Laserfiche WebLink
103 <br />104 <br />105 <br />106 <br />107 <br />108 <br />109 <br />110 <br />111 <br />112 <br />113 <br />114 <br />115 <br />116 <br />117 <br />118 <br />119 <br />120 <br />121 <br />122 <br />123 <br />124 <br />125 <br />126 <br />127 <br />128 <br />129 <br />130 <br />131 <br />132 <br />133 <br />134 <br />135 <br />136 <br />137 <br />Members determined that tonight's goal should be to identify any information gaps, and to agree to the <br />criteria and weighting, with an additional meeting then required. <br />Discussion ensued regarding "administrative cost' based on a percentage of the budget, and it was <br />determined by consensus that this category should be eliminated, since there was no effective way to <br />measure it uniformly. <br />Regarding "board turnover" and "board qualifications," discussion included how each option appointed or <br />elected board members, various terms and qualifications, and recognizing the difficulty in weighting this <br />category for ranking purposes; with consensus to combine those categories into one (1) entitled, "board <br />continuity." <br />Discussion ensued on how best to proceed, with consensus being to re -rank the criteria ( #1 — 11) by each <br />individual Board and Task Force member to determine their order. <br />Exercise <br />Program Effectiveness <br />Criteria <br />Priority Points (rank) <br />Totals <br />= 14.31% <br />3. <br />99 <br />1 <br />11 <br />11 <br />11 <br />11 <br />11 <br />11 <br />11 <br />11 <br />11 <br />85 <br />2 <br />10 <br />7 <br />8 <br />10 <br />10 <br />10 <br />10 <br />10 <br />10 <br />74 <br />3 <br />9 <br />9 <br />7 <br />9 <br />9 <br />9 <br />9 <br />6 <br />7 <br />44 <br />4 <br />8 <br />5 <br />6 <br />8 <br />2 <br />4 <br />1 <br />2 <br />8 <br />45 <br />5 <br />7 <br />6 <br />4 <br />7 <br />3 <br />8 <br />5 <br />4 <br />1 <br />46 <br />6 <br />3 <br />10 <br />1 <br />6 <br />1 <br />7 <br />4 <br />9 <br />5 <br />51 <br />7 <br />2 <br />4 <br />10 <br />5 <br />7 <br />6 <br />8 <br />6 <br />3 <br />52 <br />8 <br />4 <br />8 <br />9 <br />4 <br />8 <br />5 <br />7 <br />3 <br />4 <br />44 <br />9 <br />5 <br />3 <br />5 <br />3 <br />6 <br />3 <br />3 <br />8 <br />8 <br />34 <br />10 <br />6 <br />2 <br />3 <br />2 <br />4 <br />1 <br />2 <br />7 <br />7 <br />28 <br />11 <br />1 <br />1 <br />2 <br />1 <br />5 <br />2 <br />6 <br />1 <br />9 <br />NEW RANKING (594 total votes <br />1. <br />Program Effectiveness <br />= 16.67% <br />2. <br />Monitoring and Analysis <br />= 14.31% <br />3. <br />Education — Outreach to Public <br />= 12.467% <br />4. <br />Additional Resident Cost <br />= 8.75% <br />5. <br />City Cost <br />= 8.59% <br />6. <br />Local Control — by RV /SV <br />= 7.74% <br />7. <br />Opportunity for Citizen Input <br />= 7.58% <br />8. <br />Grants Awarded <br />= 7.41% <br />9. <br />Staff # <br />= 7.41% <br />10. <br />Staff Continuity <br />= 5.72% <br />11. <br />Board Continuity <br />= 4.71% <br />TOTAL <br />= 100% <br />Individual Task Force/GLWMO Board Subcommittees presented their specific assignments in reviewing <br />the three (3) various options: improved GLWMO (Solomonson, LaBresh, Eckman); potential <br />combination with Ramsey/Washington Metro Watershed District (DeBenedet and Barrett); and potential <br />combination with the Vadnais Lakes Area Water Management Organization (Moriarty and Westerberg). <br />Standard criteria was used in performing those analyses and included advantages and /or disadvantages for <br />3 <br />