Engineer Representatives Present: Partner Agencies Present: Members Not Present:

Roger Ward, Dufresen & Associates Larry Fitch, ANR FED Donald Marsh, Provan & Lorber

Chuck Goodling, Dubois & King Tom Bartholomew, DWSRF Robert Dufresne, Dufresne & Assoc.

Don Phillips, Forcier Adrich & Associates Carl Bohlen, VCDP Robert Harrington, Harrington Eng.

Craig Stead, Stead Consulting Rhonda Shippee, USDA RD Tom Clark, RCAP

William Heigis, Stone Environmental Gary Beem, USDA RD Michael Wood-Lewis, NeRWA

Naomi Hatch, USDA RD Thomas Nesbitt, Dufresne-Henry

Thomas Weiss, RD Engineer Steve McKenzie, Dubois & King

David Ring, Shiretown Engineers

John Pitrowski, Trudell Engineerng

Mark Youngstrom, Wright Eng.

Alan Huizenga, Phelps Engineering

• DEC and RD have reviewed each other's applications and hope to begin discussing a joint single, simpler application for small projects.
• CDBG has completely revised their application process. Applications are split at $150,000. They plan a separate application for public facilities projects. They will share the application form with RD and DEC to include in their joint process. CDBG now requires letters from RD and DEC indicating funding is not available or not sufficient from DEC and/or RD before they will consider funding. When a community applies for a CDBG grant, they will receive a CD Rom that includes all grant requirements. A tentative application workshop is set for 11/15.

• Water Supply Division has initiated a newsletter (3X a year) to keep their constituents informed of program requirements, changes, etc.
• CDBG is planning to move from mail to e-mail for notifying their constituents of changes and happenings.
• RD is including the chart of funding programs (developed by this committee) on their web site. It was agreed each Engineer Liaison Committee meeting will include on the agenda any needed changes to this chart to what is on the web site is accurate.

• Larry Fitch indicated their internal process reviews are ongoing with no decisions made so feels our planned discussion with the Wastewater Management Division is still premature.
• A stakeholder meeting to discuss how ANR funding programs impact sprawl has been held.
• The responsibility for administration of the Stormwater Program in VT has been moved to the Water Quality Division and some of the Water Quality Division's responsibilities related to the NPDES Program have been moved to the Wastewater Management Division.

• Still under construction. RD is unclear how quickly changes and revisions can be made (may have to be cleared by Washington). If this is the case, the funding chart discussed earlier may not be posted there.

• Thomas has had discussions with Ann Kroll (CDBG), Tom Bartholomew (DWSRF) and Nopadon Sundarabhaya (CWSRF and state wastewater grants) and they are doing an in-house review of a draft that Thomas has prepared. Thomas feels it will be mostly utilized by RD and CWSRF as DWSRF and CDBG have separate, single agency agreements with SHPO. Thomas' draft will allow those agencies to utilize either programmatic agreement.
• Don Phillips raised the issue of archaeological cost and scope of services - they seem to vary greatly from consultant to consultant. Tom B. noted the DWSRF agreement requires any Scope of services beyond a Phase IA to be reviewed by SHPO for reasonableness (scope and cost). Chuck Goodling shared a recent good experience in getting just such a scope of service reviewed by SHPO.

• Chuck Goodling asked Larry Fitch if an engineer is working on a PER now and wants to address sprawl issues - what can they do? Larry suggested giving them a call to review the specific project and they can make suggestions. Rhonda suggested that the engineer should look at the town plan and zoning by-law (if they have them). Where does the community want growth - does the project plan for that? Try to marry water/wastewater planning with overall town planning.
• Don Phillips expressed concern about engineers being selected on low bid prices for PERs. Every engineer takes a different approach to addressing the "non-engineering" issues such as archaeological, wetland, etc. The suggestion was to bid based on an RFP and include services you (engineer) think may be needed as an add on special services. The idea of developing a boiler plate RFP that communities could use for engineering services was discussed. Rhonda agreed to contact the VT League of Cities and Towns to see if one exists there.

• Maxwell Study Update - Rhonda noted the study is expected to be presented to the sponsors by October 2.

• Discussed possible next engineer conference. They have typically been done every two years so RD had not planned to initiate one this year. Rhonda noted she has been considering the possibility of sponsoring a conference on de-centralized on site wastewater management and has had discussions with Tom Clark on this. There was much discussion regarding the need in the engineering and planning community to gain more knowledge on this issue. Rhonda agreed to continue to work with Tom and utilize the Engineer Liaison Committee in the process.
• New agenda items for future meetings. Agreed to add issues and statute changes ANR may be proposing to the legislature as a topic for discussion.
• It was asked if the minutes of our meetings are distributed beyond the committee. Rhonda believes they are distributed to all engineers on their mailing list. It was suggested a name and # be provided so that engineers with questions can call someone.

• January 18, 2001
• RD Conference Room, City Center, Montpelier
• 9-12:00

Respectfully Submitted,

Sue Poulin
 
 

Engineer Representatives Present: Partner Agencies Present: Members Not Present:

Tristan Tucker, Dufresne & Associates Larry Fitch, ANR FED Donald Marsh, Provan & Lorber

Steve MacKenzie, Dubois & King Tom Bartholomew, DWSRF Robert Harrington, Harrington Eng.

Don Phillips, Forcier Adrich & Associates Carl Bohlen, VCDP Tom Clark, RCAP

Craig Stead, Stead Consulting Gary Beem, USDA RD Michael Wood-Lewis, NeRWA

William Heigis, Stone Environmental Naomi Hatch, USDA RD David Ring, Shiretown Engineers

Alan Huizenga, Phelps Engineering Sue Poulin, USDA RD John Pitrowski, Trudell Engineerng Thomas Nesbitt, Dufresne-Henry Thomas Weiss, RD Engineer Mark Youngstrom, Wright Eng.

Carl Crawford, Otter Creek Ann Kroll, VCDP

1. Minutes. September 14, 2000 minutes were reviewed and motioned to accept, was seconded, and approved.

• Discussed accepting other interested participants. Consensus was that those who have expressed an interest should be allowed to attend and that those who have not attended should be dropped from the list.

• Rural Development's Vermont internet site: Final review by our National Office will be completed shortly (still the old 10/98 version) and access to all our forms may be seen in 1-2 months. Thomas Weiss has been e-mailing links to engineers as requested.
• Maxwell School Review: Report is at internal agencies review and will be available to public by the RD Council probably after February meeting. The Vermont Rural Development Council, which funded the study, will control its release. Impression was that most were not totally satisfied with the results obtained.
• Application Process for Smaller Projects: No progress since last meeting.
• Workshop on Management of On-Site Systems: A number of the workshop members were also in attendance at today's meeting. May 8 or 9 or 10^th are being considered as the first choice of dates for this workshop. Management is the focus, options available, and what it means or can mean. Plan to give examples and discuss technology and management systems.

4. Seismic Safety - Where is RD with regard to standard of practice in Vermont:

• T. Nesbitt called his structural staff, Seismic design varies by state. Look at contents as well as buildings. Labor and Industry BOCA. D&K and D-H use 1994 (?) BOCA; not the most current. PE stamp means designed per codes. Handed out regulations. Rural Development now requires 1997 ICBO or 1995 ASCE, Minimum Design Loads.

4. Analysis of Alternatives - Wastewater Management Division:

• Presentation by Nancy Manley, Department of Environmental Conservation Assistance Division.

• Nancy gave an overview of last one and a half years. Agency taking a hard look at wastewater review process and weaving into that process elements of smart growth.
• First workgroup:

1. WQ,WMD,FE, ANR Planning & Legal - non-engineering issues: anti-degradation, alternatives, mixing zones. Environmental review procedure agreed to with EPA - both direct and indirect impacts.
2. Stakeholders group: Document is still under review. Draft 12/7/00 Guidance on the Review of Direct and Indirect Environmental Impacts… this is the cover statement. Questions - where to put the build-out analysis - service area and secondary impacts. Build-out with and without the project.
3. No actions alternative. (L. Fitch - a project should not be blamed for growth that will happen anyway. A project may speed-up the growth or make an incremental amount of growth over no-action).
4. Is trying to push evaluation of direct and indirect impacts and of alternatives earlier in the process than has been traditional.
5. D. Phillips -need to have clearer guidance on alternatives so engineer can develop a scope of services.
6. It's not been determined who within ANR will review and approve the environmental review.

• L. Fitch - may need to increase staff to educate communities and sell projects.

• Second Workgroup: Effort is alternatives analysis for WQ standards - comes under the environmental for SRF, but is independent for non-SRF projects.

• Third Workgroup: Effort is discouraging scattered growth, defining growth centers through municipal planning, encouraging smart growth.

• Next round of drafts in 1-2 months. No sense of when the plans will be implemented.

• TAW prior to this meeting e-mailed to all members for review. Will be presenting to SHPO soon in the format basically as it is now. T. Nesbitt noted that stop work on contractor means we're running a bill for no work. Need to meet with SHPO to negotiate. Plans are to allow sharing with the different agencies. Thomas requested that all members please review these documents and return comments to him by end of this month.

4. Proposed Legislative Adjustments:

• T. Bartholomew - Draft Drinking Water SRF newsletter in February. Items will be:

1. Part of Percentage for Administrative fees allow flexibility,
2. Municipal up to $75,000 with voter approval without a bond vote for a project - add into 20 year loan probably. Not go through Bond Council, etc. for small loans,
3. Current census data to determine interest rate and terms - not to change in mid-stream,
4. Allow Secretary up to $25,000 loans for school systems to reduce interest rate,
5. Propose Secretary can joint projects with RD and Water and can reduce interest rate. Water Supply can reduce rate to RD's rate on a project, but only if RD will be returning funds to Washington.
6. Allow Secretary to approve grants for studies and start-up cash - approved with construction,
7. Propose relatively small systems (non-profit /private systems) can use in final design
8. These are the basics he mentioned - he noted there are 11 points they will propose for changes.
9. Larry Fitch - Extend phosphorus eligibility throughout the state.

• Our previously issued products are a bit out of date. Thomas W. will distribute to agencies for updating before next meeting.

X. Time and place of next meeting.

• March 22, 2001
• RD Conference Room, City Center, Montpelier
• 9-12:00

Engineer Representatives Present: Partner Agencies Present: Members Not Present:

Carl Crawford, Otter Creek Larry Fitch, ANR FED Donald Marsh, Provan & Lorber

Robert Dufresne, Dufresne & Associates Tom Bartholomew, DWSRF Steve MacKenzie, Dubois & King

Andrew Hoak, Rhonda Shippee, USDA RD Robert Harrington, Harrington Eng.

Don Phillips, Forcier Adrich & Associates Naomi Hatch, USDA RD Gary Beem, USDA RD

Craig Stead, Stead Consulting Sue Poulin, USDA RD Michael Wood-Lewis, NeRWA

Adam Rice, Dufresne-Henry Thomas Weiss, RD Engineer David Ring, Shiretown Engineers

John Pitrowski, Trudell Engineerng Mark Youngstrom, Wright Eng.

Gary Leach, Leach Consulting Eng.

1. Minutes. January 18, 2001 minutes were reviewed and motioned to accept, was seconded, and approved.

• Tom Bartholomew discussed loan forgiveness for planning -design (actual construction after completion). Testing in middle of project.
• Don Phillips pointed out that a project doesn't fit - percentage doesn't fit into construction cost for project more time spent evaluating a decent system alternative. Summer "Smart Growth Analysis -professional planners into report, etc. Part of Environmental. Eric per Tom B. -normally part of PER preparation.
• Rhonda - can RD use this - smaller projects harder to make work to these guidelines. Thomas W. field allowance is 40% in these guides.
• Don P. curves not project curves - consulting services fee - indirect sub contractors to owner 0more than what eng. is going to provide that are no under Eng Agree.. but may be -should be under standard curve % calculations allowance.
• Adam Rice - Archelogical studies - sub consultant contracts - Eng fees are associated wht these boundaries, maps, overlay onto eng maps - Harder $500 doesn't even begin to cover these types of Phase 1 B (time aspect)
• Bob D., Rice, Tom B. indicate can /or may loose construction season over these. State no site visits? Archeologist should do a site visit.
• Don P. and Thomas W. New Hampshire - request for price and proposal - timing as to whether gets State funding or not. State statues are different.

• Thomas W. raises profile: Spec lists treat process as being acceptable - not allowing restrictive requirements, etc.
• Treatment: PER how do we select processes so when bid process is reached that this req. is met.
• Bob D. - pre bid process -Cabot -pre qualifying to narrow down
• Don P. - subjective elements on tech as well as the equipment operation and material itself - owner knowledge old - wants something reliable etc once into design you are locked to the equipment selected
• Rhonda double price once started - eng will dump - word of mouth
• Cost of redesign?
• Thomas W. Half of design done by equipment manufacture - not the eng. can't be the same supplier.
• Tom B. Procurement by State is probably more detailed than Federal EPA
• Patent or equal -not an equal if it is the only type of equipment /technology available that is patented.
• 30 - 60 % larry Fitch now longer have these sole source justification process - does RD have one? Thomas says no.
• Larry example packages complete units - to get manufacture guarantees etc.

4. Status Reports:

• Maxwell Group report was discussed . RD debt service 1-1/2 % or "comparable costs"

1. 1. Eng/Environmental pg links to Eng guides and upgraded program spreasheet.

1. 2. Engineer Liasion minutes
2. 3. Don P. suggested - quarterly change in interest rates be posted and

1. MHI by communities and what the Non-MHI is for state etc
2. Environmental reports were mentioned.

1. 1. Gary and Eric
2. Fall or Late Fall workshop for Lakeshore and town personnel with more examples and costs involved.
3. TMDL is Federal
4. Thomas to meet next week Tues. and work on process

• Update on msarth Gorwth - Tool Box Rule Making ?
• Storm Water - peter laPlame

6. Conclusions and Next Steps:

• T. Bartholomew - Draft Drinking Water SRF newsletter in February. Items will be:

1. Part of Percentage for Administrative fees allow flexibility,
2. Municipal up to $75,000 with voter approval without a bond vote for a project - add into 20 year loan probably. Not go through Bond Council, etc. for small loans,
3. Current census data to determine interest rate and terms - not to change in mid-stream,
4. Allow Secretary up to $25,000 loans for school systems to reduce interest rate,
5. Propose Secretary can joint projects with RD and Water and can reduce interest rate. Water Supply can reduce rate to RD's rate on a project, but only if RD will be returning funds to Washington.
6. Allow Secretary to approve grants for studies and start-up cash - approved with construction,
7. Propose relatively small systems (non-profit /private systems) can use in final design
8. These are the basics he mentioned - he noted there are 11 points they will propose for changes.
9. Larry Fitch - Extend phosphorus eligibility throughout the state.

• Our previously issued products are a bit out of date. Thomas W. will distribute to agencies for updating before next meeting.

X. Time and place of next meeting.

• March 22, 2001
• RD Conference Room, City Center, Montpelier
• 9-12:00

Engineer Representatives Present: Partner Agencies Present: Members Not Present:

Robert Dufresne, Dufresne & Associates Michael Wood-Lewis, NeRWA Carl Crawford, OtterCreek Eng

Bernie Gagnon, Marin Environmental David Allerton, DWSRF Bill Heigis, Stone Environmental

Chuck Goodling, Dubois & King Ann Kroll, VCDP Mark Youngstrom, Wright Eng

Don Phillips, Forcier Adrich & Associates Rhonda Shippee, USDA RD

Craig Stead, Stead Consulting Naomi Hatch, USDA RD Larry Fitch, ANR FED

Tom Nesbitt, Dufresne-Henry Sue Poulin, USDA RD Alan Huizenga, Phelps Eng

Thomas Weiss, RD Engineer Carl Bohlen, VCDP

Gary Beem, USDA RD Gary Leach, Leach Consulting Eng.

Tom Clark, RCAP

I. Thomas noted that Bob Harrington has resigned from the Committee as he not longer works on large

municipal projects and felt it was appropriate that another firm be offered the opportunity to participate.

• Two RFP "templates" were provided for review. One is used the by RD Nebraska office; another by the NH RCAP representative.

• CDBG requires competition in selection and selection of lowest cost responsible proposal, but only if their $ are paying for the engineering
• Rural Development requires public announcement of the need for engineering services, but not necessarily a formal RFP. If design is procured separately, they require a separate public notice.
• VT state law has no restrictions on how municipalities procure engineering services
• It was commented that many RFP's are weak (extremely) and are fee based selection and this is not the right reason to select a particular engineer. They are open ended -comparing apples to oranges.

• People advising communities on preparing RFP's are not aware enough of technical need of the community. Also RFP's often don't require or cover all services that will eventually be needed, e.g. archaeological surveys, wetlands surveys…

• Often they are generic (standard format) RFP's because those writing them are not familiar enough with what is required for the project or may be required.
• The new smart growth and multi step preliminary engineering/environmental process will eliminate the ability of engineers to provide a fee as part of an RFP
• Discussion of New Hampshire's requirement (SRF's require an RFP or RFQ). New Hampshire QBS coalition is pushing Qualification Based Standards (QBS) and Request For Qualifications (RFQ's.)

• Vermont DWSRF capacity program doesn't have a sample RFP in its doc package, but the
• Wastewater Management Division does have info on selecting an engineer.
• RCAP - RFP is set up for a fee-based proposal. It is believed by more than one engineer that the RCAP representative advises the community on which proposal to select

• Some scope items are set up as lump sum when practice should be for NTE items (survey, borings, stream allocation permits)
• Engineer is faced with submitting on the proposal only or should it add all items engineer knows are missing, thus increasing the scope.

• Joint PER bulletins have latitude in how many of the various types of alternatives.
• Costs engineer $3,000 minimum to prepare proposal, as much as $20,000.
• Should be a three step process - what services will be provided 1) Request for Qualifications, 2) Proposal with fee, 3) interview - then selection.
• Discussion:

• Lowest price is not in most cases the best because construction -final is where most of cost is.
• What alternatives - guidelines ?
• Site visit, research -resume's, copies
• Preliminary - don't look at fees - look at qualifications. Should be project defined - work load versus fee.

• Where to go?:

• Develop a RFP template or just provide information on various alternative methods?

• It was agreed the committee could provide input to improve a process that is currently disjointed and fragmented. There is more information "out there" we should look at. Tom Nesbitt agreed to get more sample RFPs; Rhonda agreed to get from RCAP what they are currently using. Thomas will e-mail this info. to committee members for review prior to the next meeting.

4. Status Reports:

• Rural Development's Vermont internet site (www.rurdev.usda.gov/vt/index.html).

• Application process for smaller projects.

• Proposed Legislative Adjustments. D. Allerton (DWSRF) discussed a Draft MOU on joint loan projects between RD and DWSRF. The DWSRF drops rate to allow RD loan only, blend at 3%.

• Thomas read Larry Fitch's e-mail regarding legislative actions:

• Programmatic Agreement for Historic Preservation.

• Maximum Open and Fee Competition.

1. Input from Engineers/Other business:

• New internet site for NeRWA: www.neruralwater.org
• Engineers would like to talk about floodplain issues during the RD environmental review process.

• Conclusions and Next Steps:

• T. Nesbitt to get existing professional "selecting an engineer" documents and anyone else who has examples to share. Get to Thomas W. and we'll pass out in about one month and review before the next meeting.
• Floodplain management - Thomas W. to prepare for next meeting

• November 1, 2001
• RD Conference Room, City Center, Montpelier
• 9-12:00

Engineer Representatives Present: Partner Agencies Present: Members Not Present:

Carl Crawford, Otter Creek Eng Larry Fitch, ANR FED Robert Dufresne, Dufresne & Assoc Mark Youngstrom, Wright Eng Tom Clark, RCAP Michael Wood-Lewis, NeRWA

Brent Whitney, Green MT Ann Kroll, VCDP Bill Heigis, Stone Environmental

Bernie Gagnon, Marin Environmental Rhonda Shippee, USDA RD Steve McKenzie, Dubois & King

Craig Stead, Stead Consulting Thomas Weiss, RD Engineer Don Phillips, Forcier Adrich & Assoc

Tom Nesbitt, Dufresne-Henry Naomi Hatch, USDA RD Tom Bartholomew, DWSRF

Sue Poulin, USDA RD Alan Huizenga, Phelps Eng

Gary Beem, USDA RD Carl Bohlen, VCDP

Gary Leach, Leach Consulting Eng.

I. Status reports

• The Rural Development web site access issues have been resolve and Thomas Weiss will work to get the Liaison Committee work products onto the RD web site.
• Rhonda Shippee reported she is on the national group working on a re-write of their program regulations. She solicited any input engineers or partners might have to that process.
• There has been no progress on the small project application development or the programmatic agreement with SHPO.

Thomas Weiss asked the engineers on the committee if they want the committee to develop and make a formal

recommendation to funding agencies regarding the engineer selection process. Much discussion ensued

including what is an RFP, what is qualifications based selection (QBS), how is the scope of the project

developed, etc. Unlike many states, the Vermont statutes do noot rpovide procedural requirements for this

process. Some towns are very involved and thorough in the selection process, otheres are not active in the

process at all.

After much discussion it was agreed that the goal should be for funding agencies to provide guidance on

the process of selecting an engineer. That guidance could be available on the various agency web sites and

offered with program information. Rhonda volunteered to draft a brief process description that can be used

as such a guide. She will bring it to the next meeting.

III. Flood Plain Management

• Larry Fitch provided an update on the new wastewater rules proposed by ANR. Public comments are due by December 10. Tom Nesbitt asked if there is a side by side comparison of the existing and proposed rules. Larry will check and if there is, he will send to Thomas for distribution to the committee

• It was clarified that the DWSRF does not require water meters as part of their funding. If a community chooses to not include meters, unless it meets very specific criteria for a waiver, the project would not be eligible for Rural Development funding. Therefore, it would not be considered for joint funding under the two agency's joint funding agreement.
• Tom Nesbitt questioned if there will be another engineers' conference. It was agreed to discuss and consider the need for this at the next meeting.

• Engineering Selection Process Guide - Rhonda to prepare draft for review.
• Potential conference need, topics, sponsors

• September 19, 2002
• RD Conference Room, City Center, Montpelier
• 9-12:00

Sue Poulin

VERMONT ENGINEERS’ LIAISON COMMITTEE
Meeting Minutes February 5, 2003
USDA Rural Development Conference Room
9:00 A. M. – 10:30 A. M.

Engineer Representatives Present
Alan Huizenga, Phelps Eng
Steven McKenzie, Dubois & King
Tom Nesbitt, Duresne-Henry
Don Phillips, Forcier, Aldrich

Partner Agencies Present:
Molly Dugan, VCDP
Ann Kroll, VCDP
Tom Clark, RCAP
Diane Perley, RCAP
Larry Fitch, ANR FED
Michael Wood-Lewis, NeRWA Thomas Weiss, USDA RD
Naomi RG Hatch, USDA RD

Members Not Present
Robert Dufresne, Dufresne & Assoc.
Carl Etnier, Stone Environmental
Bernie Gagnon, Marin Environmental
Gary Leach, Leach Engineering
David Lenart, Tighe and Bond
Craig Stead, Stead Consulting
Mark Youngstrom, Otter Creek Eng.
Eric Blatt, WSD
Rhonda L Shippee, USDA RD
Gary M. Beem, USDA RD
Sue Poulin, USDA RD

Introduced new person to the committee, Diane Perley, Water Resource Specialist, Rural Community Assistance Program (RCAP).

I. Engineer's Workshop

RD distributed conference evaluation summary.  A copy is attached to these minutes.
? General comments made that breakout sessions informative, specifically stormwater.
? The conference was productive and worked well.  The breakout sessions also worked well.  But people attending were faced with the tough choice of which of the three sessions to attend.  One firm that had several people attend sent people to each breakout session.
? The Capital Plaza in Montpelier was a good central location.  Lunch was good.  But the room got a little cool in the morning.
? General consensus that appropriate frequency for conference is every 2 years.
? We need to get all of the handouts earlier and get them all into the conference notebook.

II. Income Surveys

? Working committee includes Alan Huizenga, Molly Dugan, and Tom Clark.
?  Michael Wood-Lewis expressed interest in being on the committee as well.
? Focus is to create an income survey that will satisfy all funders.  There are nuances between the methodologies used by the various agencies.
? VCDBP just asks for whether income is above or below 80% of the county median.  The other funders need to know what the median is.
? Alan Huizenga distributed survey used by RCAP
? Tom Clark distributed RCAP and DWSRF survey guidelines and described methods he uses
Key points
? Meet with community leaders
? Prepare a map of the survey area
? Keep survey form simple
? Brainstorm with a committee of half-a-dozen to do the survey door to door.  In his experience, confirmed by others at the meeting, students do not make good surveyors.
? Train the surveyors.
? Inform public in advance (1-2 weeks preferable) by radio or mailing
? Importance of being selective about survey volunteers - individuals that would be receptive to community.
? Door to door brings higher return
? Each house assigned survey number (no signatures)
? Emphasize confidentiality - survey mailed out of state (stamped, self-addressed envelope) to RCAP in Massachusetts.  But many people fill out the form and hand it back.
? RCAP’s database can provide reports in formats required by VCDP, RD, and SRF’s.
? It is difficult to get a response if the survey is done between mid-December and mid-February.

? VCDP currently requires signature on survey as it is considered an income certification and not just a survey
? Also VCDP presumes that a form that is not returned is above 80% of the median.

? Group will continue to work together to meet the goal of creating one survey form for all funder and report at next meeting

III. Bid Tabulations

? Initial focus of this topic was to determine whether the bid tabulation data currently being collected by RD would be useful to the engineers and should there be a central depository
Comments:
? RD and DEC do not currently have central depository
? Good idea but need to analyze to see what is included in bid tab
? To be most useful, data would need to include bid tab, measurement, payment - retain maximum 3 years
? Engineers prepare the bid tabulations on spreadsheets, typically Quattro or Excel
? Caution on use and purpose:
? It's not the lack of data but how it's organized in engineer's office
? Engineers have data and share between offices
? RD and engineers use data for different purposes - RD for reviewing PER estimates and engineers for construction costs
? Internet site best option for central depository
? RD’s Internet site is an option, however, RD’s process of getting documents on the internet is cumbersome
? Larry Fitch will check on how easy or difficult it is to use the DEC internet site.
? It is not clear that there is a real need or desire for a central depository for bid tabulations.

VI. Input from engineers/Other business

? National Engineer's Week - February 21st - Radisson, Burlington, VT - contact Jill at FA&A for reservation
? Guest speaker - Franklin Lombardi, Chief Engineer Port Authority - engineer for World Trade Center
? Awards to be presented for
? 2003 Engineer of the Year, Vermont - Joseph Oppenlander, UVM (total of 7 nominations)
? 2003 Young Engineer of the Year - Joe Duncan, FA&A
? miscellaneous awards
 

V. Conclusions and Next Steps

? Progress report on income survey
? Larry Fitch to advise on using DEC internet site bid tabulation central depository
? Progress report on DEC reorganization
? Effect of the new administration on the focus of the VCDP programs

VI. Next Meeting  April 2, 2003, 9 a. m. in RD conference room