My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
2011_1128_Packet
Roseville
>
City Council
>
City Council Meeting Packets
>
2011
>
2011_1128_Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
12/16/2011 4:16:09 PM
Creation date
11/22/2011 2:00:54 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
General
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
153
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
interviews with the organizations' administrators. After the relevant facts were gathered, board <br /> members met with the citizen advisors on the task force to refine the weighting of the criteria. <br /> First, some of the criteria determined to be irrelevant were eliminated. The criteria were <br /> weighted using a rank order process that resulted in a final set of criteria weighted as shown in <br /> table 2. <br /> Criteria Weight <br /> Program effectiveness 16.67 <br /> Monitoring Capability 14.77 <br /> Local Control 12.88 <br /> Education 12.50 <br /> Citizen Input 9.47 <br /> City cost(per city, No Cost=1) 8.33 <br /> Additional Resident's cost(per parcel) 6.44 <br /> Staff# 6.44 <br /> Grants Awarded 6.44 <br /> Staff Continuity 4.17 <br /> Board Continuity 1.89 <br /> Table 2. Final Criteria and weighting <br /> Based on the facts gathered by each of the task force teams, the board members <br /> evaluated, with input from the citizen task-force members, each of the criteria for each <br /> alternative—RWMWD, VLAWMO and improved GLWMO—giving the alternatives scores of <br /> high (1), medium(.67) or low (.33)by consensus. Scores of.75 indicated a split in board <br /> opinions between high and medium. The weights were applied to the scores and they were <br /> summed for each alternative. The resulting scores (Table 3) became the basis for discussion <br /> when a motion was made to remain an independent watershed management organization. It <br /> should be noted that the board intended the scoring of the alternatives to be a basis for <br /> discussion only, and it was never intended that the highest scoring alternative would <br /> necessarily be the recommended alternative. <br /> Relevant Characteristics of each Watershed Organization <br /> Ramsey Washington Metro Watershed District <br /> The Ramsey Washington Metro Watershed is a 56 square mile watershed that includes <br /> eleven lakes—among them the Phalen chain of lakes—and five creeks. Waters of RWMWD <br /> discharge into the Mississippi River. RWMWD has a staff of 15 full time employees with an <br /> average tenure of 10 years and a 5 member board appointed by the Ramsey and Washington <br /> county commissioners with an average tenure of 22 years. The district is funded with an ad <br /> valorem tax authority and its budget is about$7 million yearly. This tax assessment would <br /> amount to a roughly $50 average increase in the property taxes of GLWMO residents if a merger <br /> were pursued. Part of the district's budget comes from grants: the district has received $3 <br /> million in grants over the past five years. The district is highly involved in monitoring its waters <br /> including using 10 automatic monitors for storm flow measurement and making water quality <br /> measurements of nine of the eleven lakes twice monthly through the open water months. Two <br /> staff members are charged with maintaining and analyzing the monitoring data. RWMWD <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.