Laserfiche WebLink
Metadata
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015 Laserfiche. All rights reserved.
ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL—November 9, 2009 15 <br /> 8. Unfinished Business <br /> Councilmember Holmes clarified that Task 1 went through March of 2010. She asked if this <br /> should go further than this. <br /> Civil Engineer Giga stated that the preliminary design process is close to completion and should <br /> be completed in March—April 2010. <br /> Councilmember Holmes asked if the City would be asked to give municipal consent in March— <br /> April 2010. <br /> Civil Engineer Giga stated that this was correct. <br /> Councilmember Holden stated that the time frame for Task 1 should be changed from "October <br /> to March 2010" to "November to April 2010." She also stated that she would like to have a better <br /> scope of services. <br /> Civil Engineer Giga stated that the change could be made to the date. She also stated that she <br /> could ask for more detail on the scope of services for the Council. <br /> Mayor Harpstead clarified that these contracts are time contracts with participation at meetings <br /> that the City has identified. <br /> Civil Engineer Giga stated that this is correct. They attend the monthly project meetings that the <br /> City has with the County, their consultants and Mn/DOT and Task 1 includes the review of the <br /> EA and attendance at the public hearing for the EA. <br /> Mayor Harpstead asked if there were specific deliverables with any of the Tasks. <br /> Civil Engineer Giga stated that the deliverable for the review of the EA would be a draft letter <br /> with concerns expressed by the City and this would be presented to the City Council for additions <br /> and changes. This would be similar to the one from the Interstate 694 EA review. The <br /> deliverable for Task 3 would be similar letters with comments. <br /> Councilmember McClung stated concerns that the City is moving more in the direction of <br /> consultant engineering services and he would like to see more internalization. <br /> City Administrator Moorse stated that the City has talked specifically with Roseville about <br /> putting together a plan for next year that would utilize Roseville more and to plan out the <br /> workload. He also pointed out the Highway 10 and County Road 96 project was a large project <br /> that the City does not typically see and the added use of consultants makes sense. <br /> Councilmember Holden asked if Bolton & Menk provided input at the County meetings that <br /> they attended. <br /> Civil Engineer Giga stated that they attend mainly for understanding and follow up if there is - <br /> anything that needs to be reviewed such as traffic documents. <br />