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