5/18/1993 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

r BOOK 89� muE5- 94 MAY 18 j9�, 1.) Review of the new water, wastewater and reuse Master Plan for projected infrastructure costs and compare to the 1991 utility rate study and recommend impact fee rate revisions if necessary. 2.) Review existing reuse contracts, project costs for providing reuse and recommended rates, if necessary. 3.) Perform as annual review of user charges to ensure that adequate revenues are generated to cover operation, maintenance and replacement costs. 4.) Provide other related financial services as may be determined during the term of the agreement. The selection committee reviewed the 8 responses and selected 4 firms to be interviewed. MYSIS: On May 6, 1993, the selection committee interviewed the 4 firms. lois a result of the interviews, the firms were ranked as follows: 1.) CH2M Hill 2.) Brown and Caldwell 3.) Black and Veatch 4.) Burton and Associates RECOMMENDATION: The staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners authorize the Department of Utility Services to contract with the first choice firm of CH2M Hill for Utility Rate Consultant Services. Each task under the contract will be negotiated independently and will be presented to the Board of County Commissioners on an individual basis. Commissioner Eggert asked if it was a good idea to have the same company come back and do the same work rather than a different firm with fresh personnel, and Utilities Director Terry Pinto answered affirmatively, stressing that we would not have to pay someone to start from zero. We truly need to have this consultant on board. ON MOTION by Commissioner Adams, SECONDED by Commissioner Eggert, the Board unanimously (4-0, Commissioner -Macht having left the meeting early) approved the selection of CH2M Hill, as set out in the above staff recommendation. 53