Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Staffing topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commission debates keeping consultant engineer on‑call versus hiring in‑house
Summary
Commissioners discussed whether to routinely require the township engineer at meetings or to use Carol Engineering on an as‑needed basis. Arguments included cost savings of a consultant and the benefit of an in‑house engineer for technical review; staff said no active hiring search is underway.
The Planning Commission spent substantial time on June 9 weighing whether to request a township engineer at every meeting, rely on an on‑call consultant, or pursue hiring an in‑house engineer.
Several commissioners said having an engineer present for major or technically complex projects is valuable for clarifying submissions and answering code questions. "If there's a project like Wawa coming before us, yes, by all means, I think we can make the recommendation to the supervisors to have him here," one commissioner said.
Others emphasized cost control and the adequacy of consultant reviews. Staff noted the township has used consultants such as Carol Engineering for about 15 years and that the current arrangement saves money compared with maintaining a full‑time in‑house engineer. Staff said hiring remains a possibility but that there was no active search at this time.
Chris Pearson (Carol Engineering) confirmed that consultants provide review letters and can attend meetings for complicated projects at the commission's request. Commissioners agreed to continue the current model of asking the township consultant to attend as needed while reserving the right to request in‑person attendance for technically complicated submissions.
No formal policy change was adopted at the meeting; commissioners asked staff to continue arranging consultant attendance on an as‑needed basis and to raise hiring with the board of supervisors if circumstances change.
