New Search
MEDLIN Johnny R <br /> From: ARGENTINA Eileen <br /> To: LONG Jack E; MEDLIN Johnny R; OSBORN Keli M; GASSMAN Dick L; BINGHAM Tim <br /> S <br /> Cc: CAHILL Michelle R <br /> Subject: Construction Site Management Practices Implementation <br /> Date: Friday, October 27, 1995 4:31 PM <br /> Here are two files: the WP file contains the assumptions that Michelle and I used in our analysis; the 123 <br /> file shows the numbers we came up with. <br /> Now the fun part - give it hell, we are sure our assumptions are very debatable, and include all sorts of <br /> averages and leave out key factors, so we need you to help us inject as much reality in it as possible. If <br /> you feel our methodology is very questionable, and especially if you have another methodology to suggest, <br /> please say so. If we could get some reactions by Wed, that would give us a chance to refine it before the <br /> Nov 7 public information session. Feel free to call either of us, mark stuff up and pony it, email your <br /> reactions, or edit the files and send them back - whatever works best. Looking at the schedule planner, <br /> the only time we might all be able to be together next week is Thurs, 11/2 at 3:30. The public info <br /> session is only a first step and the number doesn't have to be firm for that, at least I don't think it does. <br /> In continuing to talk through how this program might best be started up and gradually folded into the <br /> existing processes, Michelle and I share a feeling at this time that it would be best to implement within the <br /> Engineering Division, with both review and inspection responsibilities housed there. I think we feel more <br /> strongly about this in the start up phase than necessarily for the long term. As a way to gain information <br /> about the work load and skill base needed to effectively accomplish this work, we may look at "leased" <br /> technical staff to start the program up, probably working very closely with the Water Resources Team. We <br /> recognize the drawbacks (as in, missed opportunities to build continuity and staff expertise) with the temp <br /> approach. We also feel some concern that with Maintenance's existing field role and organizational <br /> structure, we may miss some efficiencies by having inspection staff outside that structure. Similarly, the <br /> work that the LUMs currently do to evaluate and address landscaping and other issues may have quite a bit <br /> of overlap with the erosion control measures. The interaction with the building inspectors is another area <br /> where we need to design this so that the City's interaction with contractors can be as coordinated as <br /> possible. There are, as we know, lots of different ways to approach this. <br /> This is a preliminary attempt to frame the next few steps - seeing how we might fit this into the processes <br /> now in place. We're hoping our ideas will get a good thrashing so we can all figure out how to make this <br /> happen in the most cost effective way. Thanks alot. Eileen and Michelle. <br /> p.s. Michelle, will you be lead on figuring out when we need to re- convene as a group to make the next set <br /> of decisions about implementing? <br /> < <File Attachment: ERODE.WK4> > < <File Attachment: ERODE.STF> > <br /> Page 1 <br />