12/03/1996 - City Council Public Works Committeef
MINUTES
PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE MEETING
DECEMBER 3, 1996
At 3:30 p.m. on December 3, 1996, the Public Works Committee convened in the first floor
conference rooms of the Municipal Center. In attendance were the Committee Chair, Councilperson
Ted Wachter, as well as Committee member Councilperson, Pat Awada. City staff included City
Administrator Tom Hedges and Public Works Director Tom Colbert. Also in attendance were Mark
Hanson and Craig Larson, of Bonestroo, Rosene, Anderlik & Associates, the City's consulting
engineering firm. The property owners were represented by Larry P. and Susan Poppler (3030
Poppler Lane), Lawrence G. and Aurelia Poppler(3045 Poppler Lane) and Vince Kennedy.
Chairman Wachter called the meeting to order at approximately 3:37 p.m. Tom Colbert provided a
recap of the City Council's directive from the public hearing of November 19 to have the Public
Works Committee review the objections submitted by the Poppler family and provide a
recommendation to the City Council. Chairman Wachter then summarized his understanding that the
Poppler's main concern and objection related to alleged excess of engineering costs.
Larry P. Poppler stated he felt the project was very simple in nature and with a limited construction
cost of only$40,000,the final total improvement cost of$89,000 was excessive and greater than the
estimate contained in the feasibility report. He went on to state he felt the excessive cost overruns
were a result of the indirect costs associated with engineering, which were approximately twice what
was estimated in the feasibility report. He questioned whether some of these costs were associated
with double billing by the engineering firm.
Chairman Wachter briefly summarized the history of the public improvement process and the
development contract agreement associated with the Poppler Homestead#2 Addition.
Mark Hanson reviewed the engineering cost history of the project in detail identifying the number of
hours and rates that were spent for both feasibility reports as well as detailed plans, specifications,
and bidding services for the original public improvement process in 1992 and the most recent 1995-96
public improvement process. He provided a handout summarizing the cost breakdown by
classification of employee and duties associated with each major task. Committee-member Awada
inquired further on the breakdown of the engineering fees as well as a clarification of what
construction management incorporated.
Larry P. Poppler restated his concern that the bottom line objection was a construction cost of
$40,000 with$49,000 of other indirect costs. He questioned several of the employee classification
unit prices for engineering services,which he felt were also excessive. Tom Colbert clarified that the
final construction cost was approximately$56,000, with indirect costs totaling $33,000.
Mark Hanson responded explaining the rationale for the unit prices for various employee
classifications and verification of the hours charged by each. Larry P. Poppler continued to dispute
t 'r
the apparent excessive time spent during the contract management phase. Vince Kennedy then asked
what would be the typical engineering costs for a public improvement. Tom Colbert responded that
engineering costs average approximately 22%for all phases dependent upon the complexity of the
project.
Chairman Wachter then summarized the issues and the public improvement special assessment
process that any costs not assessed are then financed by the general public.
Committee member Awada stated she felt that the cost to redo the feasibility report appeared to be
excessive and felt that the carry-over costs from the first project should have been identified with the
second report.
Vince Kennedy then requested that Larry P. Poppler state to the Committee what he would like to
see as a resolution to these issues. Larry P. Poppler responded that he'd like to see the final
assessment closer to the feasibility report estimate. Susan Poppler then stated her concerns that the
costs for such a small project were greater than incurred by their neighbors up the street and that curb
and gutter were not needed for such a small neighborhood.
There was then general open discussion by several members in attendance comparing the cost overrun
on a total feasibility report basis as well as for the street costs only. Mark Hanson clarified the
difference in overruns as pertaining to the sewer and water service installation verification costs. At
that point,Lawrence G. shared a copy of an old map he had which indicated sewer and water services
were installed by the City approximately 25 years ago and he verified that through a phone call with
Mr. Bob Rosene. Mark Hanson responded that the sewer and water utilities were not able to be
physically located in the field and recapped the efforts performed to verify their existence. Larry P.
Poppler then questioned various costs in the contract for locating the sewer and water services which
were explained by Mark Hanson.
Larry P.Poppler then requested the Committee to consider reducing the final assessments by $10,000
because of the apparent significant overrun of indirect costs.
After several technical questions regarding the cost calculations and allocations, Committee member
Awada suggested that the final assessment be reduced by$3,868.66. This number was arrived at by
providing a 50%reduction in the total indirect costs($1,356.31) associated with the sewer and water
services along with the engineering costs ($6,381)associated with the preparation of the feasibility
report, plans, specifications and bidding for the second public improvement process. Larry P.
Poppler responded that he wanted to have the assessment reduced by 50% of the difference in the
indirect costs estimated in the feasibility report ($19,370) and what was included in the final
assessment roll ($33,124.75), for a net reduction of$6,877.38.
Committee member Awada responded that while the City should have identified the left-over costs
from the first public improvement process in the second report, these were none the less costs
incurred by the City as a part of the project and that whatever costs are reduced will have to be
picked up the City's taxpayers, and their offer of a $3,868.66 reduction is the best the Committee
2
a
.t�
i1s
6t'
could justify. Committee Chair Wachter then suggested that this recommendation be forwarded to
the City Council on December 16.
Tom Hedges further clarified that the Committee's recommendation would result in a reduction of
$135.63 per lot for the utility services and $354.50 per lot reduction for the street assessments.
Larry P. Poppler stated he felt that none of the costs for the utility service verification should be
included rather than reducing only 50% of the indirect costs.
Committee member Awada stated that while the City may have messed up with the second fesibility
report process by not identifying all the original costs, the Committee was willing to offer this
reduction even though it is not typical to do so and has not been done in the past. Committee Chair
Wachter agreed with Awada and reaffirmed that this Committee's recommendation would be
forwarded to the City Council on December 16.
At 4:55 p.m.,Committee Chair Wachter seconded Committee member Awada's motion to adjourn.
At that point,Lawrence G.Poppler then began to give a historical summation of all the problems he
has encountered with his neighbor, attorneys, surveyors, contractors, etc., regarding property line
disputes, easement dedications, storm sewer line construction, platting, etc.
Minutes prepared and submitted by:
'4.
Thomas A. Colbert
3