|
<br />in the group. This is representing downstream and upstream and instream, recent meeting of this
<br />group we talked about this. Groups has been trying to push the idea of consultant work that
<br />supplements the overall EIS and feasibility report, anticipates our needs down the road, trying to
<br />help Tom on the overall management of this project, especially this splintering of details and
<br />keep things going, keep going forward, not stopped or surprised. This report is about that
<br />committee and what we have been doing. I have a handout that talks about money. (Hand out
<br />passed and then they go through it.) Three months to go at this year, and then look at what to do
<br />next year. This meeting, for water users, we are in the budgeting cycle, need to know to know
<br />what is the consultant outlook for next year, so we can get it in this year's budget. This handout
<br />is an attempt to give some sense of what the thinking is. See word "proposed" is used heavily in
<br />this document. Starts with a summary in presenting this info. Talks about the consulting process
<br />of this year, and money coming in, and money yet to come, and expenses and payments for the
<br />rest of the year. Backdrop of this: we felt we needed some short term help on the environmental
<br />part of this EIS. Haven't seen the draft EIS yet, Sept 30th was the deadline to get the preliminary
<br />EIS, we were told it wouldn't make that deadline. Best hope was produced for a review by end
<br />of October. Even that is some less than firm commitments on that. We were told we might get a
<br />preliminary draft with holes in it in Sept, now we can kind of plug those holes, and get the whole
<br />document by the end of October. This document is evolving into environmental mitigation, is
<br />one of most challenging parts of this process. We felt we were short in the technical expertise of
<br />environmental mitigation, identifying impacts and concepts and approaches that would be
<br />possible and useful in this EIS, we identified Steve Doherty, think he's qualified, got a SOW,
<br />sent him info, we are recommending to bring Steve in as rapidly as we can to focus on this one
<br />area of the environmental mitigation. We will discuss this today. Do we have the money to do
<br />this, this year? From this analysis, the amount of funds available is the fund on the bottom of the
<br />page, using the assumption that the environmental reconstruction would be done by the end of
<br />this year. Tracy, that's yours. There's $6,138 left, so part of this is we want to bring Steve in
<br />and do the mechanics of a contract to get this going, anticipating its going to be $15K, only have
<br />$6K. Need to request more funding for Steve. Go to next page, I produced this in last few days,
<br />to facilitate these conversations, not the final word on anything, my goal was to try and get
<br />funding entities to see what we're looking for funding in 2007 and 2008. Ties in with the first
<br />page, starts with consultant work still in front of us this quarter. Environmental restoration we
<br />talked about, hoped for, then Steve's work, then use of a co-facilitator helping out with the
<br />overall management. Will talk about who that would be... be available for the next 3 months.
<br />That comes to $49K. Funds available is $25,434, shortfall is $23,861. (checkfigures?) We
<br />would need that in the next 3 months. That's if the promises made for funding comes in.
<br />
<br />Rick (cont) - It is a cash flow thing. Think there's a Perry Park piece coming in, too. So this
<br />$23,861, if this work is something we can do, if they don't come in, maybe no co-facilitator.
<br />Next step: next year, lobbying work for federal funds and DC trips, and what to do in bills,
<br />helping out here, public outreach and coordination, I have in here approximately what they
<br />propose to do, a memo, $82K mayor may not be the right amount, it's a placeholder. Idea,
<br />environmental work and co-facilitator work will be here. My third proposal, because mitigation
<br />expenses and recreational component will be expensive, bring someone in now to see us through
<br />the full implementation of the recreational component. We haven't always been able to get
<br />together, these are some ideas some people on the committee haven't even seen. That third place
<br />
<br />This document represents the personal staff notes of Susan Maul and are not to be considered a formal record of
<br />this meeting.
<br />
<br />2
<br />
|