2010-11-30_Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Chair Ferrington reminded Board members that they were free to explore either proposal in more detail with Mr. Petersen or Mr. Goodnature outside a formal meeting; however, he cautioned that, as a Board the only way to do additional brainstorming or ask additional questions was at tonight's meeting or at the December 15, 2010 meeting, unless it was the Board's consensus to hold another special meeting before December 15. Member Manzara clarified that her intent was for a Board discussion at the December 15 meeting prior to the contractors arriving; to which both Mr. Petersen and Mr. Goodnature agreed. Chair Ferrington noted that, with receipt of two (2) proposals for Professional Services, it provided the GLWMO Board with a unique and flexible, while unexpected, opportunity in making their decision. Old Business Approval of EOR as Contractor to develop Third Generation Ten Year Watershed Management Plan Camilla Correll, Partner with the firm of EOR had arrived at the meeting at approximately 6:55 p.m. Chair Ferrington introduced discussion of the proposed Agreement between the GLWMO Board and EOR for development and completion of the Third Generation Plan. Ms. Correll reviewed the revised work plan and contract provided to the Board; and offered to address any of their questions or concerns with those highlighted revisions and the modified timeline for starting on December 1, 2010. Mr. Maloney questioned how EOR communicated with cities for background information, maps and other pertinent information. Ms. Correll advised that a list had been provided to the GLWMO Board at their previous meeting; and could be e- mailed to Mr. Schwartz and Mr. Maloney; and anticipated compiling that information within the first three (3) weeks of December to initiate the water inventory. Mr. Maloney requested that Ms. Correll e -mail that information to him as soon as possible to facilitate making that information available. Member Manzara sought clarification from Ms. Correll on the expectations of EOR for a contact point and the level of decision making for that contact versus the entire Board. As a hypothetical example, Ms. Correll suggested a scenario with the Board meeting on a monthly basis in 2011, but at the first stakeholder meeting a big issue was brought up that was not reflective of a majority of stakeholders. Before EOR spent a lot of time and resources on that issue, they would want to determine whether that issue was limited to a vocal minority or of vital interest to the entire Board. Ms. Correll advised that, rather than delaying the timeline or getting consensus responses to all of EOR's questions; it was preferable for EOR to have a working 13