06-06-2011 Council Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Search

CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION June 6, 2011 APPROVED 91 quote on repair, the repairs are cone and the city seeks reimbursement by the League. The 92 reimbursement process is generally quick and efficient. The program also includes a 93 surplus return element. 94 95 7. Legacy Act Grants—Economic Development Coordinator Divine reviewed her 96 written report that outlines the process and requirements for accessing Legacy Act funds. 97 She reviewed the types of activities that are eligible and amounts available. Most of the 98 funding isn't available for municipal projects but there is a possibility that eventually the 99 city could identify water projects that could qualify at some level. 100 101 Council Member Roeser noted that he had attended a meeting regarding the Legacy 102 Funds and heard about lots of projects that seem to be associated with cities. He will be 103 speaking with and, in some cases meeting with,the state and county elected officials for 104 the area to continue the discussion on how the city may benefit from Legacy Funding. 105 106 Staff will continue to try and work funding into projects. 107 108 8. Local Surface Water Management Plan proposal—Community Development 109 Director Grochala reported that staff has worked further with EOR, Inc. to get the costs 110 down that would be associated with a local water management plan. The city could pull 111 back from some of the planning areas and other components with the understanding that 112 they could well be accomplished further down the line Although there doesn't appear to 113 be an average cost,he has spoken with other cities and found that they are mainly in the 114 same range as what this city is looking at. 115 116 The council will consider the EOR, Inc. proposal at the next council meeting. 117 118 9. Weekly Progress Report—Administrator Karlson reviewed the Weekly Progress 119 Report. 120 121 5. Engineering RFP's - Community Development Director Grochala noted the 122 interview process of the three finalist firms for the engineering contract. Since the 123 council wanted a more direct comparison between the proposed fees, each firm was asked 124 to provide supplemental information. That more detailed information on tasks and 125 personnel had been previously distributed to the council. Each of the three firms is 126 qualified to serve as city engineer for this city. Mr. Grochala stated that he originally had 127 some concern about the retainer package offered by one firm, but he has spoken with 128 other cities they serve and has heard of absolutely no problem with it. He asked the 129 council to consider that the retainer amount would not be the full budget, however, since 130 there would definitely be some services required that are not included in the retainer 131 package. 132 133 Administrator Karlson noted that he has seen use of an in-house engineering technician 134 being a good approach in some other cities and he thinks that may be a consideration for 135 Lino Lakes in the future. The council decision now should be on current needs. 3