02-09-1998 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Past and present district staff were also interviewed. Interviews were conducted with citizen and environmental groups, non-district consulting engineers and attorneys, other metro watershed district managers and staff, and select state agency staff. In addition, many district records were reviewed, including an exhaustive review of the Long Lake project and reviews of the Gray’s Bay Dam Outlet, Gleason Lake, Painter Creek, and Langdon Lake projects. Staff from the Board of Water and Soil Resources also reviewed the 1994 Management Study and the 1997 Draft Strategic Plan, both of which the district commissioned. Lastly, the State Auditor reviewed the audited financial statements of the district for fiscal years 1994, 1995, and 1996. SUMMARY OF FINDINGS Based on all the information gathered, the Board of Water and Soil Resources concludes that the district has not violated any applicable statutes, rules and regulations. In addition, the district has shown significant leadership in comprehensive water management. However, a number of concerns did arise during our research for this report, primarily in two areas: micro management by the Board of Managers and lack of District commumcation with stakeholders or constituents, especially cities. Additionally, the issue of accountability for expenditure of public funds was raised as a concern by some interviewees. Although some of these concerns are already being addressed through recent administrative changes, including hiring a new administrator, our review suggests improvements focused on district management; district operational procedures; district outreach, commumcation and coordination; and financial accountability. DISTRICT MANAGEMENT The board of managers for the district had a history of being dedicated and running the operations “hands-on” during the first 25 years. The district had no staff, choosing instead to use engineering and legal consultants. In 1992, two staff positions were established, a full time administrator and a half-time clerical. Since then, the board of managers has not completely shifted its focus and priorities from day-to- day management of operations to that of being a policy and oversight body. Too many and lengthy meetings result. Too often managers function individually and give administrative direction to staff, or opinions to constituents, without full board awareness and approval. Further, the district administrator and staff should be working directly with the constituents wdthout excessive oversight from individual managers. Oftentimes constituents are uncertain who to contact at the district level. Members of the district staff are generally seen as not empowered to make decisions, except the most simple or basic