Browse
Search
Agenda 10-10-2023; 5 - Discussion on the County’s Participation in Mayors, Managers, Chair (MMC) Meetings
OrangeCountyNC
>
Board of County Commissioners
>
BOCC Agendas
>
2020's
>
2023
>
Agenda - 10-10-2023 Joint Meeting with Chiefs' Association and Work Session
>
Agenda 10-10-2023; 5 - Discussion on the County’s Participation in Mayors, Managers, Chair (MMC) Meetings
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
10/5/2023 3:53:53 PM
Creation date
10/5/2023 3:55:24 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
BOCC
Date
10/10/2023
Meeting Type
Work Session
Document Type
Agenda
Agenda Item
5
Document Relationships
Agenda for October 10, 2023 Joint Meeting with Chiefs’ Association and Regular Work Session
(Message)
Path:
\Board of County Commissioners\BOCC Agendas\2020's\2023\Agenda - 10-10-2023 Joint Meeting with Chiefs' Association and Work Session
Minutes-10-10-2023-Joint Meeting with Fire Departments and Work Session
(Message)
Path:
\Board of County Commissioners\Minutes - Approved\2020's\2023
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
36
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
I <br /> 2'78 <br /> I <br /> o Mayor Hemminger added that it would be helpful to reach out directly to <br /> Renaissance Partners to see why they did not submit an RFP, especially given <br /> their previous work in the community. She agreed with Judy that we don't just <br /> want to accept any proposal. <br /> • Mayor Hemminger added that the SAPFO report came out stating that no new schools <br /> are projected in the school system for at least 10 years. <br /> • Cy Stober presented the solution of splitting this project into two proposals: (1) a <br /> community engagement RFQ; and (2) a technical services RFQ for the design element. <br /> o Going the RFQ route would allow for great negotiation and for the community <br /> engagement consultant to sit on the steering committee for the technical <br /> services work. <br /> o Trish McGuire added that we should develop questions to ask the firms <br /> regarding why they didn't respond. We can use that feedback to help shape next <br /> steps. It is a big important project and not an insignificant amount of money. <br /> o Mayor Seils asked if these two approaches would be parallel or sequential? <br /> ■ Cy Stober responded that the group discussed having a 4-6 month lag, <br /> whereby the community engagement work would have at least a 3-4 <br /> month head start. <br /> ■ Mayor Seils suggested it might be good to hear from the firms before we <br /> adopt and finalize any new approach. <br /> ■ Chair Bedford asked if the 4-6 month delay was related to the meeting <br /> calendar? She noted that she can call another meeting if needed. <br /> Next steps <br /> 1) Notify the respondent that their RFP was not accepted <br /> 2) Reach out to all firms who attended the information session to get more information <br /> about why they didn't respond to the RFP; and <br /> 3) Develop an alternative strategy with a corresponding timeline. <br /> => Judy Johnson will put together a timeline within the next week or two, and <br /> all groups can share the same information with their Boards as an <br /> information message in the Board packets in the next week or two <br /> 4) This MMC group will meet again to evaluate the new timeline. <br /> 3. Inman Property Purchases <br /> Judy Johnson explained that an environmental assessment was completed at the property a <br /> month ago, and nothing significant was found on the site. There was small concern about <br /> the mounds, and whether we needed to do additional work on those. The environmental <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.