2011-05-26_Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

306 Mr. Schwartz responded that budget -wise, it would be committing the city to dollars that may not be 307 available, or competing with other funding obligations. 308 309 Mr. Roberts opined that it doesn't matter what management structure the WMO adopts, or what projects 310 and watershed priorities were under the current structure, if the Third Generation Plan is adopted, cities 311 would be obliged to fund those programs; and he could understand the concern of the member cities. 312 313 Member Von De Linde questioned how the cities would meet the initiative requirements if they didn't 314 have the money. 315 316 Mr. Roberts questioned whether the WMO was advisory or if cities were obliged to follow its 317 recommendations. 318 319 Ms. Correll advised that a watershed organization is obliged to protect the water bodies in its management 320 area by state statute. Ms. Correll noted that it was difficult to put management responsibilities on cities 321 when they were pulled in many directions. Ms. Correll advised that the organization charged with 322 protecting its resources was the one making the decision and they could include whatever they chose in 323 their Plan for cities to accomplish; however, in the end, she noted that it was up to the cities to comply. 324 325 Chair Eckman noted that, if the WMO got too obnoxious, the member cities could dissolve the Joint 326 Powers Agreement QPA), and if one or both of the cities chose to do so, BWSR would step in and dictate 327 to the cities what was to be done to protect those water bodies. 328 329 Mr. Petersen advised that BWSR had already stated that they will not create any more watershed districts, 330 and if the GLWMO were to dissolve, they would move those water bodies affected into the Ramsey 331 Washington Metro Watershed District, as per law. 332 333 Member Von De Linde stated that the GLWMO had good partners in the member cities and expressed her 334 interest in staying good partners. 335 336 Members recognized and confirmed that, as a WMO, their sole responsibility was to protect and improve 337 whatever needed to be done in their watershed; and keep it from any further deterioration. 338 339 To that end, Chair Eckman noted the need for the WMO to adopt a Plan that would facilitate its 340 accomplishment of goals in a timely fashion, how cost allocations would be projected if current funding 341 sources remained, and in a best case scenario under revised governance and/or financing version, how 342 those same costs would be allocated. 343 344 Mr. Schwartz concurred that the Plan should state the WMO's goals; and personally opined that the Plan 345 should state that the watershed take on 100% of monitoring and related activities, from which the WMO 346 would gain information to advise cities of areas not up to par. Mr. Schwartz further opined that due to 347 equity issues in the current funding structure with storm water fees across both cities, it may be prudent to 348 increase the watershed dollar amount and not be so focused on current funding levels from those cities, 349 making the case for the WMO's need for a new funding structure. Mr. Schwartz advised that both 350 member cities met yesterday, staff and respective City Managers, with thought being given on how or if 351 member cities could work with their respective City Attorneys to seek ways to assist the WMO with 352 funding in terms of storm water fees outside the current city -wide storm water fees, to provide the WMO 353 with a fee structure above and beyond the current city -wide storm water fees. Mr. Schwartz suggested 354 one option would be a separate line item/fee specific to those properties within GLWMO jurisdiction and 355 incorporated into periodic utility billings. 356 7