5.6b ERMUSR 08-09-20221
Slominski, Theresa
From:Slominski, Theresa
Sent:Monday, July 25, 2022 11:09 AM
To:David Roedel; 'bob.meurer@bolton-menk.com'; Ninow, David; Geiser, Tom;
'jsargent@newlookcontracting.net'; 'jmitchell@newlookcontracting.net';
'tmicholski@newlookcontracting.net'; 'jason.buboltz@bolton-menk.com'; Brak Braken
Cc:Lee Elfering; Sandhoefner, Ryan
Subject:RE: CSAH 13
Attachments:CSAH 13 SP 071-613-012 Weekly Meeting Minutes 09292021.pdf
Dave,
Thanks for the reply. My apologies on getting back to you. The holiday and vacations got in the way. We did some
additional digging into details of our own.
I can understand your willingness to focus on what we were willing to pay with the original quotes and taking the
position we should just pay the full final invoice amount. We all agree that ERMU should pay for the costs of the
watermain. However, our position is that there was work that had to be redone that should have been avoided, and we
are unwilling to pay for those additional costs. Since the comparison of the quotes and the actual work done seems to
be an obstacle to overcome, we are focusing on some easily identifiable facts.
In the Weekly Progress Meeting Minutes from 9/29/2021, item 5.h.iii, it states: “Relocation needed if existing lines are
less than 5 feet deep ‐ Insulate from 5 to 7 feet deep” (meeting minutes attached.) After that date the road was graded
and graveled in several areas where insulating and/or lowering of the watermain was necessary, resulting in more street
salvaging and replacing costs. An area of particular concern is the extra street costs on the south end of the project
between Line Avenue and the gas crossings where the watermain was lowered for 157 feet and insulated another 24
feet. At the south end of that section the watermain was approximately 3 feet deep where the previous offset
completed by New Look was connected back into the original watermain. Therefore, the watermain work included
redoing a portion of a watermain offset that was already done by New Look and was continuous from that offset to the
gas main. The total cost of the street salvaging and replacing in that area was $14,554.00. The street repair for 157 feet
of lowering was done at $82.00/lf and the 24 feet of insulating was done at $70.00/lf for a total of $14,554.00.
We are unwilling to pay for this rework cost of $14,554.00. The total invoice of $212,985.56, less $14,554.00 is
$198,431.56, and that is the maximum amount we will pay. I can certainly take this back to our commission to officially
approve at our next commission meeting August 9.
Thank you,
Theresa
Theresa Slominski |General Manager
Elk River Municipal Utilities | ERMUMN.com
w 763.441.2020 | d 763.635.1325 | f 763.441.8099
13069 Orono Parkway | PO Box 430 | Elk River, MN 55330‐0430
From: David Roedel <David.Roedel@co.sherburne.mn.us>
Sent: Friday, July 1, 2022 5:40 PM
To: Slominski, Theresa <tslominski@ermumn.com>; 'bob.meurer@bolton‐menk.com' <bob.meurer@bolton‐
menk.com>; Ninow, David <dninow@ermumn.com>; Geiser, Tom <tgeiser@ermumn.com>;
'jsargent@newlookcontracting.net' <jsargent@newlookcontracting.net>; 'jmitchell@newlookcontracting.net'
90
2
<jmitchell@newlookcontracting.net>; 'tmicholski@newlookcontracting.net' <tmicholski@newlookcontracting.net>;
'jason.buboltz@bolton‐menk.com' <jason.buboltz@bolton‐menk.com>; Brak Braken
<Brak.Braken@co.sherburne.mn.us>
Cc: Lee Elfering <lelfering@elferingeng.com>; Sandhoefner, Ryan <rsandhoefner@elkrivermn.gov>
Subject: Re: CSAH 13
No problem Theresa.
I simply wanted to get the response out.
Take your time reviewing and we can talk later.
Have a great weekend as well.
Sent via the Samsung Galaxy S20 FE 5G, an AT&T 5G smartphone
Get Outlook for Android
From: Slominski, Theresa <tslominski@ermumn.com>
Sent: Friday, July 1, 2022 3:28:51 PM
To: David Roedel <David.Roedel@co.sherburne.mn.us>; 'bob.meurer@bolton‐menk.com' <bob.meurer@bolton‐
menk.com>; Ninow, David <dninow@ermumn.com>; Geiser, Tom <tgeiser@ermumn.com>;
'jsargent@newlookcontracting.net' <jsargent@newlookcontracting.net>; 'jmitchell@newlookcontracting.net'
<jmitchell@newlookcontracting.net>; 'tmicholski@newlookcontracting.net' <tmicholski@newlookcontracting.net>;
'jason.buboltz@bolton‐menk.com' <jason.buboltz@bolton‐menk.com>; Brak Braken
<Brak.Braken@co.sherburne.mn.us>
Cc: Lee Elfering <lelfering@elferingeng.com>; Sandhoefner, Ryan <rsandhoefner@elkrivermn.gov>
Subject: RE: CSAH 13
Good afternoon Dave,
With the holiday weekend and people out of the office, I will review your response and get back to you next week.
Have a safe and happy 4th of July,
Theresa
Theresa Slominski |General Manager
Elk River Municipal Utilities | ERMUMN.com
w 763.441.2020 | d 763.635.1325 | f 763.441.8099
13069 Orono Parkway | PO Box 430 | Elk River, MN 55330‐0430
From: David Roedel <David.Roedel@co.sherburne.mn.us>
Sent: Friday, July 1, 2022 11:59 AM
To: Slominski, Theresa <tslominski@ermumn.com>; 'bob.meurer@bolton‐menk.com' <bob.meurer@bolton‐
menk.com>; Ninow, David <dninow@ermumn.com>; Geiser, Tom <tgeiser@ermumn.com>;
'jsargent@newlookcontracting.net' <jsargent@newlookcontracting.net>; 'jmitchell@newlookcontracting.net'
<jmitchell@newlookcontracting.net>; 'tmicholski@newlookcontracting.net' <tmicholski@newlookcontracting.net>;
'jason.buboltz@bolton‐menk.com' <jason.buboltz@bolton‐menk.com>; Brak Braken
<Brak.Braken@co.sherburne.mn.us>
Cc: Lee Elfering <lelfering@elferingeng.com>; Sandhoefner, Ryan <rsandhoefner@elkrivermn.gov>
Subject: RE: CSAH 13
Good morning Theresa.
91
3
Thanks for the reply. My apologies for the delay on getting back to you. We needed to dig into the all the details more.
There were vacations and COVID that got in the way as well.
In review of the two quotes, as you identified, they are not the same and there are discrepancies between them. The
Brenteson quote does not include several items of work that were necessary to be performed and also did not include
unit pricing for some items listed in the quote to allow for proper comparison. The original quotes from both contractors
are estimates that were used to approximate what work may be necessary related to the watermain based on
incongruent assumptions and not the actual work performed, as it should be. The quotes were nothing more than
approximations should not be used as a basis for payment. My comment during our meeting was whether these were
apples to apples and if so, there is validity to look at the two and to do some comparison of sorts. The installed
quantities were reviewed and approved by ERMU staff or their consultant and there was concurrence by all parties to
the work performed as it related to the watermain.
However, what is of importance in looking at the Brenteson quote is that this is a proposal that identified ERMU’s
willingness to participate in that amount. That number was $220,000. Additionally ERMU Board approved $261,000 for
the work. What was omitted from the Brenteson quote, were approved items by all parties as part of actual
construction of the watermain which were needed to be performed. The items omitted in the Brenteson work included
mobilization and superintendent, proof rolling, leak detection, exploratory excavation and removal of a valve box and
fittings. This total is $20,483.07. Being that the Brenteson quote is the basis of what you were willing to participate in
by having Brenteson perform the work, the total expected participation would have been $240,483.07 with the
approved additional work not provided in the Brenteson estimate. As noted here and below is all items specifically
related to watermain are 100% ERMU.
I have provided a cost calculation sheet that utilizes the Brenteson quote for a visual on an analysis that includes the
Brenteson unit pricing when provided and actual installed quantities. Where there was no Unit price provided by
Brenteson, I utilized the unit price provided by NL. The Brenteson quote excluded items related to insulation, so NL
quantities and unit pricing were used. Also, included is a cost calculation at the bottom of the sheet that includes a
sharing of the discrepancy.
Based on the idea that the total change order for the watermain work ($212k) is less than the original Brenteson quote
plus omitted items ($240k), we feel that the amount of $212,985.56 is reasonable for ERMU to pay. We all know this
work was necessary as a result of watermain conflicts that were not identified during design and not further explored
during the early stages of construction.
In review of Lee’s values, conceptually he did a comparison of the total quotes. The analysis is suggesting a proposed
cost share that included watermain items that would be 100% ERMU responsibility and not shared. In the sheet
attached, I utilized the Brenteson unit pricing for Watermain items if provided, so a calculation and comparison of
discrepancies between Brenteson and NL unit pricing does not apply. The NL provided unit prices were used by Lee if a
Brenteson Unit price was not provided in his latest analysis. The only item in question remaining is street restoration
and as per Lee’s calculations, the difference is split. When adding items that were omitted from the Brenteson quote,
the calculations would indicate that the ERMU cost would be greater than the $212,985.56 when separating 100%
ERMU watermain items so it is reasonable for ERMU to pay the full amount. Simply wanted to touch back on Lee’s
analysis and it being higher as well.
I would be happy to sit down with you and go over the details with you.
Let me know about the meeting and dates that may work for you.
Thank you.
92
4
David A. Roedel, P.E.
Assistant Public Works Director / Deputy County Engineer
Work: (763) 765-3352
www.co.sherburne.mn.us
www.facebook.com/SherburneCountyMN
NOTICE: Unless restricted by law, email correspondence to and from
Sherburne County government offices may be public data subject to the
Minnesota Data Practices Act and/or may be disclosed to third parties.
From: Slominski, Theresa <tslominski@ermumn.com>
Sent: Friday, June 3, 2022 4:30 PM
To: 'bob.meurer@bolton‐menk.com' <bob.meurer@bolton‐menk.com>; Ninow, David <dninow@ermumn.com>;
Geiser, Tom <tgeiser@ermumn.com>; 'jsargent@newlookcontracting.net' <jsargent@newlookcontracting.net>;
'jmitchell@newlookcontracting.net' <jmitchell@newlookcontracting.net>; 'tmicholski@newlookcontracting.net'
<tmicholski@newlookcontracting.net>; 'jason.buboltz@bolton‐menk.com' <jason.buboltz@bolton‐menk.com>; Brak
Braken <Brak.Braken@co.sherburne.mn.us>; David Roedel <David.Roedel@co.sherburne.mn.us>
Cc: Lee Elfering <lelfering@elferingeng.com>; Sandhoefner, Ryan <rsandhoefner@elkrivermn.gov>
Subject: CSAH 13
Good afternoon,
In the interest of trying to resolve the watermain extra work change order we directed Lee to compare the quotes
received from New Look and Brenteson as was discussed at our last meeting. I have attached the memo we received
from him which describes his review. In short, he felt that there were some discrepancies in the two quotes and
provided an estimated adjustment for consideration. In looking over the information I can support an increase in
ERMU’s participation by the amount he outlined for a total contribution of $189,286.13. That results in $23,699.44 of
the request from New Look unpaid. Based on our negotiations with New Look prior to approving them to complete the
work we do not feel that payment of this remaining portion is the responsibility of ERMU. When you have all had a
chance to review this information we are happy to have a more detailed discussion at another meeting to expedite
closure of this change order if needed.
Thank you,
Theresa
Theresa Slominski |General Manager
Elk River Municipal Utilities | ERMUMN.com
w 763.441.2020 | d 763.635.1325 | f 763.441.8099
13069 Orono Parkway | PO Box 430 | Elk River, MN 55330‐0430
This email (including any attachments) may contain information that is private or business confidential. If you received
this email in error, please delete it from your system without copying it and notify sender by reply email so that our
records can be corrected.
CAUTION: This email came from outside of Sherburne County. If you suspect this isn't legitimate, please use
the PHISH ALERT button.
This email (including any attachments) may contain information that is private or business confidential. If you received
this email in error, please delete it from your system without copying it and notify sender by reply email so that our
records can be corrected.
93
5
CAUTION: This email came from outside of Sherburne County. If you suspect this isn't legitimate, please use
the PHISH ALERT button.
94