DATE: March 9, 2004
Committee Members Present: Weise, Ashford, Cassity, Lehman, and Sprecher.
Others Present: Lance Gurney, Ted Brenson, Matt Filus, Gina Templin, Reggie Jaquish and Greg Borecki from Team Engineering, Chad Hendee and Todd Liebman.
Chairman Weise called the meeting to order at 9:00 a.m. and staff certified the meeting had been properly posted. Motion by Cassity, seconded by Sprecher to adopt agenda as changed.
Motion carried.
Motion by Sprecher, seconded by Lehman to approve the minutes from the previous meeting.
Motion carried.
None to report.
None to report.
Not present
Ted Brenson, appeared and informed the committee about the WLIA conference attended by him and his staff, as well as discussing the presentation given by the Mapping Department. Sprecher stated that Sauk County should be proud of the efforts by the Mapping Department.
Brenson then spoke of the 7 County consortium to obtain 2005 digital aerial photography, DTM and 4 foot county wide contours. Brenson reviewed the cost of the project in cooperation with other counties and still stated he still needs to contact other villages and cities. The committee continued to discuss the project, funds, and the size of the contours. Brenson also stated that they will not be sending out RFP's for this project, as they will be entering into direct contracting with Ayres & Associates, with a "Letter of Understanding" stating that Sauk County has "intentions of participating in the project in 2005, yet at the same time is not contractually bound". The committee continued to talk about funding and the timing of the project, as well some project results that are expected. The committee agreed to have Brenson draw up a letter of understanding and a resolution that would be addressed at the next Committee meeting.
Lehman asked Corporation Counsel Liebman about legal issues not doing a request for proposals, but doing a direct contract with Ayers & Associates. Liebman stated that under the statutes and proper documentation, going with direct contract is legally acceptable.
Brenson had no vouchers to submit for approval.
Filus gave a status report on the remonumentation project by Team Engineering. As of this morning there was 189 corner position received and presented a copy of the cover letter and invoice from Team for February, requesting $35,486. Liebman asked what percentage of the project is complete. Filus stated that 62% of work has been received. Liebman asked if the work has been verified that it has been done to his satisfaction. Filus stated that it has not all been verified and still waiting for final submission. Liebman addressed the committee on the issues with the contract, and the work not being performed to the satisfaction of the county, referred to the note of default, extending the contract time. He suggested that the committee withhold payment at this time and make payment when the amount of the completed project equal the amount billed. This recommendation is based on the problems the county has had with this contract and Filus needs to verify that the work that has been done and submitted is verified to be correct.
Cassity asked if the county's satisfaction is based on the contract. Liebman stated that the standard needs to be used and Filus is the county's guide to knowing whether the specifications of the contract are being met.
Greg Borecki of Team Engineering spoke about work that is done at this time. The 87% of billed work is based on the timeline and the work put into the project. The coordinates are given so the other grant processes can be started, not based on work that is complete.
Ashford spoke of the difference of billing on work that has been delivered, not work that has been completed per them.
Cassity believes that this committee should only be dealing with is the contract going to be done on time and are they fulfilling the contract.
Ashford stated it is still the responsibility of the committee to make these decisions. Cassity asked Borecke if the contract will be done on time. Borecke stated it will be done by the end of March and submitted to the county by the 5th of April.
Liebman stated the contract is silent on any progress payments. Payment does not need to be made until the final project is done.
Wiese asked how much of the contract is done and can be paid. Filus stated that 62% has been received, but there is other information that needs to be reviewed to verify compliance with the contract. To date, about 60+% of payment has been made. Filus also stated the difference between will they get it done on time versus will the data be correct.
Ashford stated that her understanding of the 21 day project extension, the project would be completed - by Team Engineering and by Filus.
Liebman spoke about assuming that you make payments up to 90% of the contract and you haven't gotten the work, assuming the vendor walks away from the job, the only recourse is to go to court, which will be a very lengthy process. The easier process is to hold payment until work has been completed to the satisfaction of the contract. That is his recommendation.
Cassity asked if Team would have their project done by the meeting on the 23rd. Borecke stated they would not.
Sprecher asked if the committee has made any commitment to pay as the project goes. The committee does not believe any commitment was made. Sprecher stated that he feels they should pay to the contract, which would not be until the deliverables are received in the end.
Brenson, Filus and Gurney explained the differences of contracts the departments have entered into in the past.
Sprecher asked Filus what his opinion is about payment. Filus stated that completion time and the uncertainty with that, as well as the review by his office that is done and what corrections or revisions need to be made after that review. End of the project, 100% completion and 100% satisfaction should equal 100% payment.
Lehman asked Filus if he is the "final court" to decide if they meet the approval. Filus stated that it is the way it is written in the contract. Filus restated the goal of the contract.
Motion by Ashord, seconded by Sprecher, to withhold the request for payment until the project has been completed.
Motion carried.
Gurney handed out an informational news release in reference to Farmland Preservation by Governor Doyle and reviewed with the Committee. The committee also spoke of the $50 charge to property owners to sign up/receive their farmland preservation agreement/forms. Gurney spoke of the involvement of the Planning & Zoning Department in the Farmland Preservation program.
Gurney then passed out a memo in regards to AB-551 and discussed details of the bill and problems for County zoning departments with Comprehensive Planning process, zoning and issues between municipalities, and creating liabilities for the county. He spoke of attending and testifying at the Senate hearing on the bill, and requesting a committee to be formed with attendees coming from counties, cities and villages - local participants.
The committee then discussed where Representative Albers stood on the bill and the livestock bill being reviewed in at the state level.
Discussion and action on Resolution for the Baraboo Range Protection Program for purchase of development rights from Donald and Deborah Lawyer, containing 40 acres in the Town of Greenfield. Dave Tremble addressed the committee with details of the easement and reviewed a map showing the property location in reference to their lands protected by the Baraboo Range. He provided information in a packet from the appraiser containing the price per acre, total appraisal cost, and property rights, utilizing the property after the easement and modifications for use of the property, staying consistent with the intent of the easement.
Ashford asked if the property was contiguous with Durwards Glen. Tremble stated it is.
Motion by Ashford, seconded by Sprecher, to approve the purchase of development rights.
Motion carried, 3-2 with Cassity and Lehman voting in opposition.
The Committee then discussed GSA proceeding with the disposition process at BAAP based on the negotiated MOU and Intergovernmental agreements.
Cassity asked what "vision based distilled based" means, from the resolution drafted by Corporation Counsel. The committee decided that there was a typo and removed the word "based". Cassity stated that his interpretation of the resolution is that everyone agreed to what is to take place at Badger and felt that this may not be entirely true. Gurney stated that all parties did agree to it and did have deal. The committee continued to discuss the MOU and intergovernmental agreements.
Cassity asked for different wording referring to "having a deal" in the past. The committee discussed the history of the BIG meetings and dealings with all parties involved. Cassity believes PZLR committee should write the resolution to move on in the process, not the E&L committee. Gurney proposed different language "agreed upon" to "incorporated within". The committee continued to discuss. Cassity asked for the last sentence of the last paragraph to end after the words "August 2001. The committee decided that the last paragraph is worded to the best of their ability to convey the meaning they wanted.
Motion by Ashford, seconded by Sprecher, to approve the resolution with the changes as discussed. Motion carried.
Gurney then reviewed a request for 2003 carry forwards into 2004. Motion by Lehman, seconded by Sprecher to approve the carry forward items as requested by the Department Head.
Motion carried.
Gurney and the committee reviewed some issues that would be on the agenda for the public hearing portion of the PZLR committee hearing on March 23, 2004.
Motion to adjourn by Ashford, seconded by Lehman.
Motion carried.
Respectfully submitted: Judy Ashford, Secretary