Loading...
5.d) Engineering Services • Meeting Date: 1/8/2008 Agenda Item: �� � City Council Agenda Report City of Scandia 14727 209`h St. North Scandia, MN 55073 (651)433-2274 Action Requested: Discuss review of engineering services. Deadline/Timeline: N/A Background: • The city was asked to conduct an annual review for our City Engineer, Tom Peterson of Bonestroo. Council and staff provided comments using an evaluation form provided by the engineering firm. Staff compiled the comments and ratings. The summary of comments indicated that services are not cuirently meeting expectations. • On Thursday, January 3, a committee made up of Mayor Seefeldt, Councilmember Harnetty and Administratar Hurlburt met with Mr. Peterson and Mark Hanson,Bonestroo Vice President,to discuss the review. • At the end of the meeting,the engineers suggested that they would take the following steps to improve their services: o Increasing oversight by Bonestroo management staff; o Providing detailed monthly reports on a11 activities; and o Providing a report detailing options for a pro-active plan for pavemend roadway maintenance. • The committee agreed to recommend this approach to the Council, and further recommends that services be evaluated again after 90 days. During that time, a plan for the following 90 days could be developed. • The committee also recommends that Bonestroo's request for a rate increase not be considered until the council is satisfied with the level of performance and the changes recommended by the committee and agreed to by Bonestroo. Recommendation: I recommend that the Council discuss the review and committee recommendations, and give direction regarding the next steps. Attachments/ • Summary review Materials provided: Contact(s): Prepared by: Anne Hurlburt,Administrator (engineering services) Page 1 of 1 O 1/04/08 2007 Performance Review Bonestroo/ City of Scandia Meeting Date: January 3, 2008 Summary Comments Overall Performance Considering Bonest�roo's overall performance in the last year,please answer the following: What have you liked best about ou�service? What would you like to see us continue? • Prompt and thorough responses to questions • Friendly,personable,pleasant,professional interactions with Council, sta.ff and public, from Tom and with other members of the firm when contacted. R'hat have you not liked or least valued about our service7 � Lack of responsiveness to initiate and follow-through on small projects directed by the board/council. Recent examples are Novak& 182na drainage improvements. • Lack of communications with property owners afFected by projects. Having to negotiations settlements after work is done without easements is unacceptable and embarrassing. • Oversight of development projects has been lacking(i.e. letters of credit,erosion control,holding ponds, etc.)with recent serious concerns about the Tii Gavo development. • Reports should be more thorough,with more data-based analysis,both when a project is initiated and in the post-project follow-up. • Lack of initiative on planning ahead; for example, for road maintenance needs. • Project budgets are not always realistic(for example, Olson/Sandgren storm sewer) and do not always include full cost of project(engineering, easements, etc.) • Very little documentation of inspections results and sharing appropriate information with the city. Seems to be poor communication between field and office. What suggestions can you share wath us to improve our service? • More oversight by Bonestroo management or possibly changing personnel may be required,if relationship is to continue. � An understanding about potential conflicts of interest is needed. � Better reporting(with detailed inspection results and activity logs.} Overall, on a scale of 1-10, how would you rate our services in 2007? Average rating: 4.0 1 Bonestroo Personnel On a scale of I-10, how would you rate your Client Service Ma�zager(CS11� in t/ze following areas7 Average Ratin 6.75 Responds pYomptly to your questions. 5.5 Provides clear, easily understandable written corYespondence 4.5 I'Yesents technical inforn�cation at public meetings in a manner that is clear and understandable 4.75 Provides infof mation in a timely fnanner 5.0 js prepared for public rneetings and presentations 4.0 Provides infofmation and presentations that meet your expectations 4.0 Participates at staff ineetings and public meetings at a level that meets our ectations. 3.25 UndeYstands youY overall "Big Picture"vision. Overall, on a scale of I-10, how would you rate the overall performance of your Client Service Manager7 Average rating: 3.5 Benchmark Grades Please provide a benchmark score for our performa�zce in the following areas Average Service Comments Score 4.25 City Enginee� • Not always thoroughly prepared. Information (development Yeviews, submitted is often"thin." council meetings, • Manner is sometimes too"laid back"and does deadlines with the public, not inspire confidence. etc.) • Does not take initiative to educate and advise on engineering-related issues. • Very little technical information is passed through to staff making it hard to explain the progress of a project. 4.0 Planning(corrcpYehensive . Should be actively advising the city on long- plans) range needs for maintenance, etc.but has not done so. 2 Average Service Comments Score 5.0 General Engineering • Content is usually good and reliable,but reactive (feasibility reports,plans rather than proactive. and specifications) • Olson/Sandgren storm sewer project plans missed need for additional easements, causing additional expense for some re-design and late acquisition of easements which(if the land owner had not also been the contractor) could have caused major barrier to project completion. • Plan development process for 2006/2007 road project did not anticipate needs for easements and wetland permitting, causing delays in the project. Some details(such as appropriate assessments for several parcels)were missed. • The plan/environmental study for 205�`St. was superficial and did not provide options or thoroughly evaluate the issues. Not enough consideration was given to land use,land ownership and value(for example,the proposed holding pond recommended), and appeared to be a superficial justification of the original construction proposal. • Should communicate and coordinate better with staff,particularly the Maintenance Supervisor,to proactively address needs for road repairs. • Sometimes appears to represent interests of contractor or developer, as opposed to the city. 4.0 Water Resources, Storm • Needs to be more aggressive with enforcement water Review and of erosion control requirements in development Wetland Assistance projects. For example,Tom made a "recommendation"that the erosion control be corrected when he should have"required"it. We have become aware of problems when other agencies initiate action,when city should akeady have been aware. 3 Average Service Comments Score 4.0 Tra,ffic/Transportation/ • Need more pro-active, analytical approach to B�idges assessing needs for road repairs and improvements. • Has not informed the Council (and former Road Committee) on alternatives for road construction and repairs, suggested a pavement management program or made suggestions for a capital improvement program to stretch road maintenance resources. • Slow in following up on signage requests; required lots of pradding to work with MnDOT. 5.0 Mapping/GIS • Few opportunities to evaluate this service. 4.0 Construction Services • Plans/drawings adequate but pre-project analysis (Public) &planning is not sufficient. This has contributed to costs exceeding original estimates—for example,not anticipating the need for easements. • Coxnmunications with residents regarding road construction project was not always prompt. Promised information(letters to residents,etc.) did not always get out in a timely manner. 4 Average Service Comments Score 3.0 Construction Services • Inspections of projects seem to occur just before (Private) a meeting at which a report is expected, so may not be as thorough or prepared as they should be. • Oversight of the Tii Gavo development has been unacceptable. Did not protect the city's interest to have quality conshvction in a timely manner. Financial guarantees seem to have been released on the word of an unreliable developer's representative,rather than documented field verification of completion of work at a quality level acceptable to the city. When the problems were identified, did not seem to understand how serious a matter this was to the city and that decisive action was needed to get the project back on track. Showed poor judgment in placing trust in an inexperienced developer. Obvious deficiencies were glossed over,when Tom should have been forceful in requiring corrections on the city's behalf. • It appears that Bonestroo has recently performed work for the developer on the Tii Gavo project. This is a significant conflict of interest that calls into question the firm's ability to represent the city's interest on this project. 5.0 Billing • Timely • Pass-throughs to developers have been hard to defend,particularly on Tii Gavo where construction was shoddy but not identified by the city engineer. Additional Comments: � Question whether the services are a good value for the money. 5 . �./ � � . ,_�,:H��,r�,:�y��v; . ' s� ����i ��,��,��s���_ ��i 6�,� t,3�,::Enr� fr�r,5t i,ji, �<t i ,....:I�r..ir.itu�.�ruu s lanuarV 7, 2008 Anne Hurlburt +� �OII�StI"00 City of Scandia 14727 - 209th Street North Scantlia, MN 55073 Re Bonestroo Performance Review City of Scandia Dear Anne, I want to thank Mayor Dennis Seefeldt, Councilmember Michael Harnetty, and yourself for taking the time to meet and review our performance in 2007. Our purpose in doing the review is to be confident our performance is meeting the City of Scandia's expectation. The results of the review clearly indicate we are not meeting the City of Scandia's expectations and need to improve.We are committed to improve and recognize we will be re-evaluated in 9Q days. The next 5teps we discussed at our meeting are noted below� • Bonestroo management will work closely with our staff serving Scandia to insure the results of the review are made known and work closely with our staff to improve our performance to match the City's expectation. • We will begin preparing detailed monthly reports identifying projects, project status, items of concerns, and action items including options to address those concerns. • We will prepare a proposal including options for Scandia to develope a PavemenURoadway Management Plan. The PavemenVRoadway Management Plan will document existing conditions and a strategy to manage roadway maintenance and improvements that align with Scandia's resources now and into the future. We understand our proposed rate increase for 2008 will not be considered until oui level of performance has improvetl to the satisfaction of the City.We also understand this letter and approach will be reviewed by the City Council at the lanuary 8 Meeting. If after the discussion at the meeting changes to the approach oi adjustments are needed we will be available to discuss and/or meet to review the changes/adjustments. If you have any questions/comments regarding the content of this letter or review please call me at this office. Yours very truly, / G� G�.y�/� �' Mark A. Nanson s, P���i s� uo��i . F��i,�s�E�, M�Iwaub�e � Chicago � • ,:{a ' f* ' �� -f �1 ..+4 �,�4��,� hO��j �"�,. �.�il . '.r.