All right, we'll get this kicked off. This is the safety and public works committee meeting 6:45 p.m. Council Chambers. We have six items on our agenda. First of which is award proposal improvement
2525 large patching project and public director Abigor. Thank you, Mr. President. We've received two proposals for this large patching uh project. to the proposals are attached and the difference just FYI between a proposal and a bid is proposals are we are just
receiving these uh proposals. Um a bid is something very formal a bid opening low bid so forth. So these are proposals and the low proposal was Anderson Brothers at the amount of $49,940. We we projected this uh project
to be about 55,000 and uh we have the list of the projects included there. There's other projects that we could have included but uh we wanted to make sure that we are within the budget amount and staff is recommending toward the proposal uh to Anderson Anderson
Brothers for the amount of $49,940 uh for this large patching project. And with that take any questions. Thank you very much. Any questions or comments of staff? No. Yeah. I I just wanted to bring up uh something to my email here that I sent out.
Um so would it would it be a problem in the future that before we go for bids on these next year as well that we just notify the council like this is our question kind of like the
um what was the one where we added Greenwood Street? Is that chip ceiling or Right. That was the chip ceiling where we So we added that as an alternate and then is it possible like there were other areas that maybe came become aware
the we see we can add to it poss I I I just would have felt more comfortable knowing the streets. Sure. I didn't see those in the Did anybody Did anybody look to see if I missed it or No, it was
not uh listed there. And to your point, um like that uh chip ceiling or that other uh project that we had where we listed multiple projects as an ad alternate if you would and we could do something like that in this type of
project also so that we could get as many projects in here within our budget allowment. So, so what I'm what I was thinking though, um I do you remember when you went out uh for proposals or bids on this? Was it back in March or Oh, no. It was we just got done Jesse
went out and finished the patch or the the estimating, you know, measure measuring because it has to be after breakup. So, after all of the frost is is out of the ground because then the heaving and all of that is now we know exactly what type of patch. So, when did
you go out for bids on it? Um it was three weeks ago that Jesse went out because and then so it was sometime within that window. So So you could have brought it to us to say these are the streets. It would it wouldn't be an in it wouldn't be like too difficult to do that. It we we could do that. Yes. Okay.
All right. That's all I needed to know. I would also like that we have this discussion and maybe give staff direction to do that. So we but if no other questions I make a motion to approve. would also mention that we'd like to see in the future this brought to the committee and council
prior to offer bids in the future. Thank you. Motion. Is there a second? Uh there's a second. I just have one point of clarification here. So when I compared the unit pricing, the two unit pricing worksheets, right? You see one is at $4.30,
right? And that's 726. That math doesn't come out, right? And then the math on the second one doesn't come out either. So I'm just wondering, you can see obviously that the the unit pricing is vastly different. One is at4
$4.30 a yard. One is at $56 a yard. So just help me understand. I'm not trying to slow this down. I just don't understand the math. Right. And what on the first one there with the $4.30 that individual did it per square foot. So if you times those numbers by nine, you'll
get that dollar amount that he indicates off to the side. Okay. That's what that was my question here. If that's what he was doing here. Okay. So Swanson was the 56, right? Was the the higher one, right? Yes. Correct. That's why there's such a difference of Right. Okay. But
when if you and we actually had an amendment uh that Jesse just sent out like a few hours ago with that correct uh uh price. Yes. No, it's in the correct one of those emails that you correct alluded to. The unit pricing
even by square foot is not does not quite come out. It's a little bit off but I don't I I think we're okay. And I talked to Jesse about that and in the past it our budget amount has been 50,000. So they were I think they had that in the back of their mind and they
made it just just as such. So whether that be right or wrong, but any further discussion? Oh, sorry. If if not take a vote. Those in favor say I. I. Those I. Those opposed, same sign. Motion of course carries. All right. Second item
award contracts materials testing for construction projects and uh public works director Havagore. So here when uh when a when we do a project we'll have the testing is done twofold. One with the the actual project and then the city
will do one also. Either the city or the architect or the engineer firm will do one. And here we just need to make sure that everyone is uh doing their due diligence. we do a backup to their uh study making sure everything is within, you know, the normal plus or minus. Uh
some things aren't going to be exactly the same, but at least within the plus or minus uh tolerances and we have a couple projects where the engineer firm is doing that testing for us and uh the other ones we are doing ourselves that
you can see on those. We are also doing one testing for a project for 26 and that is that southeast Brainard reconstruction project. Um for that we are uh recommending to award the larger
um projects to behan in text uh just a larger firm and we're more comfortable with that firm doing the larger projects than the the ITT. And so with that I can take any other questions with that. Thank you Mike. Commissioner Jagger. Oh, thank
you, Mr. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Okay, Mike. So, uh here's uh testing can be very expensive. So, this is this is my concern. When in many cases, we we require that the vendor do their own testing. The purpose of this is so that
if a test fails, the vendor is paying for the retest. When we self-perform a test and it fails, then it needs to be retested. My question is always, who pays for that retest? I didn't see that really described in here, but you can see where I'm going with this. Some
tests can be thousands of dollars each. So, in generally, I like to see the vendor themselves required to do their own testing. Now, I understand why you would have us want to do some of it. I'm just concerned if we have a grasp on what happens when one fails and then the retest has to be paid for. That's all.
Yeah. So, I'm not expecting an answer now. Just this is a concern of mine with self-performing or outousing testing, right? And to be transparent with that, um, I will research that for my own knowledge and I I would just, well, I don't want to speculate. I'll just
confirm I'm going to research that and just confirm that my theory is correct. Thank you. Yep. Sounds great. Any other questions or comments? I got a question for Mr. Joerger. So, what you're saying is generally the vendor, the person providing the materials will do their own testing in many cases. Yes. So they
now they could hire somebody outsource or they could outhouse that but they would include it in their bid and when that is the case if they fail to tell us it's on them. So as far as we know there's nothing in their um RFP or for
for testing on their own. Right. No, as far as I could see. Great. That's all I have. Thanks. We're the owner. We have to pay for it. All right. Well, and so just to clarify too, we've got several projects and it looks like two um vendors is what the recommendation is
to approve two contracts with two separate vendors for a variety of road projects as listed. Uh with that, I'd look to entertain a motion. I I would move the fall staff's recommendation for uh the separate uh uh contract approval
for the two separate vendors. I'll second. Thank you. Motion a second. Those in favor say I. I. Those opposed, same sign. Motion carried. All right. Thank you. Moving on. Number three. This is uh direction requested on additional
scope of work items improvement 2408 M Street Outfall repair project. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Sean, can you pull up the item and maybe scroll down to that map, please? There you go. And so where that outfall indicates there, that is
where the current storm drain ends and and it just flows out to the the the to the actual river. Um, mother nature has uh created a course to go against the fence line, washed out part of that fence line, and now it meanders to to
the to the river there. We are our current project is to extend that sewer drain closer to the to the river and hence eliminate that from there. What we are we need to repair that fence in my
opinion um because we caused the damage. Um, however, the outfall I would hesitate on recommending because that is in a uh in a flood area and so I'm just recommending that we repair that fence
line similar to above and below that fence line and leave the natural uh outfall area h as it is because you know later this summer it could flood out and uh what we done is u
lost Anyway, and then to get permits and requirements to do that, we would have to research that. Thank you, Mike. Commission or Councilman Chzik, what was the last thing that we'd have to do? What if we disturb our or modify any of the outfall in a flood area? We have to
get DNR and state uh um review. Okay. What's the fence made out of? It's cyclone. It's a chain link, I believe, with uh there's actually footings on there, too. So it would be a little costly, you know. How far back is it from the edge of the I mean is it is it
going to be is the water going to intrude on it now if it's high water? Right now with the river being so low people can walk down to the river and walk around the fence. Okay. So when the water is elevated is it in does it does it wash into the fence the the footings
of the fence? Mr. Council Ch I can maybe clarify to Are you saying with the high water mark does the high water mark reach the fence? I don't believe um when the river is at its highest does it touch the fence? Will it will touch the fence? Yes. Okay. But our outfall project had damage the fence. That's
what caused it. Yes. Okay. It's a pretty significant ravine. All right. That's all I got. Thanks. Uh Councilman, real quickly, is the land owner spoke to us at all about the alpha repair? No, I have brought it to his attention
and he would like to meet me w with me when we uh have a decision one way or the other. But he didn't he didn't voice a position one way or another on whether or not we should fix the outfall. Yes. Well, he's just indicated the fence. Okay. And he's gave us a couple options
to fix the fence. I'm recommending that we do it with the actual project and we do it to the standards of how the fence is currently right now. The footings and everything will match exactly what it is. Understood. I just had a comment
more or less. You know, when when I talked to staff about this uh in previewing the meeting, you know, obviously we got our pipe that we're going to be redoing uh that's led to this issue um damaging the fence. And then the question is, you know, to me that's pretty straightforward. We're we're doing the pipe already. Um I think
we should my opinion is we should fix the fence. Uh the outwash sounds like there's some extenduating circumstances more um considerations with the DNR. Um and so I guess my just my personal preference I you know I'd like to certainly repair the fence and then
perhaps you know direct staff to reach out to the SWCD and see if there's other opportunities because there is scouring there. there is, you know, you know, outwash and, you know, I guess reach out to the SWCD. I had the opportunity to work on the one watershed, one plan and
that plan that the county had or SWCD has in place does open uh communities up to additional funding such as we utilize for the uh Buffalo uh Little Buffalo Creek. Oh, okay. Uh gully remediation. I believe that came through one watershed.
So there might be an opportunity to seek funding to further remedy it. But as far as um our action tonight, I guess I I think I think the fence would be appropriate. Very good. What's that? Mr.
Chair, what did you mention about lead? I if I said lead, I'd misspoke. I don't don't believe I did. Okay. It had something to do with the Well, that's okay. If you don't think he said it, then he probably didn't say it. Okay. I would move to approve this uh
request by staff and then just uh include the repair of the fence to their recommendations. Just the fence. Is that correct? They're to repair just the fence, not the outwash. I'll second. All right. Motion and a second. Uh those in favor say I. I. Those opposed, same
sign. Motion carried. All right. Our fourth item is to approve final payment and project acceptance uh police department HVAC replacement and um public works director Habigor. Yes, thank you. I did talk to the chief uh
about this project and the big thing is that uh we had a final walkth through there and the AC HVAC system is everything is working properly and the like the library project we failed to do a balancing uh um uh project or you know
getting those both those units working in sync. Uh they actually did that here. So I was pleased to hear that and uh so this we always keep a little percentage out after the project is finished. We do a final walkthrough and then we will release that uh final amount to them and
uh everything is is good. The police chief is happy with the project and all the staff and uh we are recommending final approval. All right. Thank you. Any questions, comments on this item? If not, entertain a motion to approve.
I'll make a motion to approve the final pay to Theon for the amount of 17,400. Second and motion and a second. Those any discussion? Sorry. Uh hearing none. Those in favor say I. I. Those opposed
same sign and motion carries. All right. Our fifth item direction requested on annual MS4 public meeting. Mr. Hagor. Thank you Mr. President. So, the MS4 just briefly is our storm water uh plan where we engage
the public in helping us with our storm uh uh drainage areas that if they see anything, you know, pick up that trash and and give us a call and and we can um we just involve the the actual community with that. We are also um looking at a
possible program where we truly engage the public and where they adopt that storm drain. But I digress. Um, so on this very specific one, it's it's heavy on public engagement. So, it is required by MS4 and the state that we do an
annual meeting and we could either do that here in the council chambers or you could direct staff to conduct that with Baxter and we could do two events with one one event if you would and that's what staff is recommending is that we
just combine both of them. um with Brainard and Baxter, we have one staff person that has shared through both uh local governments and it's going well. But again, if the city council would like to have their own meeting, we can definitely do that. That's totally fine.
We just wanted to save a little bit of staff time and have it um we could conduct that and we could include Baxter and Brainard in one. And so again, there's two recommendations. one uh we continue with city council and the other
one is that staff can do it with uh Brainard and Baxter and with that we can take any questions. Well, Mr. Chair, very good. Yeah, I was thinking I was thinking that based on the fact that the arboritum is more so in Baxter than Brainer, that'd be an excellent place to have where we're going to do a combo.
Well, and and that's kind of where I was going too. I mean, I think it's a a neat opportunity to partner with with Baxter. Um it's obviously a very small thing but doing a doing a public openhouse I think who was given the presentation on this in our new uh co- employee or this be
well first it starts with Jesse sorry okay I didn't mean to interrupt that's fine um so first it starts with Jesse he'll introduce the project and then Kelly will get into the very minutia details of our MS4 projects and and what she's looking for with public engagement and how our public can really truly help
us with this uh MS4 project and the drainage of all of our uh our storm drains. Does she know there's time requirements for but we do have to have uh at least one. She's excited to do more public
engagement, but that's a whole another program down on board with this. Yes. Okay. Yes. On doing it jointly? Yes. Okay. Again, their council will have to approve it. Um so, okay. All right. Uh any other comments, questions? If not,
looking for a motion. One of the other one of the other options. Um I'd make a motion to have this conducted jointly with Baxter when uh they approve it and I perhaps uh set a date that both can agree on.
I'll second. Very good. Motion and a second. Any discussion? Hearing none. Those in favor say I. I. Oppose. Same sign. And motion carried. Then it' be seven, actually eight against five. We could have like a
sports game of sorts where tug-of-war Yeah, I like that. I'll be the back guy. I like tugof-war. I'll be the anchor. You be sorry. Sorry, Chairman Erics. Mr. Mayor, wouldn't weigh in on this one? All right. This is our our sixth
and final item which is direction on active code enforcement. Um community development director Kanvic. Thank you Mr. Chair. So staff is bringing two properties before the committee for review. Staff is looking for direction from the councils how to proceed with the cases. First case is 907 first
street. Staff recommend obtaining an administrative search warrant to abate the junk and debris. Uh this property has had issues for the last couple of years. They've reached out to staff, done some corrections, but continually kind of goes in the wrong direction. Um, again, got up to the uh 100, 200, 300
violation, and certainly um from the pictures, significant issues with mattresses, garbage in the rear of the property. So, at this point, staff is recommending um obtaining that search warrant and abating the property. Uh second one is 1113 Washington Street. It's actually
northeast. Uh staff recommend issuing a $100 per working day citation until the building is long no longer occupied and all outdoor storage issues related to residential occupancy are resolved. Staff recommend giving the property owner 10 days to comply before beginning citations. Um this is a second time
council seeing this one. Uh we are working through the civil process with the city attorney and all files have been sent to our attorney's office on this one. Um however we did receive another incident report from the police department. a number of individuals are living in this commercial property. Um so um certainly staff has concerns with
that and and believes that we should be also citing them as we're working through that legal process with our attorney's office and I can answer any questions. Uh any questions or comments? Councilman Chzik. Yeah. Uh do you have photos? You
said something about outdoor storage. Don't have photos of that. Um it's something that we probably do have on file. we could send to to city council uh perhaps after the meeting. Um it's a number of items that are kind of related to certainly not a business. Um it's
it's more residential in nature. I know I've seen canoes back there. Um other things that you'd see typical with with residences. Okay. Thank you. Um question then, James, I know last time when this first came before us, I clarified with you that you know the police department
did verify that there was a residential use. That's correct. That's been that's been verified. Also, um the person residing there had called Brainer Public Utilities about um a primary residence as well. Did I hear you say I I think
when you briefed me earlier, you said there's not a like a restroom there or a proper kitchen. There's there is concerns about that. Um our um building official hasn't been in there to see it, but you know, certainly there are concerns with with sanitation,
utilities, that type of thing. Okay. Thank you. Any other questions or comments? If not, be looking for a a motion on this item. And I'm thinking we do this together. Okay. So, I will make a motion for both properties uh each separately here. For the 907 First
Street, uh my motion would be to uh to obtain an ASW and abate the junk and debris. for 113 Washington Street. I would uh make a motion that staff uh give the property owner 10 days to comply before uh beginning the citations as follows. Uh $100 per working day
citation until the building is no longer occupied or all out outdoor storage issues related to residential occupancy are resolved and I so move motion. Is there a second? Second. Yep. Thank you. I got a question. And um when you said it's no longer occupied, so that means
it cannot be a residential use at all. Right. That is correct. It's in the commercial corridor district. Cannot be a residential use on the first floor. Okay. Thank you. Any further discussion? If not, take it to a vote. Those in favor say I. I. I. Those opposed, same
sign. And motion carries and we are adjourned.