Coburg Connection - Laserfiche WebLink

New Search

MEMORANDUM City of Springfield To: Gino Grimaldi, City Manager From: Dan Brown, Public Works Director Date: June 21, 2006 Subject: Options for Proceeding with Cities' Cost Refinement for Coburg "Buy-In" Cost Attached, as requested, are options prepared for consideration in enabling the Cities to move ahead with an analysis to refine (i.e. determine a narrower range) of the Cities' estimated buy-in costs the Coburg would be expected to pay, consistent with the direction staff has received to date. Please see the short descriptions of the options provided below. "Option 1" is the option presented by the County, which is not consistent with the analysis I offered the Cities would conduct with funding from the County in a meeting last January. The specific offer made by me and agreed to by Kurt Corey, Eugene Public Works Director, was to receive County grant funds, using MWMC as a "conduit" for the funding, to enable the two Cities to hire and manage a consultant to refine the Cities' cost estimates. I made this offer, in a meeting that included Coburg and LCOG staff, only because Coburg representatives indicated that a refined estimate by the Cities would be useful information for them to have in their efforts to seek Federal funding this Fall. I made it very clear that this analysis would be within the parameters already established by the Cities, and that Coburg and the County would have to be at "arms length" from the process (i.e. "in the room but not at the table."). Coburg representatives were agreeable to these conditions and indicated their appreciation for our willingness to conduct the cost refinement analysis. Because of the level of involvement of the County and Coburg, and potentially the State in Option 1, as well as the fact that the scope and schedule would require significantly greater time, funding and altered direction from Council, this option is not acceptable to the Cities. "Option 2," presented in a similar format to the County's, is the acceptable method for the Cities to proceed with additional cost refinement analysis consistent with our Council's direction, MWMC's approval to proceed, and the agreement that was made last Winter for the County to pass through funds to the Cities to conduct the work. Attached to Option 2 is the original scope of work and schedule that was prepared by Peter Ruffier and Susie Smith and provided to the County in early March. The scope of work is entirely based on the parameters that have akeady been laid out by our Council for this analysis. The schedule, which was valid in early March, would need to be revamped, and would result in likely completion sometime this Fall. Options 3, 4, and 5 are provided as alternatives to receiving full or partial funding for the project, and would be based on the same scope of work that is attached to Option 2.