New Search
COREY Kurt A <br /> From: RUFFIER Peter J <br /> Sent: Friday, March 03, 2006 3:28 PM <br /> To: BROWN Dan; COREY Kurt A <br /> Cc: SMITH Susan <br /> Subject: RE: Coburg Project Status <br /> Thanks Dan, I appreciate the response and I can certainly work within the parameters that you've outlined-neither Susie <br /> nor I concede any authority in project management or decision-making, and we involve only those entities (Coburg and <br /> Lane County) that have a direct interest and only for informational purposes so they are aware of how the process is <br /> developing. <br /> -----Original Message----- <br /> From: BROWN Dan <br /> Sent: Thursday, March 02, 2006 6:13 PM <br /> To: RUFFIER Peter J; COREY Kurt A <br /> Cc: SMITH Susan <br /> Subject: RE: Coburg Project Status <br /> feel sort of okay with that but I'm not positive. Needless to say I am also unsure how our Council would feel <br /> about the County and the state being involved. Let me think this through as I write. <br /> I cannot speak for you, Kurt, but when we met at the LCOG building on January 13t", I recall saying that I think our <br /> Council would be okay with allowing a Coburg rep(s) into the room where we City folks meet with the consultant <br /> but the Coburg rep(s) won't have full rights to participate in the meeting equal to people from the Cities of <br /> Springfield and Eugene. They'll have permission to ask questions or to offer limited comments but they need to <br /> keep an arms length from the work that's being conducted. The reason for this, I said, is because the purpose of <br /> the work is for the Cities (not Coburg and not the County and not the state) to settle on the Cities' connection <br /> price, which heretofore (is that a word?) has been between $7.3M and 12.6M, a range which is admittedly broad. <br /> Given that we already know Coburg argues for a price between $2 and $2.4M, there is an inherent conflict of <br /> interest for Coburg to be involved in the Cities' work. Therefore, our City elected officials could take the viewpoint <br /> that the work to be undertaken has the potential to be "tainted" if Coburg is involved so we might as well all <br /> save the public's money and not go forward with this particular effort to arrive at a specific price. <br /> Should anyone be involved simply because they are putting up the funding to pay a consultant? I doubt it. If that's <br /> the reason for allowing either the County or the state to be involved, I doubt our Councils would feel compelled to <br /> <br /> - .say "Yes." The County, on the other hand, is one of MWMC's governing bodies even though it is not a provider of <br /> urban sewerage services so I can see allowing a County rep to be present. Unless someone can give me a <br /> similar connection of the state to the Cities of Springfield's and Eugene's sewerage policy decisions, I can't see a <br /> rational reason why the state should participate in this.... <br /> All that being said, we don't have anything to hide from anyone, not Coburg nor the County nor the state. It's just <br /> that we don't want them or anyone else to interfere with our task at hand. So, if we can be assured that they'll <br /> neither interfere nor render the process more inefficient than it has to be, we can let `em in, but in a specified <br /> limited number that you and Susie set, e.g., one each from Coburg, the County, and the state.. That's my thinking <br /> but I'm interested in what Kurt is going to say because he's smarter than I am. <br /> From: RUFFIER Peter J [mailto:Peter.J.RUFFIER@ci.eugene.or.us] <br /> Sent: Thursday, March 02, 2006 1:35 PM <br /> To: COREY Kurt A; BROWN Dan <br /> Cc: SMITH Susan <br /> Subject: Coburg Project Status <br /> Susie and I met with Milo et al. this morning to review the draft scope of work and cost estimates for City staff <br /> time for the project to calculate connection costs for Coburg to the regional wastewater system. <br /> 1 <br /> <br />