HomeMy WebLinkAbout03.22.2023 telecommunications minutesTELECOMMUNICATIONS UTILITY
BOARD OF TRUSTEES
Harold E. Getty Council Chambers
City Hall
March 22, 2023
4:00 p.m.
Members present: Batemon, Kurtenbach, Young, Van Fleet and Council Liaison Rob Nichols.
Moved by Young seconded by Van Fleet that the Agenda, as proposed, be approved. Voice -vote
Ayes: Four. Motion carried.
1. Approval of Agenda.
Moved by Kurtenbach seconded by Batemon that the agenda, as proposed, be approved. Voice -
vote Ayes: Four. Motion carried.
2. Approval of Minutes.
Moved by Kurtenbach seconded by Young that the Minutes of March 8, 2023, as proposed, be
approved. Voice -vote Ayes: Four. Motion carried.
Mr. Kurtenbach raised questions about issues discussed previously. He requested more details
on where the federal dollars are being spent.
Courtney Violette, Magellan Advisors, stated that the current funding sources for the project
which are ARPA, GO bonds and revenue bonds, there is a required Davis -Bacon for either
distribution or the backbone portion of the project. There is an outstanding application with the
NTIA for a grant which could fund the backbone portion. As of now, that grant has not been
awarded and those funds are not part of this project.
Mr. Kurtenbach questioned the contractor registration language in the bid documents that was to
be added, but does not appear to be so.
Steve Nadel, Ahlers and Cooney, clarified on the first question and as he recollects, that as the
bid documents are currently drafted, they are based on the assumption that the grant will not be
received.
3. Public hearing on Not to Exceed $60,000,000 Communications Utility Revenue Capital
Loan Notes.
3.1. Motion to open hearing and receive and file proof of publication of notice of public hearing.
Moved by Young seconded by Kurtenbach. Voice -vote Ayes: Four. Motion carried.
3.2. RECEIVE PUBLIC COMMENT - No comments on file. No members of the pubic provided
comments.
3.3. Motion to close hearing and file any comments received.
Moved by Young seconded by Batemon. Voice -vote Ayes: Four. Motion carried.
3.4. Resolution instituting proceedings to take additional action for the authorization of a Loan
Agreement and the issuance of not to exceed $60,000,000 Communications Utility Revenue
Capital Loan Notes.
Steve Nadel, Ahlers and Cooney, provided an overview of the legal requirements of the
procedural process to have the authority to issue up to $60,000,000 in revenue bonds.
Moved by Kurtenbach seconded by Young. Roll call -vote Ayes: Four. Motion carried.
Resolution No. 2023-005.
Page 2
4. Resolution approving preliminary plans, specifications, form of contract, etc., resetting
date of bid opening as April 13, 2023, and date of public hearing as April 19, 2023, in
conjunction with the FY2023 Construction of a Fiber -to -the -Premise Feeder/Distribution
and Backbone Network Project, Contract No. 1080, and direct the Board Secretary to
publish notice.
Moved by Young seconded by Bateman. Roll call -vote Ayes: Four. Motion carried. Resolution
No. 2023-006.
Mr. Kurtenbach commented that there was an issue dealing with contractor qualifications that
would be included in the bid documents. He shared that he did not know if that was on the city
to get those changes included or the consultant. He requested to know if the qualifications was
included in the bid document and if so where it was located, as he is not seeing it.
Courtney Violette explained that he would need to go back and review as he was under the
impression that all requested changes were included.
Mr. Kurtenbach clarified that it is specifically the contractor qualifications he was looking for.
Courtney Violette questioned if there was a process that the city uses to validate contractor
qualifications.
Jamie Knutson, City Engineer, explained that requiring contractor registration is not something
that the city has included in the thirty -years he has worked with the city. Contractors provide
bonds and insurance among other things.
Steve Nadel commented there are some limitations in public sector bidding on what can be
requested regarding qualifications. He is unsure if this falls under the same limitations, but it is
possible that it was excluded intentionally.
Jamie Knutson concurred and explained that when the bid is in, they will look at the contractor
and if the city has not worked with them before they will have them fill out paperwork to ensure
they are a responsible bidder. He added that an attorney with Ahlers and Cooney did go through
the bid specs and no change on this matter was requested by them.
Mr. Young clarified that the concern is that we do not want to have someone who has no
experience or a bad track record win the bid He requested clarification that we do have a check
or fail safe to go through during the bidding process to ensure that the low bidder meets certain
requirements to do this job.
Jamie Knutson confirmed.
Courtney Violette added that they will make sure that the contractors are qualified to do the job.
He explained that there are performance and bid bonds that typically weed out some of the
smaller fly-by-night contractors. There is the added requirement that not more than fifty -percent
be sub -contractors.
Mr. Kurtenbach questioned if the contractor and sub -contractors would be pre -qualified.
Courtney Violette concurred.
Jamie Knutson explained that the city only has an agreement with the prime contractor, not the
subs.
Mr. Kurtenbach commented that this is the reason for the concern. He stated that the city has
already dealt with a contractor underperforming on a project and he doesn't want to see that
again. He questioned if the qualifications are determined before or after the bid is awarded.
Jamie Knutson confirmed that occurs prior to awarding the bid.
Page 3
Mr. Kurtenbach questioned the seven-day timeline and if that was included in the bid documents.
Courtney Violette explained this would be in the timeline of the bid documents.
Jamie Knutson commented that typically the city has up to 30 days to award the contract.
Steve Nadel shared that the answer could be found in the notice to bidders which will indicate
the date when bids are due and when the bids will be considered. The time between the two
dates is when the low bidder would be vetted.
Mr. Kurtenbach questioned if this is something that should or should not be asked in the bid
documents.
Jamie Knutson explained that this has never been done in thirty -years. He commented that this
would be something that can be discussed and reviewed with the city attorney.
Mr. Kurtenbach commented that we had a contractor doing a large concrete project and was
listed in contractor registration as a sole proprietor. He questioned how a sole proprietor does
not having more people working for him to do that much concrete work.
Jamie Knutson commented that he would welcome a conversation on this to gather specifics. If
there is something that is going on that we are doing or not doing, or a concern with a particular
contractor, we can address that separately.
Steve Nadel questioned if there is a plan for construction monitoring and management.
Courtney Violette that the City or Waterloo approved a new contract with them in January that
included project management services. Magellan will have one construction manager and one
additional inspector at all times during construction.
Jamie Knutson explained that the contractor has to post a bond for the entire cost of the project
and if the contractor fails the bonding company has to complete the project. He added that only
once in thirty years has it happened when a contractor failed.
Mr. Kurtenbach expressed his serious concerns of over discrepancies in prior statements made to
this Board compared to those made tonight. He stated that he needs an answer moving forward to
the question being asked in future bid documents.
Mr. VanFleet questioned if there is anything in the evaluation process that needs to be included.
Mr. Kurtenbach commented that once the low bidder and their subcontractors have been
identified, that information should be shared with the Board so we can look up those names to
see if they are registered and to ensure they are answering the questions correctly for the size of
the project we are looking at.
Mr. Batemon questioned if this would be done through a modification of statement of
qualifications.
Mr. Kurtenbach commented that this is what he thought was going to happen based on a
previous conversation.
Mr. Young requested an update on the Middle -Mile Grant.
Courtney Violette commented there are no updates as of yet but are hoping to hear something by
the end of the week.
Mr. Van Fleet commented that the liquidated damages dollar amount seems to be low if the
contractor is delayed. He questioned if the board is comfortable with that dollar amount.
Page 4
Courtney Violette commented that there was a legal component discussed to what was allowable
for liquidated damages.
Steve Nadel commented that he is aware that there are legal limitations, but he is unsure of what
those are.
Jamie Knutson commented that generally you have to show actual damage and it is for a certain
amount of time or money. He stated that he has one going on right now and it is costing the
contractor $1,000 per day because that is what is costing the city to provide additional
engineering inspections for that project.
Mr. Kurtenbach commented that is a double-edged sword as he knows several contractors that
have been reluctant to do work with the city due to the potential for lost damages.
Mr. Van Fleet commented that he is looking at page 3 of 6 of the notice to bidders. He stated
that he is excited to see construction starting in June. He questioned why it is not broken down
by phase by year.
Courtney Violette commented that the phases will be broken into task orders for the contractors
as they make progress on the project as opposed to rolling out an entire phase at once.
Mr. Van Fleet questioned if that was standard practice.
Courtney Violette explained it is more of a need to manage the project in its complexity.
Moved by Young seconded by Batemon. Roll call -vote Ayes: Four. Motion carried. Resolution
No. 2023-006.
5. Motion establishing the position of General Manager and approving the general form of a
job description and compensation package for said position.
The board and Kelley Felchle, Board Secretary, discussed how the process of posting and hiring
for the position.
Steve Nadel commented that the issuance of bonds will be used for working capital. Until rates
are set, the city can front money then be reimbursed on back end.
Mr. Kurtenbach questioned if a 28E Agreement is needed. And once hired, where will this
person's office be.
Mr. Van Fleet explained that he has had a conversation with Randy Bennett about this and he has
offered space at the Public Works facility. He also mentioned fueling trucks and utilizing
mechanics out of that facility as well to help prevent us from starting from scratch.
Courtney Violette commented that he and Randy also spoke on the matter as well. There will be
a number of operational things that will need to be corroborated with the city.
Mr. Van Fleet commented that they would really like to get this person hired by June 1. He will
be out of country for the entire month and will return on June 30th. He also commented that
there may be some bullet points with regard to physical demands that may not be applicable to
the General Manager that were left in the current document that will need to be removed.
Kelley Felchle explained that the document is the final that was provided by Human Resources
and that the physical demands are likely necessary. She added that if there are any changes
needed following tonight's discussion, she can work with Human Resources.
Mr. Bateman questioned if the title for the position would be Fiber Director of General Manager.
Page 5
The board members discussed options for the title. The title of General Manager of
Telecommunications was accepted by the board.
Rob Nichols questioned if the name of this organization has been finalized.
Mr. Van Fleet explained that the board has been working to condense the name down to two
words — Waterloo Fiber. He noted that a preliminary logo has been created which says locally
owned and operated, which is a huge differentiator between us and the competition.
Moved by Young seconded by Batemon. Voice -vote Ayes: Four. Motion carried.
6. Motion appointing Kelley Felchle as Board Secretary.
Moved by Kurtenbach seconded by Young. Voice -vote Ayes: Four. Motion carried.
7. Motion adopting an official seal of the Waterloo Telecommunications Utility Board of
Trustees.
Moved by Young seconded by Batemon. Voice -vote Ayes: Four. Motion carried.
8. General update from consultants and board member comments.
Steve Nadel commended the board for a great discussion today and noted that the engagement of
this board is very beneficial.
With no further business before the board, it was moved by Kurtenbach seconded by Young that
the meeting be adjourned at 5:06 p.m. Voice -vote Ayes: Four. Motion carried.
7(gCCey Fef/Ce
Kelley Felchle
Board Secretary