2010-08-26_Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Chair Ferrington provided a copy of the most current draft of the RFP as prepared by the subcommittee consisting of him and Member Manzara; and provided a brief history of the development of the RFP based on the Second Generation Management Plan. This draft of the RFP has been developed with some additional assistance and comments from Mr. Maloney, Mr. Schwartz and Mr. Peterson. Chair Ferrington sought further comment and recommendation from the full Board. He expressed a desire to keep the RFP to a maximum of three (3) pages and sought input from Board members on whether to provide electronic and/or paper copies to prospective consulting companies, and an appropriate deadline date for receipt of proposals. Member Eckman moved, Member Von De Linde seconded approval of the Request for Proposals (RFP), dated August 19, 2010 as presented, to develop the Third Generation Watershed Management Plan. Discussion followed. Member Westerberg expressed concern that a formal, stakeholder involvement plan needed to be included in writing to ensure their expectations were documented. Chair Ferrington advised that, in regard to development of the ten -(10) year plan itself, there would be a section specifically addressing formal and informal communication strategies. He noted the RFP requests a timeline for achieving citizen -input communication goals, and that sections of the plan brought before the board as they're developed, and disseminated to citizen technical work groups for input prior to completion of the entire plan and a comprehensive review by the full Board before submission to BWSR for approval. Discussion topics included: Page 3, Item 5 of draft RFP It was the consensus of the Board that language similar to the following be inserted in Item 5 to address the concerns of Members: "Describe the process for soliciting public comment, including the number of meetings and consultant time required to develop communication opportunities." Page 1, 1 Bullet Point Member Eckman requested a footnote listing the specific, "significant," inventoried water bodies referenced in the Second Generation ten -(10) year plan. Discussion included the water body classification system and those responsible parties for their management listed in the existing plan and consultant's use of that 2" Generation Plan for background and reference; cost effectiveness and type(s) of measurement goals for restoration and /or protection; progressive nature and stringent goals of the 2 Generation Plan compared to State goals putting the GLWMO in a better position than many other Watershed Districts; protection versus restoration. It was noted that all of these topics are part of the 2 generation plan and, consequently, the suggested footnote was redundant and not needed. 3