2011-11-04_Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

153 154 Member Miller clarified that the Board was not proposing changing criteria at this point; however, Mr. 155 Ferrington's comments may serve to inform how individual Board members scored some of the criteria. 156 Task Force Member Solomonson opined that the three (3) options needed to be taken into account 157 similarly to bidding; and that just because something came in as the "low" bid it didn't necessarily mean 158 that it was the best bid. Mr. Solomonson noted the rationale in using this analytical ranking exercise to 159 weight the strengths and weaknesses of each proposal. 160 161 Mr. Ferrington apologized for making his presentation so late in the process; however, he noted that he 162 had not had opportunity to touch base with individual Board and Task Force members yet in this hastened 163 process; and as a private citizen, he was seeking the best way to protect GLWMO resources into the 164 future and how that weighs in with local control. 165 166 Task Force Member Solomonson suggested Board discussion at this time to determine categories with 167 consensus and those requiring further discussion to find Board consensus. Mr. Solomonson noted that the 168 Board had received input from subcommittees with the Task Force; and how they chose to use that 169 information was up to the GLWMO Board in determining their recommendation. 170 171 Board Member Barrett concurred. 172 173 Tabulation Results 174 Member Miller entered individual Board member rankings (high - medium -low) into the computer 175 calculations and weighting while individual Task Force members provided any further input on their 176 review of the various options. 177 178 Task Force Member Solomonson opined that the process was very accelerated not allowing for a deep 179 review; but noted that ultimately member cities would make the decisions, even though a GLWMO Board 180 consensus on a recommendation would be prudent to get those issues out in the open. 181 182 Mr. Ferrington opined that past mergers in the metropolitan area had been negotiated processes; and 183 suggested some additional questions were necessary for those negotiations, including how those entities 184 would be asked by the GLWMO to change their financial approaches and governance structure to 185 accommodate the GLWMO. Mr. Ferrington noted that the GLWMO didn't even have a Plan in place 186 right now for what it was trying to protect, causing the GLWMO to negotiate from a weak point. 187 188 Task Force Member noted that the resubmitted Plan must have goals and alternatives listed in the details 189 and in the financial sections. Mr. DeBenedet noted that he had failed to respond to a previous question 190 from the last meeting on the cost of the behline interceptor, with the cost at approximately $88,000 191 annually; and further noted that, in any project area, some areas received more benefit than others. 192 193 Mr. Ferrington opined that a Plan approved by BWSR would provide a negotiating stance in three (3) 194 years. 195 196 Task Force Member Solomonson noted that no one entity should have the bottom of the priority list; and 197 all too often, those on the bottom didn't get completed; and opined that once you lost local control, the 198 GLWMO could no longer address that. 199 200 Task Force Member DeBenedet suggested that they could be addressed in the short-term with negotiation; 201 and noted that the Ramsey/Washington Metro WMO had a prioritization scheme in place; and at the 202 request of Mr. Ferrington reviewed other current debt of the organization. 203 4