CC_Minutes_2011_1121 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

be contracted through other agencies, but this could be expensive and subject to the availability of such people through their employers. In other words,their employers will set their priorities and these may not align with the needs of the GLWMO. In my opinion,the whole concept is fuzzy and not understood by this board. Finally,the cost of this improvement was never discussed in our meetings and not reported in the final report. Cost Estimating for the Improved GLWMO and Other Alternatives The cost of an improved GLWMO is too low by your own estimates and is not reported accurately in the report. The report reports these cost to residential properties in GLWMO as$25 per year. Yet I was provided with a spreadsheet that shows an annual charge of$25.32 per residential equivalent raises $263,000 per year to fund GLWMO. By all reports,this is inadequate to fund the draft plan which is undergoing reviews. That same spreadsheet shows an annual fee of$32.32 raising$314,000 to adequately fund the program listed in your draft plan. In addition,as stated above,an improved GLWMO will hire two FTE staff to improve programs, monitoring and education. If these are professional staff with good water resource backgrounds and with benefits,this could easily add$200,000 to the cost of managing the improved GLWMO. Also,the draft plan relies on outside additional funding by the cities to support the plan. This was not included in the alternatives evaluation as a city cost and is not likely to be funded without reliance on the new charges. In short,the improved GLWMO will, in my estimation, require an annual property owner fee of about $50 per single family home or equivalent. Weakness of GLWMO Governance and Local Controls The board revised the evaluation criteria at the November 4th meeting to increase the weight of local control. The point of this is to give weight to the value of local property owners'voices in the GLWMO. I believe the report explains the rationale on this well enough. However,the issue of local control is subject to interpretation, but in the end,the failure to be true to the task force process and the other weaknesses of the report show this board is not up to the task before it. The board has had ample opportunities over time to improve its function as an advocate for protection of the water resources. It could be said the problem is one of funding, but if the board were effective, it could have effectively argued for increased funding or a separate and adequate funding source. It has not and only now,claims that it will do better if provided with more money. The process was not managed well. The time frame for this project was inadequate to allow all of the research and discussion that was required. Even though the board began discussions of alternatives earlier this year,the task force was kicked off in October with a deadline of November to produce a final recommendation. This was not adequate and the board should have realized the shortcomings of the project timeline and.either started earlier or proposed a strategy to continue the project to a realistic deadline allowing time for research and full discussion of the alternatives. C:\Users\stefjim\Documents\Roseville\GLWMO\GLWMO Minority report.docx Page 2