2010-10-28_Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Ms. Lewis with BSWR confirmed that no formal action (on the report) was required by BWSR. The draft 2009 Annual Report, as amended through tonight's discussion, was declared approved by consensus by Chair Ferrington. Review of Proposed Scoring Sheet/Review and Evaluation Procedure Chair Ferrington reviewed the proposed process for review, evaluation and ranking of the firms submitting proposals for the Third Generation Ten -Year Watershed management Plan as agreed upon at the August GLWMO meeting. Chair Ferrington and Member Manzara both indicated that they had received personal contact about the RFP from several of the firms, both by phone and in person. Chair Ferrington distributed the proposal scoring sheet, and a sheet with the scores provided by Board members (without names of Board members attached) to serve as a starting point for tonight's discussion. Chair Ferrington noted that rankings of individual members could be revised tonight if they desired; and thanked members for taking time for review and ranking; and their timeliness of responses to facilitate the review process. Discussion of proposals submitted for development of 3rd Generation 10 -year Watershed Management Plan After review of the initial (anonymous) scores, Member Manzara suggested that, in an effort to save time, the Board focus on the Barr and EOR firms as the highest ranked firms, and noted that the proposals from Houston and WSB received significantly lower rankings. Members Eckman and Von De Linde concurred with Member Manzara's suggestion, following a brief discussion of the merits of those firms. Member Westerberg expressed his appreciation of several points included in the proposals from Houston and/or WSB, such as creation of a written stakeholder involvement agreement, and decisions on whether to protect, maintain or restore areas. With those caveats, however, Member Westerberg, concurred with other Board members to focus on the two highest ranking firms. Member Manzara, with concurrence of other members, suggested that some of the ideas brought forward in all proposals be incorporated in framing a long -range work plan. By consensus, the firms of Houston and WSB were removed from discussion at this point. Members proceeded to review and compare the strengths of the proposals by EOR and Barr, including their individual themes for developing useful information, monitoring data; clarity of their visions compared to the role and goals of the GLWMO; short-term versus long -term realism of goals; familiarity of the firms with the work of the GLWMO and respective cities, with their familiarity of the Second Generation Plan and Lake Owasso User Survey; and each firm's responses to the technological and priority issues set out in the RFP. 3