Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Rfq Public Engagement topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commission votes to send RFQ, invite Woodard & Curran after debate over town administrator approval
Summary
After debate over whether the town administrator must approve distribution, the Board of Sewer Commissioners voted July 23 to send an updated RFQ to multiple firms and to invite Woodard & Curran to present in August so the board can compare forecasting and public‑engagement services.
The Board of Sewer Commissioners voted July 23 to send an updated request for qualifications (RFQ) to multiple firms and to invite Woodard & Curran to present at the board’s second August meeting. The motion passed with a single recorded dissent by Commissioner Sandy Slavin.
Doctor Sobe, who framed the public‑information discussion, summarized the recommendation: “Send update the dates on the RFQ. Send the RFQs as is to the 3 firms that I’ve discussed, as well as the ones that you’ve had discussion with. And schedule at least schedule them because they have additional services they can offer.” Director Scott Sobey told the board he had spoken with firms that combine financial forecasting and public‑relations work and recommended the board hear from them so the town can show residents the projected cost impacts and any grant opportunities.
The debate turned on whether the town administrator, Derek Sullivan, must sign off before the RFQ is distributed. Several commissioners said the administrator had indicated he would not approve the RFQ as drafted; Scott said staff could still send the document to gather information even if the procurement officer could not award contracts without further approval. Sandy Slavin voted against the motion, citing procedural concerns about sending materials under the town’s name without administrator approval.
Board members said the goal of the outreach is twofold: (1) obtain financial pro formas and long‑range cost forecasts that allow the board to present clear per‑customer impacts, and (2) secure communications support to present those findings to residents, including environmental‑justice communities noted in the Single Environmental Impact Report. Scott identified Woodard & Curran as one firm to be invited; he said, simply, “Woodard and Curran.”
The board asked staff to redate the RFQ and include a broader set of potential respondents so commissioners can compare capabilities and pricing before deciding on a procurement path. The matter was recorded as an action; staff will distribute the revised RFQ and schedule presentations at the August meeting.
