CCP 02-21-2006 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

. ~ ~HlLLS MEMORANDUM DATE: TO: FROM: February 14, 2005 Mayor and City Council '. .I.l~ I d Michelle Wolfe, City Administrator ~'f ITEM 2A SUBJECT: February 21 Work Session Discussion: Engineering Services 2005 Review BACKGROUND Every year, we attempt to meet with URS, our consulting engineers, and perform an annual review. We look back at the previous year and answer a series of questions to try and evaluate performance. Those five questions are: 1. 2. . 3. 4. 5. What are some of the things that you felt went well during the calendar year 2005? What are some of the concerns that you had with the performance of the city Engineer (URS) during the calendar year 2005? Are there certain strengths and weaknesses that you would like to observe about the performance ofURS in 2005? What suggestions do you have for any changes during calendar year 2005? Are there any other comments you would like to make about the performance of URS during calendar year 2005? All department heads were asked to submit their responses to these questions, and to consult with the employees in their respective departments as appropriate. I also asked for input from the City Council. The responses I received were compiled into the attached summary document. DISCUSSION In general I included all comments I received in the attached summary. In cases where comments were similar, I combined them in some kind of summary statement, then indicated in parentheses how many people made a comment to that effect. We met with representatives from URS on January 31 to review this document. In addition, URS prepared a bound booklet entitled "Summary of Project Design and Construction Activities for 2004-2005". URS was invited to prepare a report with their responses and reactions to the January 3 I meeting. That report is attached. -