call the meeting to order. This is a >> Brainer Safety and Public Works Committee, Brainer City Council Chambers and three items on our agenda. The first of which is to approve change order number one, improvement 2313, trunk highway 371B, Willow Street
Roundabout Project. Engineer Dean. >> Thank you, Mr. Chair. Uh so we have a change order request. Uh this one's actually number one um as compared to number two that was at the last meeting. Uh so there's a a few different adjustments on here. Some grading changes, some uh storm sewer adjustments
that were required um because of the grading revisions and then some changes to uh water service work. Um the total change order is a little over $40,000. Uh ultimately the city's portion is actually at net savings. Uh Mandot's
portion is actually about 41,000. So uh our cost share in the project is actually a reduction of a little over $1,000. Uh staff is recommending approval of the change order as presented. >> All right. Thank you very much. Any comments or questions of the committee?
Well, um >> yes, go ahead. >> Okay. Thank you. when we look at what's in place and um maybe I'm not fully understanding but what
what what happened between the time we you know was did something crop up that we didn't know we had or I don't I can't fully recall exactly how I read the agenda request and the explanation it's it's not overly broad by any stretch but
what what happens in these instances is maybe give me a nut nutshell what we what we changed that needed changing that we didn't know about to begin with. >> So a lot of it was grading in the uh roundabout in the highway portion. Um they had to make some adjustments not only because some other materials were
in the uh in the area that had to get moved. Um so MDOT is paying for a bunch of material that's getting moved. Uh part of that was some contaminated soil issue. There was some uh issue with the existing subcut section. Um, so it was
more of a a construction pract uh issue. Uh, so being able to construct the project appropriately. Uh, some grading revisions were necessary and almost exclusively was in the highway portion. Um, so having to dig some of that material out, move it to the side and
essentially putting it back. Uh, so that's where a lot of the grading uh, revisions are coming out of. Uh, some of the storm sewer revisions are just an adjustment. Um based on some of that uh the water man uh we discovered the water service line for one of the homes uh
actually came off a 7th when we were anticipating it came off of Willow. Uh so that was a reduction in a water service line that we don't have to replace at this job. Uh and then the Speedway uh water service line uh we originally specified 1in service line but when we got into it it was a one and
a half. Uh so we're just planning to upsize that to a two. Uh like I said, net is actually a savings because of the reduced water service line that we do not have to replace with this uh with this project. >> Okay. And then of course I would assume then that our mapping didn't show what
we found that thought exists if it didn't. >> That is correct. We'll have it uh adjusted accordingly. >> Okay. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Thanks, Jesse. >> I'll move to uh accept the change or approve the change order. >> I'll second. >> All right. We've got a motion and a
second for approval. Any further discussion? Hearing none. Those in favor signify by saying I. >> I. >> I. >> Those opposed, same sign. Motion carried. All right. Brings us to our second item, discussion on snow removal for 2526
season. Engineer Dean. >> Thank you, Mr. Chair. Um, so, uh, public works director Habagorist asked me to, uh, report, uh, as we're really approaching the snow season in a hurry. uh tough to imagine on today but uh it
is coming and it's coming fast and we wanted to get some direction from the uh council on how to proceed for this upcoming season. Uh public works director Havagorus presented to the park board uh and asked for a recommendation from them and their recommendation is
that the city council send an RFP uh rather than utilizing uh internal parks maintenance staff to perform snow removal downtown. Uh, as a quick reminder, Advantage Home Pros was the selected contractor last year. Uh, shortly after the snow season, we did receive notice that they uh are no
longer performing snow removal services for anybody. Um, so they are getting out of the business. Uh, it is a very challenging um RFP to get uh responses from. Uh, so a few options we do have before you. uh one we could send out an
RFP uh similar to what we've done in the past where the contractor's only called out for four plus inches of snowfall and then the snow is removed uh that same day. The challenge is it's very inconsistent and unpredictable. Uh that's why it's a real challenge for us to find uh contractors that are uh
wanting to perform that service. Uh option and I say two would be utilizing our internal parks maintenance crew. Um, and a couple options even with that is you could have them uh remove and wind row the snow for our street crews to uh then fully remove. Uh, we can do that
with all snowfall events and not just 4 in or more. Or we could still just restrict it to 4 in or more uh similar to when we had the contractor out. Obviously, it's a time and a a cost standpoint. But either way, uh, whichever direction that would be, the downtown would be assessed for staff
hours and equipment time. Uh we presented this uh type of alternative a couple years back. Uh it was a significant reduction in the cost for the downtown. Uh it would just require obviously staff time. Um so staff is
recommending uh a direction from the council on how to proceed for this upcoming snow season. >> All right. Thank you very much. Any questions or comments? Um, yeah, I I watched I think the parkboard discussion on this and um I
was curious about the uh the assessment district. Um are we are we able to cover this? Is there any legal issues? has that been run at the flag pole with our city attorney regarding um the way it's been done is contracted
out and we got an exact cost and now if we have park staff do it and then street department do follow up um that that's another day we'll have the wind rows first of all or second of all but sorry the legal question has that been addressed that you know Jesse
>> if we can legally assess them for staff time >> well yeah based on what you know that that's appropriate Yes, we would be able to as long as we I mean we're doing that similarly now with the special services district for like some of the landscaping. Uh we do track staff time
uh and expenses that go downtown and that is included with the uh assessment district. And then as far as the wind rows being cleaned up the next day, um I I remember when city used to do this
and I I I don't know if it's been a I I'd say I think it's been going better with the sub the private contractor doing it regarding the amount of time it takes and that's always been a real problem especially when you get uh you know a significant amount of snow. So, I
I'm hesitant to have staff do that, but unless there's I I mean I it's kind of a tough call because once we go down that road, there's really no way of going back. I'd be leaning towards going out for a RFP, I believe it is, or to see what we get
back before we take that action on having staff do it. >> Commissioner C. >> Yeah, thank you. I just want to make sure I'm understanding this correctly. The park board recommended that the city council send out the RFP for someone else to do all of the snow removal 4 in and 4 in or less and to do all of the
snow removal. Is that right? >> Correct. >> Okay. And I didn't watch the meeting. I apologize. But can somebody just give me an basic idea of what the dialogue was that led the park board to that decision of not wanting to self-perform this? The
main concern is that they don't want to staff uh to focus other than the ice skating rinks because it would take away a little bit of that time for the ice skating rinks. Um with this, they would come in at they would punch the clock in
at 3:00 a.m. on the jobs uh downtown at 4, finish by 8 or 9, and then from there go to the ice skating rinks >> with this system, you're saying, >> right? Correct. But their concern was, do we want to open up that can of worms
where we're not really sure 100%. >> Understood. Um, so if just make sure I understand that correctly. So the the the park board staff was going to clock in at like 3 3 in the morning, do the downtown, and then shift over to the ranks whenever they got done with
downtown. Is that right? >> Yes. >> And historically, have they been done by eight or nine o'clock like through >> the contractors? Yes. >> Okay. >> They are mandated to be done, >> but the city but the but the park board didn't feel that their own staff could get it done by the time they would want to shift over to the ranks. They just
felt like >> that was too much. >> Correct. And just didn't want to open up that can of worms because they're, you know, we've never done this before. But and we also have looked at the union issue. That was a initial concern also, but we've looked at that and we have
talked to the shop steward and the union representatives and uh that would be um we would be within our right our parameters to authorize staff to do that. >> Okay. So, just a follow-up question after the park staff is done
hypothetically doing the ranks on a snow day, what do they do? >> They do the trails, they do other, you know, cleanup. They save all their their lawnmowers to to they're sharpening the blades, do all our maintenance on our lawnmowers to get all that done. But
there's a list of things and I can provide that. But >> right, >> yes, there's >> that's all >> question that I have is if we were to do as we have done with an RFP, uh, and maybe I should know this, but who say we get a two or three inch
snowfall, who does the downtown in that case? Because it wouldn't be the contractor then because it's 4 inch minimum. >> Correct. It would be the Jesse, correct me if I'm wrong, but the store owners would then do that and then they would do the sidewalks. But we are recommending that we just do all of that
at all levels. >> But currently like say in the past it was >> the storefront owners would would sweep their um and then the street department would come by and then do that. >> Okay. >> Mr. Sure. Can I just >> Yes, please.
>> So, if there was a case of maybe Jesse knows this, if we had two inches one day, two in another inch the next and two inches on the third, fourth day and another inch, would they come in the contractor at that point and do cleanup? Do you know >> over an accumulation?
>> Jesse, what was the historical? >> No, we usually reserve it for a 4 in event. Um, that's usually we kind of couple that together is what triggers a snow emergency event. uh where we want people to get cleared off the streets for cleaning. Um when you kind of get
those chain events, you aren't clearing all that snow all at once. Uh so we don't normally issue a snow emergency for that. Um but it it is really tough. You have to really look at what that uh snow event is before uh making some of
those decisions because they're all a little bit different. Mike or Jesse, did either you may have said, but was there a kind of a dollar amount, a break even estimate is between these two options
um versus what we've contracted an RF with through an RFP in the past and what we estimate the savings would be if we did move to >> I can speak to what we presented a couple years ago. I can't remember the exact cost, but it was a a pretty considerable savings. Um there was a lot
of concern about the increasing costs for the downtown district uh because we had gone through a pretty hefty couple years worth of snow removal. Uh so we did this analysis and I can I can send the council a copy of that PowerPoint from a couple years ago. >> It was substantial. Is that
>> it was it was substantial. I want to say it was like 20% of the overall cost and that was >> like half is what I was thinking was remembering but I could be wrong. >> And then that was with staff removing snow at every snow event and not just 4 in or more. And did that include the increased estimate of staff time?
>> Yes, that was factoring in an estimate of staff time and equipment. >> Mr. Chair. >> Sir, >> um I I'm going to move that we go out for RFPs and then once we find out if anybody or the price of that RFP is uh
amaniable to the council, uh did you make a essentially uh see what we get back before we ask our parks department staff to move forward with this? That's my motion. >> Yeah, I'll second that. >> All right. Motion in a second. Any discussion? Um, yeah. I don't know the
time frame that you normally go out for, but I know that's kind of a uh perhaps a um is it normally like 30 days, 40? What What do you usually have on something like this? >> We would usually issue it for at least a couple weeks and around the beginning of September is when it would normally go
out. So, we're getting a little bit late in the season now. >> Yeah. Do you um solicit anybody or can can you call anybody just to make sure they get it? Uh we do directly solicit uh but we also publish it in the paper as well. >> Right. I know this I mean we deal with
this seemingly year after year. It's a challenging agreement or RFP to fulfill. So and how many have we gotten in the past responses? It's been just the one. Usually >> it's usually one. Uh last year we had two. We had Advantage uh and and Tom's
backo. Um the years before that we did have another uh bidder that withdrew their bid. Um but yeah, it's very typically one if maybe two. >> All right, we'll see what we get and then make make a decision from there. So, all right, let's uh all those in
favor of the motion signify by saying I. >> I. >> I. Those opposed, same sign. And of course, motion carries. Brings us to our last item uh direction on active code enforcement. Uh development director Kanic. >> Thank you, Mr. Chair. Uh so staff are bringing three properties before the
committee uh for review. The first one is 907 First Street, which has a significant amount of junk and debris after being abated for the same issue in May. Staff recommend abatement of the property. 1419 Mary Street has an unlicensed and most likely inoperable
vehicle as things are kind of placed and leaned against the vehicle. Staffer recommends sending a 10-day warning letter and after that towing the vehicle uh 324 Street North uh applied for an after the fact fence permit. The applicant communication has now gone silent and the property uh still does
not have a valid fence permit. Uh staff are recommend sending a $300 citation every 10 days until the fence is corrected. With that, I can answer any questions. >> All right. Thank you. Any questions for James? I >> I just have one on that U 9inth Street. I think you said uh $300 every is that
something I don't remember seeing that one applied before. Is that something >> the 300 every 10 days? >> 324th Street North. Um so yeah, so historically for property maintenance issues, ones that maybe uh perhaps don't affect neighboring properties, uh typical recommendation would be $300 per
every month. Um since this fence uh was put up without a permit, now gone silent, uh certainly affects the the neighboring property owner more than just uh you know, a site or view from the street. Um staff is recommending a a slightly higher penalty potential for this property.
>> Thank you. >> Very good. Any other questions, comments? If not, be looking for a motion to >> Okay, I'm going to take a run at this one, please. Um, I would like to make a motion to um approve the staff recommendations as followed regarding uh
these properties, but I would also like to ask staff to draft a uh a code change that would allow staff to administratively abate uh for repeat offenders for junk and debris. We currently can do that for grass, feces, and trash. I would like to see what a
code change might look like for junk and debris as well. And that is my motion. >> I'll second that. Another question. >> Uh yeah, motion and a second. Any discussion? >> Um so would you like to do that separately then Kevin? And then we come back. >> I certainly can.
>> I I would second that motion then. >> Two separate motions. >> Sure. Yeah. >> So, I'll amend my first motion to include just uh a motion to approve the staff recommendations as presented. >> Okay. I'll second that. >> All right. Motion a second. Any further
or amended motion? Any discussion? Hearing none. We'll take that to a vote. Those in favor say I. >> I. >> I. Oppose. Same sign. That motion carries. >> And then I will make an additional uh motion to request that staff uh craft a code change uh to bring back to us that
will or to bring back to city council. that to have a look at that will allow uh staff to administratively uh abate for repeat offenders for junk and debris and I so move >> second. >> All right. Thank you. Motion and a second. Uh any further discussion
hearing? None. Those in Yes. Go ahead. >> Is is that in line with what we're able to do then administratively or with the abatement? >> Yes. So it would be a fairly easy code change and I was going to ask for some clarification here. Um as it is essentially just adding one line. Um, would you like to see this go straight
to council as a first reading or um discussion at safety and public works at the next next meeting? >> I'd like to see it go as fast as possible. I mean, these neighbors are living with these properties all summer with no motion whatsoever. So, that'd be my leaning. >> Either way, if it comes to safety and public works, it'd be a first reading at
council, would it not? >> Um, typically a safety and public works were reviewing code or draft ordinances and then there'd be a direction to first reading at the next meeting. So, um, perhaps since this would be a fairly easy code change, it could be brought straight to city council for discussion. >> Yeah, fantastic. >> I agree. Expedite it. Get it get it
right there. >> Yep. >> All right. U, do we vote on that? I don't think we did. >> Thank you. We'll take the vote. Those in favor say I. I. >> Those opposed, same sign. And motion carries. >> And that brings us to the end of our agenda. Yeah.