh was looking at them and these manholes, you know, the sewer in this area is about 20 ft deep. Um it's not easily replaceable. So, it would have never really been comp contemplated to replace the sewer with
the project. However, we do feel it's in the best or it was in the best interest to do some minor upgrades to these manhole structures as we address the surfacing in the alley. What ended up happening is we um uh directed J&J to
kind of um take down the manholes um a certain amount about 5 to six feet. Um put a base slab for a storm sewer on top and then build a cone section on top of these manholes. Um that was because the existing manhole structures were they're blocked. They're probably from the 40s
or 50s. The top sections of them were in pretty rough shape. Um and they didn't have a cone. like a standard manhole has that cone section on top. Um so we did uh direct uh J&J to um move forward with that kind of field fit design. Um and
then we had uh more engineering track the time and materials that were associated with that work uh with J&J. Um in the end we felt like we got a really good product out of it. this uh sewer line that runs through the alley at a future date will be able to rehab
through standard rehabilitation methods like lining um and manhole uh rehabilitation. Um but due to the depth and um you know we're hoping that the alley surfacing lasts you know 30 years at a minimum before we have to do anything we felt that this be a
necessary repair at that time and uh directed J&J to move forward with those repairs to those sanitary sewer manholes. In total, the change order amount um that was tracked by more uh time and materials basis um was a total
amount of 28,477. That also includes a little bit of time that was identified in the plans as a potential water main lowering that did end up coming to f fruition at the intersection of the alley and Joseph Street. This was identified in the plans as needing to be excavated before we
could confirm if it needed to be lowered. And indeed, when we got in there, it did need to be lowered. So both of those items together um for the total change order amount of 28,477 um that's broken down to $23,977
for sanitary sewer fund and $4,500 for the um enterprise fund uh the enterprise water fund. >> Um no um no addition to the assessments to the property owners, right? >> Correct. Okay. And then why did the
water line need to be lowered uh under the street? >> So wasn't deep enough. >> Yeah. So when we were um in design with more engineering um the depth of the water man in Joseph Street was a little bit unknown. The asbuilts were pretty old and not very clear as to far how
deep the water man was. So to get underneath the sewer we had to lower it. They did identify in the plans as needing to be um excavated and observed before we committed to it. And in fact, it did it did come to fruition that we needed to lower that water man. >> And it is lowered underneath the sewer
line. >> Yes, correct. >> Okay. And was it just because of the depth of freezing potential? >> Yes, correct. We like to keep the water manes between 7 and 1 half and 8 ft. >> What was it at? >> Uh I believe it was at about seven. The sewer was at about seven. So we wanted to dive underneath it rather than go over the top.
>> Okay. >> I'm good. >> All right. Uh so staff's recommendation to approve change order three for the improvement in the amount of 28,477. Is there a motion? >> So move >> and second. Uh any further discussion? Hearing none. Those in favor say I.
>> I. >> I. And motion carries. >> Could we um you want to amend our agenda at the beginning of the meeting to put number three in there? >> Yeah, you bet. >> Okay. >> All right. This is our well effectively our fifth item resolution authorizing
2027 transit operations. Administrator Broyals. >> Thank you, Mr. Chair. [clears throat and cough] Pardon me. Uh this is an annual event, but attached is a resolution that allows the city the ability to enter in an agreement with the state of Minnesota to provide our transit um for the city, Baxter, and
Crowing County. Resolution again is similar to prior grant cycles. The actual um federal and state funding allocations for 2027 are not known yet. Um it's projected to be at about 10% for operating. So the resolution is substantively the same as last year.
We're assuming the maximum allowable local share which is 15% for operating cost and 20% uh for capital cost. So staff recommends adoption of the attached resolution allowing us to enter into this um grant application with the state.
>> All right. Thank you, Nick. Jeff, any questions or comments? All right. Entertain a motion to >> to approve the resolution. >> Thank you. And I would second. Any further discussion? >> We got to take roll call. [laughter]
>> Hearing none. Um those in favor say I. >> I. Motion carries. >> They didn't ask that for a long time. [laughter] >> This is a recommendation. >> I know, but it's still we're moving forward. So, >> um All right. Number [clears throat] six, direction on active code
enforcement. Uh Mr. Cranbeck. >> Thank you, Mr. Chair. So, staff are bringing two properties before the committee for review and are looking for direction from council as how to proceed with the cases. Uh first property is 2020 Pine Street, which has a significant amount of junk and debris
and staff uh recommends obtaining an administrative search warrant to abate the junk, debris, and blight. Uh the second property is 113 Washington Street Northeast which also has a significant amount of junk and debris in the rear of the property and staff recommend again obtaining an administrative search
warrant to abate the junky debris and blight. >> Mr. Chair. >> Yes sir. >> On the 113 Washington was there also other issues there previously? >> There was other issues there previously of somebody living in a commercial unit. Um that has I believe since been
resolved. Um, there's still a s significant amount of junk and debris in the in the rear of the property. >> That's the alley, right? >> Yep. >> I have no questions or comments. >> I would approve both staff's recommendations unless you want one um to wait.
>> Nope. That's that works for me. I I would second. >> Okay. >> Any further discussion? Hearing none. Those in favor say I. >> I. >> I. Motion carries. >> Nicely done. >> And our seventh item. This is a draft ordinance for special events and also
Mr. Kradic. >> Thank you, Mr. Chair. Uh so minor changes to the ordinance were made after the SPW review uh a after SPW review at the last meeting. Uh after review of the draft ordinance with our city attorney, it was recommended to remove special event application requirements for
private property as they typically would take place in the road right ofway um or our parks. uh the community development department, the police department, and our prosecuting attorney have researched enforcement options for the proposed ordinance and recommend that violations of this ordinance would result in a
misdemeanor after a warning to leave the premises. Uh so this is very similar to the language that was taken out of the camping ordinance. Uh chief of police would be able to answer potential questions at our city council meeting. Um but believe that this was the best direction to go with rather than the
petty misdemeanor route. Uh staff are waiting for final approval of the language from our prosecuting attorney and the language may slightly change uh before the first reading based on their recommendation. So with that, staff is recommending a motion to conduct the first reading of the ordinance at the next meeting and hold a public hearing
at the July 6th city council meeting. >> All right. Thank you, James. Questions or comments? >> So So the big change is take out private property. This does not apply that if approved. >> Yep. So that's the the one change and then we added um what the enforcement would be on the ordinance.
>> Okay. And that that would be all the public parks and such. >> Yep. >> That's what I wanted to make sure. Okay. >> And this is the for the option one which is um organizer would be deemed as a a mist meter. Is that right?
>> That's after being warned. >> That's correct. And I did leave option one in there. There was an option two. We took that out. So I could have deleted the option one. That's what staff's recommending. >> Gotcha. So, so just so I know, so James, um, they come along, they say, "Hey, uh, we're warning you, you need to blah, blah, blah, and they don't, how much
time do they get?" >> That would probably be a question for our chief of police. >> Oh, gee whiz, put them on a spot. >> Yeah, I kind of asked the same question when we spoke to them earlier, right? >> Because, you know, they could >> I'm sure they would have some time to um gather up their stuff and and such, but
uh, you know, if they refuse to leave, that's a whole separate issue. >> Okay. There's some I have my sense is there's some immediacy, but I think it's a good question. Maybe we can ask. >> Okay. >> Okay. But I would move to uh conduct the first reading and everything else that's
in the staff recommendation here if I can. >> All right. Thank you. I'll just specify the public hearing at the July 6th city council meeting if that's your motion. >> Yep. >> Thank you. And I would second. Uh any further discussion? >> Um >> yes, sir. >> The public hearing is on Do we Did you want us to conduct a first reading?
>> Yep. So, uh, conducting the first reading would be at the next city council meeting and then a public hearing at the July 6th city council meeting. >> Thank you. That's okay. >> All right. No further discussion. I'll take it to a vote. Those in favor say I. >> I. >> I. And motion carries. And that brings
us to the end of the agenda. >> Well done. What time is it? Uh 74