Laserfiche WebLink
<br />. <br /> <br />2004 City Engineer Annual Review <br />February 23, 2004 <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />1. What are some of the things that you felt went well during the calendar year <br />2003? (Things that you think URS did well.) <br /> <br />. Coordination with Ramsey County on the highway 96 project <br />. Neighborhood PMP process - developed and refined a process that can be <br />adapted to each neighborhood and continue to be improved. <br />. Creation of sanitary sewer grid map <br />. Creation of water main map <br />. Fine tuning of parks and trails map <br />. Karth Lake pumping project <br />. Improved use of technology for public presentations <br />. Management of significant infrastructure investment <br />. Coordination of MPCA storm water permit <br />. URS added that we (URS and City stafI) seemed to work together really <br />well. On Ingerson it went reasonably well. There were a few delays that <br />were out of our control. Many projects in 2003, required many people and <br />resources. In general, all projects came in under award, with no <br />significant change orders. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />2. What are some of the concerns that you had with the performance of the City <br />Engineer (URS) during the calendar year 20m? <br /> <br />. Instead of great work on all projects we did good work on all projects <br />(URS and staff) due to larger number of projects being done. <br />. Too many projects, resulting in City staff and URS being spread too thin <br />sometimes. <br />. Ingerson PMP project concerns including easement coordination and <br />resident notifications. <br />. Cummings Park Drive project manager (better coordination, definition of <br />scope); Over emphasis, more work than anticipated, bigger scope than <br />planned, Guidant felt it was over-managed. <br />. Aggressive long term capital expenditure proposals; better evaluation of <br />needed vs. desired; better assessment of the importance of projects in the <br />long run and in light of competing resources <br />. Better job of how we set deadlines; try for more realistic deadlines <br />. URS commented that in regard to Cummings Park Drive, in hindsight, we <br />should have itemized the scope of work. The project was bigger than the <br />Guidant and their general contractor anticipated. URS did what they <br />thought was necessary to protect the interests of the City. <br /> <br />. <br />