Laserfiche WebLink
I~em 5.11. <br /> <br />City/County Engineering Meeting Minutes <br />Tuesday, January 27, 2004 <br /> Prepared by Terry Maurer <br /> <br />Attendees <br />Terry Maurer, Elk River City Engineer; Dave Schwarting, Sherburne County <br />Engineer. <br /> <br />County Road 44 Reconstruction Status <br />Dave indicated that he had reviewed the revised proposal from the City of Elk <br />River for the reconstruction of County Road 44 with the County Administrator. <br />Dave informed Terry that it was his opinion that the only workable format of <br />the proposal was the original one submitted to the City from the County, <br />which called for the City to take the lead on the project, including letting of the <br />project and entedng into the contract with the contractor. The pros and cons <br />of having the City Engineer take the lead on a County construction project <br />within the City limits were discussed. After that discussion, Terry asked Dave <br />if he would resubmit his original proposal to the City with a cover letter <br />indicating that this was the only acceptable format to the County and give the <br />City a reasonable time to respond positively or negatively. <br /> <br />Terry presented to Dave his preliminary findings relative to County Cost <br />Participation Policies. His preliminary findings included policies from Anoka, <br />Washington, Wright and Sherburne Counties. Terry also presented a <br />hypothetical urban county road construction project roughly fashioned after <br />the County Road 40 project (Cleveland Avenue) in the City of Elk River. The <br />preliminary findings showed that Sherburne County was far and away the <br />highest-rated county relative to the cost the City would bear for that <br />reconstruction. After reviewing the information, Dave indicated that when he <br />developed Sherburne County's policy, he had modeled it after other policies <br />he thought would show much higher city participation than Anoka, <br />Washington or Wright Counties. Terry asked Dave which counties he would <br />like to be added to this analysis. The counties Dave suggested were Carver, <br />Scott, Ramsey, and Dakota. Terry indicated that he would attempt to get <br />those counties' Cost Participation Policy and expand the analysis. Terry also <br />indicated to Dave that if he found any other information that he would like to <br />see on this analysis to forward that information to Terry and he would.include <br />it. Terry and Dave concluded the meeting by concurring that they would try to <br />formalize the comparison of Sherbume County's Cost Participation Policies <br />relative to other counties and have it ready for presentation to the next <br />monthly meeting at which the elected officials and administrators would <br />attend. <br /> <br />Next Meeting <br />The next Meeting would be scheduled for Tuesday, February 24, 2004. <br />Since it is a meeting to be attended by the elected officials and the County <br />and City administrators, the meeting will be held at the Sherburne County <br />Government Center at 3:30 p.m. <br /> <br />O:\HRG\1020\102000.Adrnin\Clerical\Sarah\Terry\County-City Engineer Meeting Minutes\CCEM-012804-minutes.doc ...~....~ <br /> <br /> <br />