2011-06-23_Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

201 Mr. Petersen opined that, unless feedback from agencies and the public during the 60 day review process 202 of the Third Generation Plan, indicated significantly different numbers, the Board already had the 203 information available to review financial options and rates, and the only variable was dependent on how 204 aggressive the Board chose to be in its analysis. 205 206 Member Miller noted the value of timing the task force deadline and Board recommendation to member 207 cities to assist them make changes in their 2012 utility fees. 208 209 Mr. Petersen concurred, noting that it could be possible to accomplish all of that, including an approved 210 budget to get incorporated into the 2012/2013 member city budgets that could allow for Option 2 211 financing for 2012 rather than Option 1 as outlined in the Draft Third Generation Plan. 212 213 Objective / Timing (continued) 214 After further discussion, it was GLWMO Board consensus that the objective of the task force was to 215 thoroughly research financial options for funding the Third Generation Plan as currently written, 216 emphasizing funding for Option 2 to support the GLWMO Board's future decision - making. 217 218 If viable, the task force target date for its deliverable should be timed to facilitate incorporating applicable 219 funding options with the member city's storm water utility rates yet this fall, if that is a final 220 recommendation of the task force. 221 222 It was reiterated that those rates were set in November of 2011 for budget year 2012; and made an 223 assumption that the GLWMO Board would ultimately make such an applicable recommendation. 224 225 Chair Eckman advised that her vision of the task force would be five (5) citizens and the five (5) 226 GLWMO Board members getting together outside regular monthly GLWMO Board meetings and each 227 take on a specific research assignment related to their financing/governance tasks, including researching 228 other WMO's who had previously merged with a WD, both positives and negatives of that merger. Chair 229 Eckman opined that the Board could not realistically consider a tax option through the legislature or a 230 change to the JPA at this time. 231 232 Mr. Schwartz advised that, in his review of the JPA with the Roseville City Attorney, the Board had the 233 authority to levy a tax; however, it would be limited to funding a capital program, not for operating or 234 administrative costs. 235 236 Mr. Petersen sought and the Board discussed and provided further clarification on the options to be 237 considered by the task force: 238 239 • Merger of the GLWMO with Ramsey / Washington Metro Watershed District; 240 • Merger of the GLWMO with Vadnais Lake Area Watershed Management Organization (VLAWMO), 241 if possible or allowed by BWSR; 242 • Remain as an independent WMO with current governance funding mechanism (status -quo option) 243 • Remain an independent WMO, funded through member cities with applicable special storm water 244 utility fees, with both cities providing a funding contribution. 245 246 Member Miller suggested that a limit of 3 -5 alternatives be established for the task force to consider once 247 convened. Member Miller also suggested that the task force be charged with reviewing those viable 248 options. 249 250 Membership Criteria (continued)