02-09-1998 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

r ' ‘ f m’ * ! !*. I If t improvement projects, either through a bid process or by rotation within a pool of firms. Other sugpstions include relying more on the Hennepin Conservation District; and using the city engineer as the project manager, instead of an engineering consultant. This latter suggestion would also address the cities’ perception of a lack of coordination and information dissemination at the project irnplementation stage. While we don’t know if these suggestions would decrease costs, they would defimtely decrease the risk of communication breakdowns. study stated the need for the district administrator to monitor consultant costs. 1 ms has been implemented over the past few months. Reviews of the Dhtricl's I994.'l995, and 1996 financial statements by the State Auditor recommendations In summary, the Board of Water and Soil Resources recommends the following: 1. A. The bo«d of managers should shift their management style from being involved in many details of dis^ct operations towards being a policy and oversight body as presented in the “District Management’’ section on pages 2 and 3. B. The bomd of manaprs should assign district staff and empower district staff to carry out most of the operational fimctions and administrative services, as presented in the Uistnct Management’’ section on pages 2 and 3. C The dis^ct should rely more on staff in the areas of permits and planning, which may requne additional staff, as presented in the “Financial Accountability’’ section on pages 4 II. A. The district should improve communications with constituents, especially cities, as presented m the “Communication, Outreach. Coordination’’ section on page 3. B. The district should hold an annual meeting with the cities and counties to discuss capital improvement projects on line for the coming year and try to achieve broad agreement among the parties on sources of funding for the projects. f