2011_1128_Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Grants Awarded 6.44 4.314394 6.439394 6.439394 Staff Continuity 4.17 2.791667 4.166667 4.166667 Board Continuity 1.89 0.625 1.268939 1.268939 Sum 82.12121 89.875 83.30682 Table 3.Scored criteria and sums for each possible alternative Citizen Concerns Cost One citizen voiced the concern that fees or taxes collected by VLAWMO or RWMWD would fund projects that would not benefit residents within the boundaries of GLWMO. The Beltway Interceptor stormwater infrastructure of RWMWD in St. Paul was given as an example of an expensive program whose benefits would not be readily seen by GLWMO residents. Future Flexibility One citizen voiced the concern that if GLWMO underwent a merger, this action could not be reversed in the future if it were found to be ineffective. However, were GLWMO to remain an independent organization it could reconsider the option of merging in the future. Points of Debate among the Board Local Control The difference in the level of local control among the three organizations was clear: RWMWD, being county appointed, had the least local control; GLWMO, being appointed by Roseville and Shoreview City Councils, had the most local control; and VLAWMO, having six other members in a Joint Powers Agreement, had moderate local control. The focus of the debate on local control was on its weight as a criterion for recommending an alternative. The majority view was that local control should be heavily weighted because an organization with greater local control will use its resources more on addressing the needs of water bodies within the current boundaries of GLWMO. The minority view was that local control should be less heavily weighted because greater local control leads decision-making to be driven more by cost concerns than by benefit concerns. Program Effectiveness All board members agreed that program effectiveness was the most important criterion in making a recommendation. There was also agreement that both RWMWD and VLAWMO have high levels of program effectiveness. The focus of the debate on program effectiveness was on the ability of an improved GLWMO to achieve high levels of program effectiveness. The majority view was that with an improved financing strategy and a reasonable scope of activity focused on four program areas that address water quality—Education and Outreach, Monitoring, Technical Support, and Cost-Share Incentive—GLWMO can be highly effective as an organization in the future. The minority view was that since GLWMO has not had higher levels of program effectiveness in the past and since economies of scale led GLWMO to contract for services with VLAWMO and RWMWD in the past and GLWMO is still discussing contracting with these organizations for services, GLWMO on its own cannot be as highly effective as RWMWD or VLAWMO and economies of scale favor a merger. Conclusions The Board of the Grass Lake Watershed Management Organization recommends remaining an independent organization and asking the cities of Roseville and Shoreview to