Laserfiche WebLink
Mr. Lehrer asked Mr. Phelan and Ms. Waygan to repeat their former statements regarding goals. <br /> Mr. Phelan clarified that the goal was to update, modify or eliminate according to the current <br /> regional and state standards. Ms. Waygan suggested a goal should be "strategies to resolve <br /> conflicts between priority issue areas" and that one of the big goals should be to have a new <br /> Visioning Statement. Mr. Lehrer responded that he felt this was more of a deliverable to which <br /> Ms. Waygan agreed. <br /> Mr. Phelan said he felt that Mr. Lehrer did a nice job with the draft and appreciated this because <br /> it makes the process easier to follow. Mr. Lehrer said that the Planning Department is <br /> undertaking a lot of work so he is trying to give little pieces at a time and that this document will <br /> grow significantly over the next month. He is trying to keep the process moving along while <br /> trying to work on other projects at the same time. These documents will continue to evolve and <br /> become more robust. Mr. Phelan asked if there were more comments on the goals and that he <br /> wanted to discuss the schedule as well. Mr. Lehrer asked if there were further comments on the <br /> goals. If there were no further comments, he said that he would continue to work on the <br /> document with comments made and prepare a new second draft for the next meeting. Ms. <br /> Waygan asked Mr. Lehrer if she could email him with some edits to which he agreed. Mr. <br /> Lehrer indicated that if there were no further comments he wanted to move onto a discussion of <br /> the issuance of the RFP. He wanted to be sure that he was allowing enough of time to produce <br /> this document so that it is thoughtful and not rushed. He further stated that when the document <br /> is issued, it will definitely impact when the Board gets working and wanted to make everyone <br /> aware of how the date of issuance will impact project timelines. If RFP is released by the first <br /> week of April,the contract would likely be awarded at the beginning of June. It would take a <br /> month to execute contract, so work may not begin until July at the earliest. Mr. Lehrer said that <br /> they could rush and issue the RFP in a month's time which would only give the Board one more <br /> meeting to go through it. He expressed that he is hesitant to do that and wanted to be sure that <br /> the Board is comfortable with pushing that timeline. Chair Phelan said that he felt having two <br /> more meetings would be better so that a vote could then be taken at the second meeting to move <br /> the RFP forward. He asked if everyone agreed with this. All members were in agreement. <br /> Mr. Lehrer said this would stay on as an agenda item for the next meeting. He reiterated at the <br /> next meeting he hopes to have the RFP in a nearly complete form, finish the Gantt Chart and <br /> adjust accordingly to the RFP timeline previously discussed, complete the outline with the <br /> comments that were submitted by Ms. Waygan and Mr. Hansen along with any new comments <br /> received before the next meeting. Mr. Hansen asked Mr. Lehrer if the goals and other <br /> information that he had emailed earlier fit into this. Mr. Lehrer stated that he did review the <br /> information which seemed consistent with what Mr. Hansen and Ms. Waygan enumerated would <br /> be ideal goals. He said that he would incorporate them into this document for discussion at the <br /> next meeting. <br /> Chairman Phelan said that since the Board had a few extra minutes, he would like to discuss the <br /> Consulting Engineer interview questions sent to the Board by Mr. Lehrer. He clarified how he <br /> would like the interview to be conducted. He pointed out that everyone has a question to ask of <br /> the applicants. After the questions have been completed, Mr. Phelan said he would provide an <br /> opportunity for additional questions to be asked. <br /> 3 <br />