2010-11-30_AgendaPacket - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

1 2 Further discussion included the history of involvement of the two firms in water management 3 and work with watershed districts and /or cities; review of information provided by references 4 given by the companies by Chair Ferrington; and how each firm addressed specifics of the RFP. 5 6 Member Manzara expressed concern that the EOR proposal didn't address positive ways to 7 ensure citizen and stakeholder involvement. 8 9 Chair Ferrington noted that, of the six firms having contacted him during the RFP process, EOR 10 asked the most detailed questions, mostly of a technical nature, indicating that their firm was 11 aware of the basic philosophy and requirements of the GLWMO. 12 13 Chair Ferrington noted that, following his contact with Barr, it appeared their response to the 14 RFP revolved around their review of the GLWMO web page, meeting minutes and the budgeted 15 funds set aside for development of the plan; however, he noted that their projected budget was 16 not in line with the public information provided for available funds. Chair Ferrington cautioned 17 that, if that firm was chosen, there needed to be a clear expectation by the Board and the firm of 18 the differential in funds budgeted by the GLWMO versus the total estimate for developing the 19 plan. The Chair also felt it necessary for the Board to determine made on how to fund that 20 overrun if Barr turned out to be the consultant of choice by the Board. 21 22 Member Manzara suggested that, as a part of the process, the Board could consider writing a 23 minimum 20% contingency into the projected budget to anticipate overruns. However there was 24 no discussion of where the necessary funds would be found to cover such a contingency. 25 26 Member Eckman opined that the timeline for Barr was too long compared to EOR, with some 27 tasks not included in the costs. Member Eckman noted the need for a very good understanding 28 by the firm and the Board of additional costs, and timely payment of expenses. 29 30 Member Manzara opined that, as a committee, additional discussion may be necessary to 31 determine the level of Board commitment and to develop a meeting schedule over the next year 32 to accomplish the work required; with a clear schedule agreed upon by the firm and the Board 33 upfront. 34 35 Member Westerberg noted that EOR had already identified the need for a single point of contact 36 or small committee to facilitate effective progress. 37 38 Member Eckman noted that the principal of EOR was a resident of Roseville, which may help 39 facilitate meeting schedules. 40 41 At the request of Member Eckman, Mr. Schwartz confirmed that the principal worked previously 42 with Capitol Region Watershed District. 43 44 Member Eckman advised that she had spoken to the EOR principal earlier today and had 45 confirmed that he had never served on the GLWMO, that he resided in Roseville close to Lake 46 Owasso, but without any deeded access, nor was he a member of a lake association. 4