Laserfiche WebLink
1 <br />2 Chair Ferrington opined that he (Mr. Olivier) could more clearly and fairly represent a broader <br />3 perspective of issues in the GLWMO. <br />4 <br />5 Member Eckman concurred, opining that he also was a stakeholder given his residence in this <br />6 watershed. <br />7 <br />8 Further discussion included prejudices or benefits of such interest. <br />9 <br />10 Member Manzara noted that EOR may require more assistance in getting the Board through the <br />11 process, while Barr provided for more assistance; and that consideration needed to be given to <br />12 how much help was needed throughout the process. Member Manzara noted her interest in the <br />13 Houston suggestions for that involvement. <br />14 <br />15 Chair Ferrington suggested that supplementary "technical working committees" may be prudent, <br />16 with specific tasks and timelines for accomplishment of those tasks in order to facilitate the <br />17 process. Chair Ferrington also noted his interest in the Houston suggestions. Chair Ferrington <br />18 suggested further discussion on what kind of representation those technical working committees <br />19 should have, emphasizing that they would be working committees, not advisory committees, <br />20 with their commitment established to work with the consultant on a continuous basis toward <br />21 completion of their committee tasks. <br />22 <br />23 Further discussion included the philosophical nature of "technical working committees" and <br />24 creation of specific expectations and timelines for those efforts to be recommended to the full <br />25 Board; and liaison roles of individual Board members to specific "technical work committees <br />26 <br />27 Selection of preferred consulting company <br />28 Chair Ferrington requested if any individual members wished to revise their rankings at this <br />29 point in response to discussion by the Board at large. <br />30 <br />31 Member Von De Linde noted that she would like to change several scores for individual ranking <br />32 criteria, including under Barr, under the category demonstration of consistent record, change <br />33 from a "6" to a "2," given her limited length on the board and inability to determine that <br />34 consistency. Also, under the cost column for the Ban proposal, Member Von De Linde <br />35 requested changing from "5" to "2," after her further review of costs. <br />36 <br />37 Member Manzara provided a new composite total average for Ban based on those revisions, <br />38 from 77.3 to 75.7, which resulted in more consistency and agreement among individual Board <br />39 members on the highest ranking firm. Chair Ferrington noted that the EOR ranking remained <br />40 highest at 88.7 points. <br />41 <br />42 Member Eckman expressed concern that Barr's price was so much higher than the Board's <br />43 published budget. She also was concerned with their (Barr's) lack of attempt to stay within the <br />44 Board's price range, as well spreading the work over such a long time. Member Eckman further <br />45 noted the history of Barr's substantial overruns with a previous GLWMO project. <br />46 <br />