Laserfiche WebLink
255 <br />256 <br />257 <br />258 <br />259 <br />260 <br />261 <br />262 <br />263 <br />264 <br />265 <br />266 <br />267 <br />268 <br />269 <br />270 <br />271 <br />272 <br />273 <br />274 <br />275 <br />276 <br />277 <br />278 <br />279 <br />280 <br />281 <br />282 <br />283 <br />284 <br />285 <br />286 <br />287 <br />288 <br />289 <br />Consensus scoring on each criterion proceeded. <br />* ** <br />* <br />Criteria <br />GLWMO improved <br />VLAWMO <br />RWMWD <br />1. Program effectiveness <br />M 0.75 * ** <br />H 1.00 <br />H 1.00 <br />2. Monitoring capability <br />2 14 - -2 M 0.75 * ** <br />H 1.00 <br />H 1.00 <br />3. Local control <br />H 1.00 <br />M 0.67 <br />L 0.33* <br />4. Education <br />H 1.00 <br />H 1.00 <br />H 1.00 <br />5. Citizen input <br />M 0.67 <br />M 0.67 <br />M 0.67 <br />6. City cost (per city, no cost -1) <br />H 1.00 <br />H 1.00 <br />H 1.00 <br />7. Additional resident cost <br />(per parcel) <br />H 1.00 <br />H 1.00 <br />L 0.33* <br />8. Staff # <br />M 0.67 <br />M 0.67 <br />H 1.00 <br />9. Grants awarded <br />M 0.67 <br />H 1.00 <br />H 1.00 <br />10. Staff continuity <br />M 0.67 <br />H 1.00 <br />H 1.00 <br />11. Board continuity <br />L 0.33* <br />0.67 <br />M 0.67 <br />TOTALS (weights) <br />(Perfect score = 100) <br />82.12121 <br />89.875 <br />83.30682 <br />Strike -outs indicate changes made to the criteria based on further GLWMO Board discussion and <br />consensus <br />Red indicates those having the lowest ranking <br />Mr. Ferrington, in addressing criteria #9, 10 and 11, noted the number of grants submitted by the <br />GLWMO in the past and those awarded, but not credited; and specifically identified those awarded during <br />his tenure on the Board, as well as those currently pending award; staff continuity informed by the <br />GLWMO's past; and whether elected officials or appointed members served on the boards. <br />Member Barrett offered to move his ranking to "high" for Criteria #1 based on further consideration and <br />discussion. <br />Member Miller opined that he was unsure if he could rank it as "high ", but was willing to keep it as <br />medium, which would recognize that the an improved GLWMO would be more effective than the current <br />organization; however, he opined that he could not see it ranked as high when compared to the other two <br />options. <br />Task Force Member DeBenedet noted that the GLWMO was established by member cities to avoid issues <br />with WSD's (e.g. erosion control programs and lake protection, etc.); and was intended to lean more <br />toward land development; and to avoid the perception of WSD's potentially slowing that development. <br />However, since that time, Mr. DeBenedet noted that the WMO had been starved for funding and <br />programs could not work due to that lack of funding; and opined that he was unsure if the GLWMO could <br />achieve long -term support from member cities. <br />Member Miller concurred with the comments of Mr. DeBenedet, especially based on the current JPA <br />situation. Member Miller noted that the member cities may not to put much money into the WMO, but <br />they also didn't want to lose local control. <br />GLWMO Board consensus was to revise hnproved GLWMO ranking to "medium." <br />6 <br />