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.