2011-10-27_Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

52 Solomonson suggested the first step should be to determine if there was a clear option or a hybrid of the 53 three (3) options, or it an obvious option was not yet on the table. 54 Member Miller advised that the baseline was developed from the original GLWMO Board's fifteen (15) 55 criteria; and then had been weighted using the AHP process based on concerns or issues previously 56 expressed by individual GLWMO Board members, member communities, residents in the GLWMO. Mr. 57 Miller reviewed how the criteria were evaluated (high, medium, and low) and the descriptions or 58 definitions of each criteria to ensure that the goals were clear and measurable, and consistently meeting 59 goals in line with state requirements. Member Miller asked for input from Board and Task Force 60 members on the appropriateness of each criterion; if any were missing; is any should be removed; and 61 subsequent weighting adjustments based on that input. 62 63 The various criteria were reviewed and refined, with some eliminated and others combined, reducing the 64 number from fifteen (15) to eleven (11) categories: Program Effectiveness, Monitoring Capability, 65 Education, Additional Resident Cost (per parcel), City Cost (per member city), Local Control, Citizen 66 Input, Grants Awarded, Staff Numbers, Staff Continuity, and Board Continuity. 67 68 Facilitator Engh led the group through discussion of the fifteen (15) individual criteria. 69 70 Discussion among Board and Task Force Members included defining each criteria to ensure everyone was 71 on the same page; city versus resident costs for the three (3) options; the need for clear goals before being 72 able to attain them with funding needed to achieve those goals (program effectiveness); monitoring 73 capability related to interpretation and management of that data (quality) with final consensus be that the 74 category should focus on monitoring and analysis of surface water quality. 75 76 Further discussion included public outreach, awareness and education moving forward; effective and 77 desirable strategies and tactics to change culturelbehavior around public stewardship of water resources; 78 identifying individual property owner awareness of surface water quality issues and implementation of 79 water quality measures; and how each option undertook getting that public understanding and 80 involvement out (education/outreach to the public; and clarifying that "success for grants" should be 81 changed to "grants awarded." 82 83 After discussion on the category of "outstanding accomplishments," it was the consensus to eliminate this 84 criteria, since it was based on society politics, depended on the level of awards, and was too subjective in 85 how applications were perceived; and that "citizen input" should be changed to "opportunities for citizen 86 input, based on various ways to receive that input depending on specific capabilities and sizes of the 87 various options. 88 89 Further discussion included how local control would be accomplished comparatively among the three (3) 90 options; consensus to eliminate the "citizen awareness" category, since it seemed redundant of the 91 "citizen input" category; and to leave the "city cost" category as is. 92 93 Regarding "resident cost," discussion included how to define that cost, whether through number of 94 residents in each member city, only those residents in the GLWMO, or by parcel; current collection of 95 stormwater fees assessed to all residents of member cities versus a future proposed governance option to 96 assess those residents in the GLWMO; and how best to quantify those calculations, with consensus to 97 change this category to "ADDITIONAL resident cost." 98 99 Additional discussion was based on quantifying the staff number of each option in FTE's (full -time 100 equivalents); how the number of staff impacted each option based on "more is better" in determining their 101 effectiveness and providing a wider diversity of training and technical experience; as well as staff 102 retention indicating a value for "staff continuity." 2