Laserfiche WebLink
<br />. <br /> <br />Upon further review of this request over the last month, I am having second <br />thoughts regarding any change in City policy. Resolution 89-12 was <br />approved for a reason and the intent of this Resolution was to provide the <br />City with better control of projects. Our goal has been accomplished with the <br />City Engineer providing better review, inspection and financial/construction <br />management of developer initiated public improvements. <br /> <br />Even with Resolution 89-12 in effect, the City still has problems with <br />developers grading before permits are obtained, roads being cut into or even <br />constructed without appropriate permits being obtained or inspections taking <br />place, and, in general, construction starting without the City Engineer <br />completing its review of plans and specifications. Overall, the City still has <br />problems in the scheduling of public improvements with developers moving <br />ahead before appropriate permits and regulations have been met. By <br />loosening up our City policy, we may be taking a step in the wrong direction <br />and, in fact, we may be encouraging the City to lose even more control or <br />management over privately financed sewer and water projects. Currently, <br />other developing cities such as the city of Eagan are taking steps to move <br />toward the policy that is in place in Elk River. The Council is under no <br />obligation to change our existing policy if they feel that it is working well and <br />accomplishing City goals. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />There has been lots of discussion in the past month or so about a staff City <br />Engineer position and department. I think that most of the Council senses <br />that there is a benefit to the City in having a City Engineer staff person in- <br />house to manage all of the necessary aspects of improvement projects. <br />However, everyone is also aware that there is some expense to the City for <br />this staff City Engineer position. It is assumed that this position and/or <br />department will be created at some time, but it is not known if the time is <br />now in the 1995 budget with the City having a population of 12,500, or if it <br />will happen in the 1996 or 1997 budget. Nonetheless, I think most people <br />believe that this position will happen sometime soon. <br /> <br />The Council may want to consider not making any change in our existing <br />policy as outlined in Resolution 89-12 that could cause us to have less control <br />in managing public improvements until this policy is looked at in a larger <br />context of all City engineering issues. New policies are adopted throughout <br />the year and policy changes happen as initiated by the Council, but we don't <br />want to be changing policies too often. In this regard, maybe Resolution 89- <br />12 should remain in place for at least a few more years. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />In conclusion, if the City Council wants to change our City engineering <br />policy, please see the draft Resolution submitted for your review. The only <br />change in our current policy that is permitted by this new Resolution is that <br />plans and specifications on privately financed projects can be completed by <br />