---

With the pre-bid meeting scheduled for the end of this week, Taylors Falls City Council again took up discussing the city hall-fire hall new roof and exterior repairs and maintenance projects.  

Council has what one council member called a “gentleman’s agreement” with roofing providers The Garland Company,  to do design-bid-project management in one comprehensive services package.  Council member Tim Grote reminded the other two attending Monday night’s council meeting.  (Carol Schumann and Lee Samuelson absent) that this project is pretty far along by now. 

One council member, though, has questioned this process and continued with his concerns this week.  Robert Bayer declared the Garland services are not going to result in an “open and fair bid.” Taylors Falls will end up paying out excessive costs (25 to 35 percent) compared to other roofing projects.  Bayer cited a state auditor’s finding he located in an online search referencing a City of St. Cloud fiscal review, highlighting concerns about a project St. Cloud did through Garland.

Council member Tim Grote countered saying Garland is doing the work of a number of outside experts that Taylors Falls otherwise would have had to hire.  Garland is basically project manager in developing specs for the needed materials, they find an installer, inspect the ongoing work and stand behind a warranty.  He said the materials being specified are far superior to the single-ply flat roofing products commonly utilized. Grote added that Garland provided references for prior projects, when they came onboard noting that the “life expectancy” of the installation the city is expecting is twice what is normally promised.

Grote added that if council member Bayer is recommending to back-track on the timeline now, it is not going to leave the city in a good light.  Grote wants vendors and contractors to be able to rely on what (the city) promises, he continued.

Council member Bayer acknowledged, “I know it slows the process,” and “I really want to see this get done this year.”

Grote did bring a newly-negotiated  “scope of services” agreement for the council to adopt. 

He said he worked with Garland and defined what the city can expect from the company and most importantly — if the estimate by Garland of the top end of bidding is exceeded ($425,000) Taylors Falls will not be liable for any of the agreement or any fees.  If the Garland Company package goes through bidding but projects do not commence, Taylors Falls will pay three percent of the lowest bid amount to Garland for what the company has already spent developing the projects. 

Under advice of City Attorney Fritz Knaak, the council agreed the city engineer should be brought in to consult on reviewing the proposed projects and make recommendations for an “independent opinion.” He stated Garland “will understand” if the city just wants to protect itself and ensure this doesn‘t appear to be a closed process. 

Taylors Falls is looking to replace the flat roof on the city hall-fire station building, to repair and replace exterior damages and wear, and upgrade obsolete HVAC systems that are on the roof.  The city will borrow to do this work. 

In other discussion, the council adopted a fire contract shared with Shafer Township.  A small section of the township has a services agreement and the amount stays the same this year, at $19,000 approximately.

Mayor Brandon Weiberg explained the township is aware that the pending purchase of a new firefighting rescue rig will increase the contracted costs in the next couple years.

In another matter:

Taylors Falls currently allows one retail cannabis license within its downtown commercial district and Buck Duncan, owner of The Bridge, has been cleared by the city council for compliance based on his concept plan for a retail store offering cannabis, with the state Office of Cannabis Management now processing a state license.

However, the city has a downtown lot that it has offered for sale for years and there have been offers to purchase the site. Two offers are contingent on being able to qualify for a cannabis license and both applicants are “pre-approved” by the state as well.

Council had called a closed session on this issue last meeting and now has opened debate about how many cannabis licenses the council would be willing to consider if it facilitates selling this lot.

Some council persons indicated they have seen early proposals individually and there was some hesitancy on a couple proposals expressed.

The city economic development commission  also has some interest in researching a city-owned cannabis outlet, council heard.  None of the three city council members had any interest in pursuing a municipal owned operation.

There is one non-cannabis associated business proposal tied to a preliminary offer for buying the lot as well.

Council agreed the zoning administrator should contact all the interested parties and the council could review their presentations April 14. 

 The county will be consulted on property tax benefits arising from various uses. Also, depending on the plans presented council may or may not embrace increasing cannabis license opportunities.  Nobody declared they absolutely would oppose more than one license.

---