Laserfiche WebLink
204 <br />205 <br />206 <br />207 <br />208 <br />209 <br />210 <br />211 <br />212 <br />213 <br />214 <br />215 <br />216 <br />217 <br />218 <br />219 <br />220 <br />221 <br />222 <br />223 <br />224 <br />225 <br />226 <br />227 <br />228 <br />229 <br />230 <br />231 <br />232 <br />233 <br />234 <br />235 <br />236 <br />237 <br />238 <br />239 <br />240 <br />241 <br />242 <br />243 <br />244 <br />245 <br />246 <br />247 <br />248 <br />249 <br />250 <br />251 <br />252 <br />253 <br />Member Miller noted the value of timing the task force deadline and Board recommendation to member <br />cities to assist them make changes in their 2012 utility fees. <br />Mr. Petersen concurred, noting that it could be possible to accomplish all of that, including an approved <br />budget to get incorporated into the 2012/2013 member city budgets that could allow for Option 2 <br />financing for 2012 rather than Option 1 as outlined in the Draft Third Generation Plan. <br />Objective / Timing (continued) <br />After further discussion, it was GLWMO Board consensus that the objective of s force was to <br />thoroughly research financial options for funding the Third Generation P1 s currently written, <br />emphasizing funding for Option 2 to support the GLWMO Board's future decis' me g. <br />If viable, the task force target date for its deliverable should be timed to <br />funding options with the member city's storm water utility rates <br />recommendation of the task force. <br />It was reiterated that those rates were set in November of 1 for <br />assumption that the GLWMO Board would ultimately make <br />Chair Eckman advised that her vision of the task force would b <br />GLWMO Board members getting together outside regular moathly <br />take on a specific research assignment related t ra ancing /go' <br />other WMO's who had previously merged with Eckman opi ned that the Board could not realisi a <br />change to the JPA at this time. <br />fall, itlWis a final <br />year 2012; and made an <br />recommendation. <br />F citizens and the five (5) <br />Board meetings and each <br />asks, including researching <br />and negatives of that merger. Chair <br />option through the legislature or a <br />Mr. Schwartz advised that, in his review of the JP ytwo the Roseville City Attorney, the Board had the <br />authority to levy a tax; ho Id uld I limifundi ng a capital program, not for operating or <br />administrative costs. <br />Mr. Petersen sought pdd� o "! and provided further clarification on the options to be <br />considered by the task force: <br />• VMillergge�sted with sey / Washington Metro Watershed District; <br />• he GL with adnais Lake Area Watershed Management Organization (VLAWMO), <br />r allowe BWSR; <br />indepe nt WMO with current governance funding mechanism (status -quo option) <br />indepe at WMO, funded through member cities with applicable special storm water <br />ith cities providing a funding contribution. <br />M ggested that a limit of 3 -5 alternatives be established for the task force to consider once <br />comber Miller also suggested that the task force be charged with reviewing those viable <br />options. <br />Membership Criteria (continued) <br />Member Miller suggested, with Board Members consensus, that each city Mayor be sent a letter <br />requesting they provide a representative from their city, whether an elected official or their <br />delegate, to serve on the task force. Members concurred that an enthusiastic and water - quality <br />interested person be sought. <br />k <br />