##VIDEO ID:RWcvWCBezCA## all right we call to order safety and public works this city of Brainard it is December 16 2024 700 p.m. in council chambers we have five items first item is awarding of the proposal for asht tree removal and I believe this is uh Mike Tabor Public Works director yes thank you we found out that this is not a prevailing wage uh project it's number of factors there's no grading and it doesn't heat the threshold so this was sort of a easy decision for us just to picking the low bid and yeah we're just asking for a recommendation to move forward with this uh proposal for the low bid 8,500 is their his total ranging from 85 to 35 $13,500 so yeah we're recommending the low bid please thank you so recommendation is to award the proposal to tonion Tree Service LLC in the amount of $8,500 second motion and a second any more discussion how many trees what's that how many C 14 14 yep 14 of the bigger ones that our staff is not uh equipped to okay take out I believe the big ones the big ones all right any more discussion hearing none go to a vote all in favor I motion passes item number two we have a resolution supporting some Grant applications actually it looks like four different resolutions if I remember right correct and again this is Public Works director Mike abor yes so we want to apply for four different grants uh one or three of them for the Lum Park pedestrian bridge and then one for the Oak Street reconstruction um and yeah we're just looking for a recommendation to adopt this so that we can move forward and get some money on those projects can you remind me of the uh local share on any or all these I I know I read right not recalling it yeah so there's for the three for the Lum Park it's a carbon Reduction Program that's for million dollars active transportation for another million and then Transportation alternatives for 800,000 what's the local chair not any any or El oh yes Jesse can fill in on that so the the two Federal ones so the CRP and the TA those are the two Federal ones those are require an 8020 uh Federal match uh the at is the state funded one they don't require the federal match um and the State Transportation block grant program that's also a federal funded project so that would have a a grant match as well um however that one far exceeds the cost or the the cost far exceeds the 1.25 that were're recommending uh for the grant so we would exceed that match requirement okay I didn't understand the last part there the amount of that project would exceed the grant match requirement 8020 correct so the total on that project the grant is for 1.25 million but the total on that project is much higher than uh say 1.5 or two for rebuilding at Oak Street so if we were awarded all three of these grants we' be paying uh far more than $600,000 for the Lum Park pedestrian bridge I believe the 8020 on the million would be 200,000 8020 on the 800,000 would be somewhere around okay 150 somewhere in there okay so then that's 4 350 and then what's the the other one I'm not still not understanding what you're saying there is a eight is it for 1.25 million towards the project of uh the Oak Street reconstruction um otherwise we'd be using our own funds so the 1.25 million would be federal funds but yeah there would be a required Grant match but we would okay so it's what's the percent of 20% on that 8020 yep okay I I got it thank you okay so these will be four different resolutions but uh for this motion we don't need four approve all four I'll second that motion in a second any more discussion hearing none go to vote all in favor I I motion passes I have number three we have a Transit Americans with Disabilities Act policy plan um again this is Public Works director Mike abigor yes this is our we look at this uh the federal government uh just reminds us of the new uh Ada policy and sometimes they add a few things on there crystal is on this I don't know any very specific things that we've had to do but uh she's reviewing this to make sure but we just need to adopt this into our policy and move forward with it again there's not um we haven't reviewed this with Tac uh just because we we were just in a major transition we couldn't meet on our last quarterly meeting but this will be on the agenda for the first quarter of the new year and we'll be reviewing that with them also we just had to get this approved of uh from the council by the end of the year I'm trying to remember this is an annual approval that we have to do correct so it probably hasn't changed much in a year um I again I have I didn't read the the 80 pages but crystal is on it and she's going to be reviewing it um to make sure that there's nothing glaring that we need to adopt thank you and we have to approve that before it goes to Tac because the deadline is when the 18th the 18th of this month and we still won't have met by then what's that Tac okay yeah so if Tac does meet early in the year and they they find something they want to change on it either way we have to adop approve Mr chair thank you second we have a motion and a second any more discussion hearing none go to a vote all in favor I I motion passes number four we have a public utilities department uh bid rejection for the Water Reclamation backwash building um this is for public works or Public Utilities director uh Chris Evans uh thank you Mr chairman at the commission meeting on November 26 2024 commission voted to reject all bids for the Water Reclamation tank and backwash project the project was budgeted for 6.5 million and the lowest bid received was just over 10.3 million during the budget process the commission voted to reject all bids Bolton and mink requests Council action to ratify the commission's vote this project is a $5 million Minnesota direct appropriation that requires a contract by December 31st 2027 uh BPU will continue to pursue additional funding and has postponed the project but it is still budgeted for 20 27 staff recommends Council to concur with the recommendation and the decision of commission authorizing the public utilities department to reject all bids for this project thank you Mr chair yeah Mr Chaz um Mr Evans this is a asking for councel or Bolam m is because it's the appropriation that we received is that specifically why we're asked to because generally speaking the uh Council doesn't have to uh approve rejection of bids by the commission would that be a fair statement uh my understanding is it's twofold one that it's an appropriation but also that we're rejecting all bids instead of just going with a low bid okay that was going to be my question too so well well so if uh if there was no grant money or appropriation involved here and we were going to reject any bids that the commission received uh the commission re rejected all bids in a different circumstance do you know if that would require C then also to reject the bids or give authority to the commission to do that uh that's a very good question uh thank you for that um again trying to look back at prior minutes and prior practice uh this seems to be the first time for this so yeah I don't have any problem doing this I just wanted to see if there's something nuanced about this other than the appropriation that because generally speaking I think uh commission if they so choose and want to reject all all bids for any project they have the they have the authority without I don't know you ever recall having to I don't I don't recall ever having to do it little confused on it too Nick has oh y Mr Mr BR just a comment I do agree I don't think that uh this probably needs to come before Council next time um so I'll own this I think there was a little bit of confusion with this one but I agree with Mr chzo and I think I agree with Mr OD if you're thinking the same thing and all of you as well that these if they reject it does not need to come before Council that'd be my recommendation okay yeah at the same time I think it's good communication between everybody because this was this was uh this was not grant money this was actually uh State bonding funds that came through so it's it's good that we're all on the same page and looking at this and seeing we're almost $4 million short um so obviously something needs to be done so um moving into next year hopefully we can figure that out I'd move to Grant authority to the Public Utilities Commission to uh reject all all bids for this second motion and a second any more discussion hearing none go to a vote all in favor I I motion passes next in our final item we have a approval of the 10-year Capital Improvement plan for 2025 through 2034 uh presenter on this one is Public Works director Jesse Dean or should I say city engineer yes Jesse's going to take this thank you Mr chair uh so we attached the 10-year CIP report for the uh council's consideration um we're recommending approval as presented here uh as stated in the agenda item most of this is similar to what was presented to the council back in June uh as part of the workshop um the capital budget Workshop I did l list a handful of kind of the the changes that we've Incorporated since that time um some of the projects like the safe routes project that we were awarded Grant funds since then with the L project uh so including that in there um some of the changes uh since then 15th Rosewood alley Waterman and Sewer um it is funded because that was approved in 2024 however the contractor wasn't able because of how late the puc to get this approval um contractor wasn't able to to the their materials in time to get it constructed before the season ended um so we're going to plan for that in construction in 2025 so I just wanted to reflect that uh just to show how you know all the different projects that we are planning to do um and then the other one I wanted to highlight out of the list was um The Evergreen storm sewer outfall repair project uh we did reference this a little bit with the um sanitary sewer repair that we were doing up by the cemetery uh near by Bick and uh part of that is doing more of a permanent repair of that storm sewer outfall to kind of prevent future erosion uh next to that sanitary sewer main uh so we did identify uh a dollar amount in a project there uh we just plugged that into 2025 uh really we're looking for kind of council input on if that should stay in 2025 or if that should s anywhere else um like I said we we're putting it in 2025 to do that repair um we can move it just knowing that understanding as time goes the longer we don't do that repair the more we have to continue to come back and do repair maintenance next to that sanitary sewer M so um just keep that in mind uh depending on whichever way we go with that um but I did include that with the 2025 uh plan uh although like the other part of that is the the fund is also in um not as good a shape uh with the the storm sewer fund as kind of presented at the uh last storm sewer rate study uh so with that um again the 10e report is before you uh with those handful of changes uh and staff is recommending approval as it's presented and looks for some direction and recommendation from the council thank you uh I just have a question on the Alley repairs that we weren't able to approve in time or get materials if there is a major failure during the winter months are we able to still make that repair and is that going to add to the cost of that repair if that were to happen if that were to happen yes it would add to the cost because you're digging through frozen ground it would slow down the progress so it would cost a little bit more for that uh excavation work uh we're pretty confident that uh we should be in good shape for the winter um there is a level of risk but we're we're pretty confident it should last through the winter okay Mr chair yeah um I I I look at this um The Alley over there on rosewick quint's 15th u u that was brought to us originally without the water and uh I um I was thrilled to see when water was at it when it came back because we asked for more information and then water came back so um I dare say if wasn't there to begin with there may have been a lack of communication from one side or the other but uh hopefully I've uh had some conversation with uh our Public Works director Mr Habor and uh I think that some of these things will um be limited if they uh perhaps uh won't be occurring in the future and I just wanted to say that I'm really glad uh Mr haboc course we have it uh the East River Road Project the 27 in is called an Interceptor and not a force meain which I was really getting bent over that and I'm glad that's cleaned up and it stays that way is what it is is an Interceptor not a force man so one thing I would say is I don't see a lot except on a couple of projects where we have sanitary sewer included over these 10 years uh I know there's a couple of projects they're uh I I I know there's some with very limited again I don't know what's under the streets that's our staff's job to know that and to let us know when there's a problem and uh um if they're doing projects that don't include sanitary sewer I'm just going to trust that what is below that pavement is in good shape otherwise if uh we have to come back and tear something up that we put down new because something fails uh I'll be barking so that's all I have thank you all right I I will say about the uh Evergreen Fallout I think that uh it is important to get that done next year having looked at it myself I can I can see that that erosion issue is just going to come back quickly so the faster we get on that in the spring the better Mr Hors yes thank you chair I just want to indicate that uh BPU and us on the other side are meeting on a regular basis to get a construction game plann together not necessarily just on what need needs to be done but how literally both uh agencies work with with contractors and so forth so this meeting or today we met and and it seemed to get some type of structure moving forward so I'm really optimistic about that and hopefully when we come back we are just one Unis unified team and moving forward with all of our projects so that's the overall goal and I'm optimistic that we'll get there we got great staff we we just need to get as one team thank you thank you comments motion uh I will move to approve the 10-year CIP second motion and a second any more discussion hearing none go to a vote all in favor I motion passes and we can adjourn