2011-07-21_AgendaPacket - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 Board Member consensus was in the need to provide a recommendation to the two (2) member cities before the March 31st' ,2012 or 90 day deadline as previously discussed. Mr. Petersen suggested that, as long as the Board remained on track for BWSR approval of the Plan in November or December, there was no reason to wait until March or the extra ninety (90) days. Selection Process / Membership Criteria Chair Eckman advised that the proposal was for a total of ten (10) task force members, five (5) of whom will be the GLWMO Board itself. Update from Member Cities on Finance Research (if available) Chair Eckman questioned how likely it was that the ten (10) year forecasted in the Plan would change appreciably. Mr. Petersen advised that the real change to the forecasted budge e predicate e TMDL study results, since that was an unknown at this time and would re until sometim n 2013. Mr. Petersen further advised that, once those more definitive BMP de ns and costs ere available, it may require a major amendment to the Third Generation Ith motion of the GLWMO Board passed on May 19, 2011 m his understanding that the member cities would be performproposed for the task force. Mr. Petersen noted that dire staff was to put together financing scenarios for the GLWMO mergi remaining an independent entity. Chair Eckman asked Mr. Schwartz if he had a s Mr. Schwartz advising that to -date, he had recei that the GLWMO Board would be performing recommendation. Pft questioned if the previous revised. Mr. Petersen expressed due diligence, in addition to that r aneview City Manager to his adjacent WD or WMO or the Roseville City Council; with W'directi6h; however, he was of the understanding diligence and return to the City Council with a Chair Eckman questioned h the d could m e a decision without knowing the preference of both member City Councils. Mr. Schwartz advised tha ad already done research with the Roseville City Attorney for implementing fees to rope rh i e GLWMO, to determine that it was financially feasible; and noted the co of the Ville City Councilmembers who expressed interest in the GLWMO analysis c itment. . S artz opined that staff of the member cities could provide a reco ation to their ective and partner City Councils on recommended financing options; but in term e GLWMO B d's future governance, that would need to come as a result of the task force an s Board rec endation. Mr. Schwartz advised that he could perform an analysis for an annual st ter r for those parcels in the GLWMO and calculate a formula to convert that revenue on a per par or the GLWMO and their budget projections. Member Mill noted that, with a task force deadline of March 31, 2012, the member cities would have already set their utility rates for 2012 in November 2011; and suggested that the task force complete their work before then to allow the GLWMO Board to make a recommendation to the City Councils for their consideration in November of 2011. Mr. Petersen opined that, unless feedback from agencies and the public during the 60 day review process of the Third Generation Plan, indicated significantly different numbers, the Board already had the information available to review financial options and rates, and the only variable was dependent on how aggressive the Board chose to be in its analysis. 4