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
outreach through the member cities. The organization pursues projects in line with its watershed <br /> management plan. These projects are the smaller scale than some of those pursued in RWMWD, <br /> and focus on shoreline restoration and stormwater infiltration through cost sharing with private <br /> land owners for construction Best Management Practices and coordination with public works <br /> projects in the member cities. An improved GLWMO will expand the implementation of these <br /> projects and pursue some larger shoreline restoration and stormwater infiltration projects. <br /> Result of the Criteria Scoring <br /> When the board members scored the criteria for each alternative, based on the <br /> characteristics of each organization described above, the alternatives scored very close ranging <br /> from 82.1 on a scale of 100 to 89.9. VLAWMO was the highest scoring alternative due to its <br /> combination of high program effectiveness and relatively high local control (compared to <br /> RWMWD). RWMWD, while scoring well in program effectiveness, monitoring capability and <br /> education, scored low in both local control and cost to residents. GLWMO scored slightly lower <br /> than RWMWD predominantly on slightly lower scores in program effectiveness and monitoring <br /> capability that were the result of a concern by a board member about future effectiveness of <br /> GLWMO (described below under Points of Debate among the Board). This scoring highlighted <br /> the relative strengths and weaknesses of each alternative, and became the basis for discussion <br /> among the board members about which option to recommend. <br /> Criteria Weight GLWMO VLAWM RWMWD <br /> g IMPROVED <br /> Program effectiveness 16.67 0.75 1.00 1.00 <br /> Monitoring Capability 14.77 0.75 1.00 1.00 "! <br /> Local Control 12.88 1.00 0.67 NOW <br /> Education 12.50 1.00 1.00 1.00 "! <br /> Citizen Input 9.47 0.67 0.67 0.67 i <br /> City cost 8.33 1.00 1.00 1.00 <br /> Additional Resident's cost(per parcel) 6.44 1.00 1.00 Now <br /> Staff# 6.44 0.67 0.67 1.00 <br /> Grants Awarded 6.44 0.67 1.00 1.00 "! <br /> Staff Continuity 4.17 0.67 1.00 1.00 "! <br /> Board Continuity 1.89 0.67 0.67 <br /> Criteria Weight GLWMO VLAWM RWMWD <br /> g IMPROVED <br /> Program effectiveness 16.67 12.5 16.66667 16.66667 <br /> Monitoring Capability 14.77 11.07955 14.77273 14.77273 <br /> Local Control 12.88 12.87879 8.628788 4.25 <br /> Education 12.50 12.5 12.5 12.5 <br /> Citizen Input 9.47 6.344697 6.344697 6.344697 <br /> City cost(per city, No Cost=1) 8.33 8.333333 8.333333 8.333333 <br /> Additional Resident's cost(per parcel) 6.44 6.439394 6.439394 2.125 <br /> Staff# 6.44 4.314394 4.314394 6.439394 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.