Laserfiche WebLink
Option #3 <br />Inventory <br />Analysis and recommendations <br />On the basis.of the discussion.that followed, -the Commission <br />members concluded that they -did not have.enough informationon the <br />proposals to make a final -decision -at this time. <br />On the basis of their interviews with the individual consultants, <br />the Commission members who were in attendance -at -the June 17 meeting <br />indicated their preferences in consulting firms. Mr. Oxian apprised' <br />the.Commission that Mr. Smith's choice was Crumlish/Sporleder.on the <br />basis that they gave the most complete discussion.. Mr: Oxian's_first <br />choice was Crumlish/Sporleder and his second choice.was Johnson, <br />Johnson, and -Roy. Mrs. Davisson's choice was Johnson,,Johnson, and, <br />Roy. Mrs.Woolridge.'s first choice was Crumlish/Sporleder,.and her <br />second choice was Johnson, Johnson., ..and Roy. . <br />Mrs. -Studer then read off,the following.consultants and their <br />prices in connection with their proposals: <br />Consultant A.. -James -Associates <br />Option #1 $7,500. <br />#2 $25,000.. <br />#3 $70,000. <br />Consultant B. Matthews-Purucker-Anella; Inc. <br />$28,000.- <br />-Consultant <br />28,000. <br />.Consultant C. Visnapuu, and >Gaede­; <br />$24.000. <br />Consultant -D., Crumlish/Sporleder.. <br />$32,405. <br />Consultant'E. Johnson, Johnson, -.arid Roy <br />Option #1 $50,000. (plus additional $15,000. optional) <br />#2 40,000. <br />#3 35.000. <br />NOTE:. Reductions are negotiable, but any reduction would <br />also- mean- a- reduction in' detail'. <br />It was the general consensus of the Commission that for -the <br />consultant.for•the Proposed County -Survey, they would choose between <br />Crumlish/Sporleder and Johnson, Johnson;'and Roy. It.was suggested <br />that the Commission members might want to meet with the two final <br />candidates to discuss their proposals in detail before making their - <br />selection.. <br />- 5 - <br />