Todd County leaders review solid-waste facility contingency, proposed change orders and new equipment purchases
Loading...
Summary
County staff reported the solid-waste transfer station construction is broadly on schedule but outlined several change orders and equipment purchases that would greatly reduce a 6% contingency; staff recommended paying some contractor charges and considering capital-fund financing for an expensive new loader/forklift hybrid.
Todd County officials heard an extended update and cost review on the new solid-waste transfer station and related equipment on March 18, with staff warning that a series of contractor change orders and recommended equipment purchases would consume most of the project contingency.
County staff said the prime contractor and design team have the main construction contract on track and are about two-thirds complete by dollar value. The county set an original contingency of 6% for the project (listed in staff materials as $577,000). Staff presented five near-term items—some already invoiced and some newly proposed—that together would sharply draw down that contingency if the board approves all of them.
Why it matters: the transfer-station project is funded from the solid-waste enterprise fund; major unplanned costs would reduce the department’s ability to absorb additional problems or to fund equipment. Staff asked the board for guidance on which change orders to approve and whether to finance one large equipment purchase from the county’s 2026 capital budget rather than using contingency funds.
Staff outlined the larger costs as follows: Minnesota Power costs to relocate and bury an overhead service that crossed the project site ($34,491, described by staff as a pass-through utility charge that Hy‑Tech paid to keep construction moving); plumbing plan-review and required additional oil separators imposed during the state review process (staff presented a plumbing-related amount of $48,575 and said the plan-review required more separators than were included in the original bid); foundation and pre‑engineered building “reaction” adjustments required by the building manufacturer after award ($37,115.91); and a proposed interior wall liner (metal panels instead of the soft rolled insulation originally specified) estimated at $66,745.
Staff said the first four of those items were change orders Hy‑Tech or the design team had already incurred or were strongly recommended by the consultant (Stantec), and that refusing payment could create contractual disputes. If the board approves the listed high‑priority items and the interior liner, staff estimated contingency would fall to roughly $95,000. That figure reflects the original 6% contingency minus the committed and proposed costs discussed in the meeting.
Equipment and operations: project staff reviewed equipment purchases that have already been ordered or are pending board action: a wheeled excavator (ordered), an on‑site semi and trailers (purchased), an additional semi and trailer set (approved at committee level), plus other items (forklift/grapple, collection bins). The facilities/operations team recommended buying a single new side‑entry loader that would replace two pieces of equipment (a forklift and a skid loader). Staff said combining the two purchases into one machine would cost roughly $120,000 and yield operational and safety benefits (side entry reduces slip‑and‑fall risk and the machine would support snow removal and compost operations). Staff recommended funding this purchase from the department’s capital‑improvement budget rather than the project contingency; that would preserve more contingency for construction unknowns.
Board direction and next steps: commissioners asked for more detail and for Stantec (the design and construction administration firm) to attend the next board meeting when staff brings formal change orders. Staff said they will return with board actions for the Hy‑Tech change orders (Minnesota Power, plumbing, foundation) and with a separate purchase request for the loader/forklift hybrid; they also asked whether the board wanted the interior wall liner brought forward as a change order. The board asked staff to present the change‑order documents and to invite the Stantec project manager to explain the technical bases.
Ending: County staff stressed the project remains on schedule for a substantial completion target in late summer, but emphasized that approving the outstanding contractor and equipment costs will sharply reduce the project’s contingency and should be considered deliberately rather than by default.
