Laserfiche WebLink
<br />. <br /> <br />~ <br />~~HILLS <br /> <br />MEMORANDUM <br /> <br />DATE: <br /> <br />September 12, 2005 <br /> <br />AGENDA ITEM #1 <br />Work Session <br /> <br />TO: <br /> <br />Mayor and Cily Council <br /> <br />SUBJECT: <br /> <br />\ <br />I, \ <br />Michelle Wolfe, City Administrator (i\.V~) <br /> <br />September 12 Work Session: Shared Civil Engineering Services with the City of <br />Roseville <br /> <br />FROM: <br /> <br />Following the September 12 Regular Meeting, staff would like to take the opportunity to update <br />you regarding the proposal to share civil engineering services with the City of Roseville. Staff <br />ahs been actively engaged with Roseville staff in evaluating this possibility. <br /> <br />BACKGROUND <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />The City Council authorized a new position of Civil Engineer a few years ago. The position has <br />been included in the budget since 2004. Last fall, we conducted a recruitment process which was <br />unsuccessful. Then, in February 2005 staff presented several option to Coucnil. These options <br />included: <br /> <br />1. Try another recruitment process <br />a. With no changes to the salary or job description <br />b. With changes to the salary and job description <br />i, Increased salary/title/responsibilities <br />ii. Change to a Engineering Technician position of some kind <br />2. Partner with a neighboring City for some engineering services <br />3. Explore a different model for our consulting engineering contract services* <br /> <br />*This would involve a model used in several cities, where the contract engineering firm provides <br />a "City Engineer" who keeps an office at City Hall and primarily works out of City Hall. <br /> <br />Council directed staff to look at Option #3. We then began working closely with Roseville staff <br />to determine the viability of this option. In July, both the Arden Hills and Roseville City <br />Councils discussed this topic at work sessions, and both Councils directed respective staff <br />members to proceed (cautiously) wilh further development of this option. Since that time, we <br />have been developing a Joint Powers Agreement. <br /> <br />e DISCUSSION <br />