Laserfiche WebLink
LRRWMO Meeting Minutes <br />September 17, 1992 <br />Page 13 <br />NEW BUSINESS <br />Engineering Contract <br />The board acknowledged that, according to state statute, they <br />must go out for bids for engineering services every two <br />years. The LRRWMO attorney had previously advised that the <br />board could probably put together its own contract form. <br />Discussion ensued with regard to which engineering firms <br />could be asked to provide a bid for engineering consulting <br />services and still not be in conflict with engineering <br />services provided to any of the four member cities. Schultz <br />felt there should be no problem with such a conflict as long <br />as the firm hired understands the person doing the LRRWMO <br />reviews is not the same person involved with member city <br />plans. Jankowski queried the possibility of contracting with <br />another WMO or watershed who has its own engineer on staff. <br />Some of the issues encompassed in an engineering contract for <br />the LRRWMO should include, according to the board: 1) a per <br />hour fee charged for the various permit reviews; 2) the <br />qualifications of the engineering acting as the LRRWMO <br />consultant; 4) the understanding that the LRRWMO Consulting <br />Engineer shall not be the engineering firm's engineer <br />involved in a member city's project which will be reviewed by <br />the LRRWMO; and 3) a flat fee charged by the engineer for <br />meeting attendance, not an hourly rate. <br />Schultz suggested the board set aside a special work session <br />specifically to work on the contract. He recommended members <br />bring to the next regular meeting contract ideas and a <br />suggested list of engineers. <br />Weaver asked Schrantz to provide this board with a sample <br />engineering contract used by the Coon Creek Watershed. <br />Joint Powers Agreement Discussions <br />Schrantz indicated the LRRWMO attorney has advised that this <br />board's Joint Powers Agreement is not in compliance with <br />state statutes. Jankowski was of the opinion that the issue <br />should be put on hold until we have a better focus on where <br />we are going with these changes. Weaver noted the issue was <br />tabled indefinitely at the August 1992 regular meeting. <br />Updated Bylaws <br />The board considered the updated version of the board's <br />Bylaws. Mikkonen explained that the changes were basically <br />minor language changes, along with the meeting date amendment <br />