Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Kent: (?): Who would supervise? <br /> <br />McAuliffe: Us, unless you don't want us to supervise. <br /> <br />Kent (?) At that time, are we issuing bids? CWCB does that? Concerned that Parks needs to <br />have some role in this. <br /> <br />McAuliffe: We are not bound, if you do the RFQ you pre-qualify people to do this work. If <br />Parks don't want to do an RFQ they can say so, the process is different, not outside, it's a <br />decision items, and the long bill? <br /> <br />Dave Giger: When will it be done... not 2009? <br /> <br />McAuliffe: It would take a while.. .like wetlands replacement, that will take a long time to do. <br />A year after the ROD, perhaps. If one qualification of the RFQ is who can finish it in a <br />particular part of time. .. <br /> <br />Sandy Rayl: How can we start using the space before the construction is finished, don't have to <br />necessarily wait to the end. <br /> <br />McAuliffe: They are eager to use the storage space, work hand in hand with us, but as to getting <br />a commitment... <br /> <br />Rick - W want to minimize the adverse impact on the parks, so that the visitor-ship and people <br />have a minimal effect, work out whatever that is, but in order to be able to store water in there, in <br />some way it makes sense that we will mitigate it before we adversely impact it in the process. <br />We've waited this long, could wait a little more? Pushing ahead aggressively to adversely <br />impact before we do mitigation, don't know about that wisdom. <br /> <br />Rich Vidmar: The $80 million does not include cost of storage. <br /> <br />Rick: Anything else to speak on this? Three things, find new consultants, who, how much, do <br />we need people? And who might be? And co-facilitator. We as a group we have gone, a <br />number of names generated, had one informal interview with one person, and then another <br />person, further thought of who might be, this part is awkward, they are in the room, and this <br />person knows we are bout to talk about here, in talking to people with qualifications on paper, <br />but new to Chatfield Process, need inside knowledge of this. How easy for a new person to <br />make a misstep, and how overwhelming this might be. Floating this to the group, someone who <br />knows it already, it is Katie. Ifwe can get Brighton to find someone else, if we can get Katie as <br />the co-facilitator, we haven't talked with Brighton yet, don't want to wait too long. Katie Fendel. <br />This isn't a final decision, this is where we are heading.. . Katie becomes our representative. This <br />is the Committees recommendation, with a majority recommending it. Not everyone talking <br />about it. This is something we have to agree to, general consensus.. .had newer names, looking <br />for familiarity, and strength in Corps regulations, understanding of the process. <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 />5 <br />