2010-11-30_AgendaPacket - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

1 involvement. Mr. Petersen opined that the interview process could serve to flesh out remaining 2 questions; and noted that having initial community engagement and input in the planning process 3 was handled very effectively by EOR for Capitol Region. 4 5 Chair Ferrington advised that he had reviewed other natural resource conservation plans done by 6 EOR specific to public buy -in, and opined that they had done an excellent job with the stake 7 holder involvement component. 8 9 Mr. Petersen questioned if there was value -added for the Board to interview both firms. 10 11 Member Manzara opined that Barr's distinction seemed to be more handholding, requiring less 12 personal time commitment of the Board, and less angst on the part of individual Board members. 13 14 Mr. Maloney offered generic comments based on his review of proposals, and his anticipated 15 discussion by the Board between the two firms of Barr and EOR, noting his concurrence with the 16 Board rankings. Mr. Maloney opined that the major difference in the proposals appeared to be 17 stylistic, neither good or bad, but from his perspective and involvement with local government, 18 the Barr proposal better articulated their expectations of city staff. Mr. Maloney respectfully 19 requested, if the board proceeded to the interview phase, that the Board clearly determine the 20 firm's expectations of city staff from the perspective of citizen involvement in the process and /or 21 as leveraged partners; and offered to submit questions to the Chair accordingly to better 22 determine those expectations. Mr. Maloney further opined that any one of the four top- ranked 23 firms had demonstrated that they could perform the work in some measure; however, he 24 concurred that the two selected by the Board stood out from the other firms. 25 26 Chair Ferrington spoke in support of proceeding with the interview process to convince the 27 Board of the best firm for the GLWMO, and to flesh out any details that may be missing. He 28 then asked for input from both cities on questions to ask during interviews. Member Manzara 29 mentioned the option of a subcommittee performing interviews rather than the full board. 30 31 Chair Farrington opined that there appeared to be a clear consensus of the Board's first choice, 32 and that the interview process appeared to be more for the purpose of convincing members of 33 their first choice. Chair Ferrington further noted the need to perform the interview(s) in a timely 34 manner, before the end of the year, to avoid further delays in the plan development process. 35 36 Member Eckman opined that it would be the most productive use of everyone's time to provide a 37 list of questions prior to an interview. 38 39 Member Manzara suggested that individual members, and city staff, submit their lists of 40 concerns needing further clarification. 41 42 Chair Ferrington noted the need to ensure the questions were documented as part of the public 43 record. 44 45 Member Westerberg opined that, given the importance of this plan to the organization, the full 46 Board should participate in the interview process to ensure everyone's input was considered.