05/16/1995 - City Council Public Works Committee PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE MEETING
May 16, 1995
MINUTES
The Public Works Committee of the City Council met at 4:30 p.m. on Tuesday, May 16, 1995, in the
Police Facility conference room. Those present were Councilmember Ted Wachter (Chair),
Councilmember Shawn Hunter, City Administrator Tom Hedges, Finance Director Gene
VanOverbeke, Public Works Director Tom Colbert, Assistant City Engineer Mike Foertsch, along
with Steve Gatlin and Greg Stonehouse of MSA Consulting Engineers, Inc. Although the meeting
was open to the public, none were in attendance.
The meeting was called to order by Chairman Wachter with the agenda being identified as a review
and analysis of the expenses associated with Project 661R(Yankee Doodle Road and Sibley Terminal
Industrial Park - Street Rehabilitation). With no other business items identified, the meeting
proceeded with that item of discussion.
Chairman Wachter questioned whether the meeting had been noticed. City Administrator Hedges
responded that the meeting date and time had been set at the May 2 Council meeting and had been
properly posted as a public meeting. However, no mailed notices were sent to any individuals.
Committee member Hunter indicated that the packet of information that had been prepared by staff
summarizing all the various nonconstruction related costs associated with this project was well
documented and compiled in a manner that made it very easy to review by the Committee members.
He then proceeded with several questions of the consulting engineering firm as to how their services
were broken down and identified on various invoices. Reference was made to the March 22, 1995,
letter from MSA summarizing a breakdown of costs between preliminary design, final design,
specification preparation, construction management, inspection services, etc. Steve Gatlin, of MSA,
Inc., provided a response to the various questions and inquiries regarding the relationship between
tasks and invoice billings.
MSA was complimented on the level of detail provided regarding their invoices, summary
breakdown, and field notes available for review.
Public Works Director Colbert went on to provide additional explanation regarding other indirect
costs beyond engineering expenses, a typical schedule and process for public improvements
incorporating public hearings, contract awards, construction and final assessment roll preparation,
and the nonproportionate relationship of engineering fees to project costs (i.e. the smaller the project
the larger percentage of engineering fees, the larger the project the smaller the percentage, etc.).
At the conclusion of reviewing all related costs, the Public Works Committee provided the following
recommendations, findings, and/or conclusion:
1
1. The information provided by staff was complete, thorough, and accurate.
2. All the information provided was thoroughly reviewed and analyzed by the Public Works
Committee prior to and during the meeting.
3. The information provided indicated reasonable engineering efforts were performed on this
specific project.
4. The Committee recommends including the project phase by name(preliminary engineering,
construction inspection, etc.) on future engineering invoices rather than just numeric code
numbers.
5. Significant engineering efforts were provided and, subsequently, billed to the project as
necessary to answer specific questions from the owner in response to a project that changed
scope five times through the course of the project.
6. The time frame for final assessment hearings was scheduled and published. Furthermore, the
later the hearing,the more advantageous to the property owner on this project. Hence, the
time frame from the project completion to the final assessment hearing was reasonable.
7. It is noted that the engineering consultants attended the Public Works Committee meeting
as a professional courtesy to the City and at no cost.
The results of this Public Works Committee meeting will be presented to the City Council at the next
available Council meeting for their acknowledgment and acceptance. There being no further business
to discuss, the meeting was adjourned at 5:25 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
irector of Public Works
TAC/jj
•
PublicWksCmte/minutes.m16/aj
2