Laserfiche WebLink
4188.12 � y <br />COUNCIL M►FYfNG <br />TO: Mayor and City Council <br />PROMS Mark Bernhardson, City Administrator, <br />P.PR 1119H <br />DATE: April 1, 1988 CITY OF ORONO <br />SUBJRCT: Engineering Review - Orono/Minnetonka Beach Interceptor <br />Project <br />Attachement A. Metro Water/Orono Interceptor Dated 12/4/85 <br />ISSUE - Determination as to whether the City desires to employ a <br />dM erent engineering firm to do Inspections on behalf of the <br />City for the Orono/Minnetonka Beach interceptor. <br />INTRODUCTION - In 1985 when the Metropolitan W: 'e control <br />Cunnissl on was selecting consultants `or the project City of <br />Orono became aware that its city engineer Borg o was <br />submitting a bid. As noted in Attachment A the City i- :d to <br />the Engineer that on balance it could be benef iclal to Lit,. City <br />to have Its Engineering firm do the design in taking into <br />account special needs for Orono. <br />DISCUSSION - As the project gets closer and the fact that the <br />current City Council was not part of that 1986 discussion and a <br />concern regarding at leas' the appearance of conflict of interest <br />the Issue has been trough-, up for review. <br />The Issues addressed in Attachment A were related to engineering <br />and design issues with the '-gue of inspections left unaudressed. <br />It is my present understanding that Bonestro"'s work is now <br />substantially over and will be used In a consultation capacity as <br />to design issues when problems crop up during the contruction. <br />Metro Waste :g in charge of their our construction management and <br />inspections. <br />ALTERNATIVES - The alternatives at this point are as follows: <br />1. Continue the matter with the City Engineer. <br />2. Undertake se'.�ctlon of an alternate Engineer for <br />inspection on this project. <br />1. Table the matter for further consideration. <br />RECOMMENDATION - It 1s recommended that '_he Council not <br />undertake a determination of the availability of an alternative <br />engineer for its inspections on this project. It is the staf f's <br />feeling that the individual who has been delegated to the City by <br />Ronestroo is of an integrity that it will not be compromised <br />creating a conflict of interest especially since Bonestroo will <br />not be substantially Involvec: in the construction management and <br />inspection of the project. <br />PROPOSED MOTION - Moved by seconded by I that the City <br />retain Bone.ttroo for the inspection work on the Metro Waste <br />project on its behalf. Ayes . Nays <br />