Loading...
120489 PK MIN (partial)U COUNCIL MINUTES MONDAY, DECEMBER 4, 1989 Page nine STAFF REPORTS - Continued ENGINEER'S REPORT - Continued OSM Contract /Fees - 1990 Administrator Whittaker p resented Council with the Engineer's new fee schedule and explained that ticectotthetother partynuous y • unless either party gives 30 days _g- COUNCIL MINUTES MONDAY, NOVMEBER 4, 1989 Page ten 0 STAFF REPORTS - Continued ADMINISTATOR'S REPORT - Continued OSM Contract /Fees - 1990 - continued Engineer Norton said there is an increase of approximately 5%. Mayor Haugen thanked Norton for the information and said the contract will be discussed at the first meeting in January, 1990. Gagne asked how the Council knows that the Engineering fees are in line? He asked if any proposals had been received to use as comparison? Watten said he thought the fees were in line. Brancel would like some proposals for comparison purposes. Gagne pointed out that the Park Commission does not care to work with OSM. He said the Council could direct them to do so anyway but felt it would cause problems. Watten felt there are few firms that have the expertise of OSM. He thought putting out RFP's would be a problem unless explicit directives were given. Administrator Whittaker said the City has received several "Park Planner /Landscape Architect" proposals. He also said changing Engineers is simple, but a 30 year history is hard to,put a value on. If you have problems with a particular fee, discuss that with the Engineer.rather than changing firms. Watten agreed that continuity is worth a lot. Whittaker :said if Council is going to consider other firms, they should consider fees, qualifications, experience, etc. Haugen said if the problem is primarily due to Park Commission problems, the Council should discuss and examine the proposals received for a Park Planner /Landscape Architect. Haugen did not recall any previous problems with OSM. Stover said the Finance Committee asked for comparison figures regarding engineering fees at one time, and they turned out to be in line with everyone else. Gagne said the reason he brought up the Park Commission dissatisfaction is because, as Council Liaison to the Park Commission, he would not be doing them justice if he did not express their concerns. He said if the problem can be settled by discussing a particular . issue, let's discuss that issue. -10- COUNCIL MINUTES MONDAY, DECEMBER 4, 1989 • Page 11 STAFF REPORTS _ Continued ADMINISTRATOR'S REPORT OSM Contract /Fees - 1990 — continued Administrator Whittaker said he personally finds it very difficult, not only because of feedback from the Park Commission, to believe that there is currently an $8500 bill, without the November. inspection costs, for the Freeman Park fences, when we had an estimate for plans, specs, and supervision from Geroge Haun, although he is uncertified, for $1200 to do the job. He said the fence cost was $43,595. and questioned the percentage. He said it had been discussed by the Park Commission and the Council and he feels the Engineer should be given an opportunity to give an explanation. Gagne asked that Norton explain why the plans and specs done by Haun ended up with the OSM stamp on them. Engineer Norton said he thinks OSM was asked to use those drawings and specs. He said they certainly didn't need them. He prepared plans and specs for the Babe Ruth Baseball field 11 years ago. He said he has all the necessary experience, design criteria, and specifications to put together plans and specs himself. He said the City wanted to use Haun and thats their perogative, . and he'd be happy to use him as an additional consultant. He said the two pages of specs received from Haun probably came from the City of St. Louis Park and were no different than what he prepared 11 years ago. He mentioned the duplication of effort. He does not feel the bill is out of line. Gagne said he felt the percentage was high, at around 20 %, and asked if there wasn't a flat fee charged by OSM on a project? Norton said no, in the contract anything below $100,000 is "time and material "... He said the percentage was less because the warning track, at $11,000, was included, making the total $54,594.80, at 15.5 %. On the curve,the contract-strictly for design would be 10.5% to 11 %, and the surveying, construction staking, and inspection would be again that much, so from 15% - 20% is not unreasonable for a small job. Stover questioned the duplication on the plan. Whittaker said Norton had Haun's plans and specs. Council authorized Norton to do plans and specs because they felt certification was important. He said the contention is that because Norton received fairly complete plans and specs, it should have made less work for OSM, resluting in a savings to the City, and its possible that when Norton's response is received, it will show it did so. Park Commissioner Christensen, after listening to the comments, said there are three issues he'd like to bring up: -11- COUNCIL MINUTES MONDAY, DECEMBER 4, 1989 Page twelve STAFF REPORTS - Continued ADMINISTRATOR'S REPORT - CONTINUED OSM Contract /Fees - continued Ies true the Park Commission has lost confidence in the Engineer. A motion was made by the Park Commission to the Council recommending that the City Engineer no longer be used for work in the parks. Seven RFP's have been received on Park Planner/ Landscape Architects and these firms are being evaluated. Secondly, relating to "old" news relating to grading, sodding, finishing, etc. He would like to state that he feels the City Administrator, Public Works Director, Engineer Norton, and Asst. Clerk Niccum did a wonderful job of resolving the existing problems to everyone's satisfaction. The third issue is the Engineer's costs relating to the Freeman Park ballfield fencing. In his view the cost is excessive. prepared He said the person they had been working with, George Haun, p re p the material. He didn't feel it was important where the material came from. He said the Commission was satisfied with them. It was requested, and rightfully so, that these materials be reviewed by a registered engineering firm, and they were. He said the review, whatever the process involved in terms of analysis, took the form of using the materials that were given to the firm, • stamping them with their stamp, and returning them with a bill for approximately $5700. Christensen said he felt this was totally excessive, and exacerbated by additional bills for inspection service,surveying services, other services, that were originally covered for $1200. Norton said he was hurt by the fact that the Park Commission has lost confidence. He tries to do as good a job as he can. He questioned whether $1200 would cover this. He said Haun prepared no plans, - no specs, did no construction staking, and a minimum amount of inspection, and still got 2/3 -3/4 of the $1200. He also said because Haun is not registered, it has an impact on insurance and City liability. Norton said he would like the opportunity to reply in detail to the bill. The Council asked him to do so by the 2nd meeting in January, 1990. Norton also suggested that they hold his bill until that time. Watten suggested getting cost estimates before jobs are done. Haugen asked Norton if the City did the labor, did it make a difference? Norton said it would depend on the project. -12-