|
<br />John Hendrick: We need to clarify, you as the CWCB rep, project sponsor rep, had assumption you were giving this project
<br />direction, we channel things through you, CWCB at the pivot point. Flows through you. Every project needs a
<br />daddy!coordinator. Never intended we would all sit around and decide what action of consultants would be without your
<br />coordination. We want to direct consultants as a team, but expected you to be in leadership of the team. Large committee,
<br />need decisions made. Clarify your intent as leader? If not, who is leader?
<br />
<br />Tom: Everything would be (refers to organizational chart) CWCB is nonfederal sponsor and project sponsor coordination
<br />non federal, up to this point I don't know where I haven't been in the loop by cc or e-mail, I want to alleviate any fears that
<br />there is any circumnavigation here, either to me or through me, instead of translating all the time, in the past when some of
<br />these management decisions were at CWCB and didn't go too well with the group, timeout, step back and see what the
<br />water users want. As funding entities of support services, asked for more input on decision and direction, now hearing
<br />something different. Proposing this committee formed on Aug 22 as a managing/guiding committee, in harmony with
<br />upstream downstream interests, bring things back to the larger group, let's hear some other ideas.
<br />
<br />Jeff Shoemaker: Little bit of history, put fonvard some thoughts on how to handle this. Everyone who was on Tom's email
<br />of last Tuesday got from me... have 25 copies of this e-mail (passed out) of cost sharing by the water users agreed to
<br />earlier in the year. John and I don't always agree, or Rick and I... I agree with Rick that we are talking about this, anyone
<br />who comes to meeting, consultants, on behalf of CWCB, my memory is water users to fund on behalf of CWCB.
<br />Appropriate that this type of discussion and reports from consultants happen. Want to always be clear how we integrate
<br />with CWCB as nonfederal sponsor. One of most unique aspects of this project, most of us have critical issues at stake, at
<br />those decision making place of CWCB. Here to support them at this process. Speaking as the director of Greenway, has
<br />been manager of escrow account (unique). One of the smallest of instream water users has been overseeing the financial
<br />contracts. I am here as a nonprofit, if we can work the details, will allow however the dominos fall, it is your consultants
<br />that made this possible. We all supported that, that's the value of working together. Success of this project is
<br />collaboration. We have 9 members of the delegations on board agreeing. Speaks to the fact that this project is succeeding
<br />on us working together instead of caring for our own individual agendas. One of the key purposes of these meeting is
<br />people knowing how their money is being spent. Enough instant communication that they can know how you feel. This is
<br />not an 8-5 group (3 person group). No hesitation on discussing any of your concerns. What needs to happen: 1) needs to
<br />be determine what tasks should be accomplished by consultants in 2008. Where is there a gap? What do you need? Doing
<br />this with State personnel is not possible. Can't give private money to the state. Means you got a working engine, don't
<br />mess with it, have your consultants funded by private contacts. 2) Determine the authority of the consultants. How much
<br />power? How much speaking for you? How much do you trust your consultants? 3) Determine your budget. Figure what
<br />you need and what it will cost. Then get RPFs and proposals. Then come up with who pays for it. Formula in place is
<br />already working pretty well. Is there a better scenario? Tell us. By Sept 24th, deadlines are approaching. 4) I think there
<br />should be an extension of the smaller group that is meeting. I am not clear who is on. Propose these: CCWCD, Aurora;
<br />Denver Water as instream representative. Upstream, Centennial, Castle Pines North. CWCB. 6 representatives. Danger
<br />of ties, but I don't see happening, balanced interests, 5) we are going to run out of money before end of this year. I have
<br />commitments from all on the chart. Gave you down to penny where your money is. Sent you every invoice, every penny
<br />of interest. Got this till end of July. Do you trust your foundation?
<br />
<br />John (1 R of Rod): How can we be running out of money?
<br />
<br />Jeff: I mean there is still @$33K owed by entities in red, that haven't paid into the 07 kitty. Perry Park will not participate
<br />in lobbying, not paying it.
<br />
<br />Sheela: Perry Park - board is going to go ahead and pay it.
<br />
<br />Jeff: Thank you. Two entities on my chart need to be discussed by this small group. Hock Hocking and State Parks.
<br />Parks clear not supportive of this concept. Add all of this, paid partially for some, that's where we come up with running
<br />out of money. Tried to put that down in my memo. Pledge or contractual commitments that need to be paid. My final
<br />thing today, the last full paragraph in my memo, concerns among the water users, if my agency isn't the right one to
<br />manage this escrow, needs to be somebody in charge of your money... .who do you want to manage the escrow account?
<br />Honored to do it. But I need to know there is 100% trust in Jeff Shoemaker and the Greenway Trust. Won't deal with
<br />innuendos. Suggest that you all think about this and assign a 5 member subcommittee, my idea or else staffed, to get this
<br />done so we can meet the goal at the table. So at Sept 23rd we can continue our work.
<br />
<br />Tom: Any questions on that? We have suggestions on 6 different people, different from discussion on 22nd, any
<br />discussion?
<br />
<br />John Hendrick: Who was involved? I'm not here to vote on constituents, relevant for somebody, Rick? To give us a status.
<br />5
<br />
|