Technical Dispute Review Board – June 7, 2024 (Afternoon)

See full minutes: Page 1, Page 2, and Page 3.

The following representatives from the Metro Flood Diversion Authority (“Authority”), Red River Valley Alliance LLC (“Developer”), the Project’s Design and Construction Contractor, ASN Constructors, and the Financial Dispute Review Board, were present: John Shockley, General Counsel, Authority; Andrea Roman, Paralegal, Authority; Martin Nicholson, Deputy Director, Authority; Kris Bakkegard, Chief Engineer, Authority; Andrew Dobson, Project Manager, Authority; Bryan Keane, Attorney for Authority, Dorsey & Whitney; Jocelyn Knoll, Attorney for Authority, Dorsey & Whitney, Javier Velasco, CEO, Developer; Maria Sanchez, Commerical Manager, Developer; Shay Arvats, CFO, Developer; Chris Caparelli, Attorney for Developer, Torys; Tara Mackay, Attorney for Developer, Torys; Katy Spicer, Attorney for ASN, Squire Patton Boggs; Greg Johnson, Attorney for ASN, Squire Patton Boggs; Bradley Crocker, Attorney for ASN, Squire Patton Boggs.

1. Call to Order

Mark Alpert called the meeting to order at 2:00 PM CT. Roll call was taken, and a quorum of the Technical Dispute Review Board was present.

2. Approve the Order of the Agenda

Motion Passed

Ed Pensock moved to approve the order of the agenda and Charles Boland seconded the motion. On a voice vote, the motion carried.

3. The Following Topics Were Discussed

(i) Ground Rules for Pre-Hearing + Comments on the Draft Operating Procedures

The Parties provided preliminary commentary of the draft Operating Procedures including timing of Position Paper submittals and rebuttals, DRB ability to question the parties during and after the hearing, and timeframe for the DRB recommendations to be transmitted to the parties, ability of either party to appeal or request a reconsideration of the TDRB recommendations.

The FM Authority indicated it would confer with RRVA about the acceptability of the Operating Procedures once submitted by the TDRB.

Agreed by the parties that recommendations of the TDRB are quasi-judicial under state law.

(ii) Proposed hearing dates

The parties agreed to confirm dates

July 15 was suggested by thee TDRB

(iii) The dispute – continued high-level discussion

The Authority indicted that should the TDRB recommend in favor of the Authority position, the Authority would then determine the appropriate remedy including replacement of any work and structures that would have been deemed non-compliant.

No further discussion was had on the dispute.

(iv) Press inquiries and the applicability of the ND Open Records

The Authority informed all attendees that the press had requested the ND AG to issue an opinion on the matter.

4. Other Business – None

5. Next Meeting – To be schedule

6. Adjournment

Charles Boland moved to adjourn, and Ed Pensock seconded the motion. The meeting adjourned at 3:00 PM CT.