2011_1128_Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Attachment D t-4 RICKSON, 1700 West Highway 36 James C. Erickson, -'�r. Suli e 10 Caroline Bell Beckman ELLy Roseville, MN 55113 Charles R. Bartholdi ECKMAN & (651) 223-4999 Karl L. Quinn UINN, RAN (651) 223-4987 Fax Mark F. Gaughan www.ebbqlaw.com James C. Erickson,Jr. Robert C. Bell - of counsel Via Electronic Mail November 2, 2011 Mr. Duane Schwartz City of Roseville 2660 Civic Center Drive Roseville, MN 55113 RE Grass Lake Watershed Management Organization OurFileNo.-, 1011-00192 Dear Mr. Schwartz.- Previously you forwarded to me for review documents regarding proposed amendments to the Joint Powers Agreement ("JPA") governing the Grass Lake Watershed Management Organization ("GLWMO"). You and I have discussed the proposed JPA amendments 'in person. This correspondence simply memorializes my impressions upon review of the documents, copies of which are enclosed. I do not have much concern over the proposed amendments relating to organization composition and procedure, as set forth in the redlined entries to Sections I and III of the JPA. However, I have significant concern regarding the redaction of Section V, Subdivison 39 in its entirety and insertion of new S,ubdivisions 3A, 313, and 3C in its stead. This portion of the JPA involves the establishment of the GLWMO annual operating budget. Here, the proposed amendments seek to erase the authority of the municipalities to approve the budget and place such authority squarely within the discretion of the GLWMO Board of Commissioners. As a matter of common sense,) above all else, I cannot approve of the City of Roseville ceding budgetary control to an outside organization for obvious reasons. In addition, I note from the email cover letter accompanying the proposed amendments the assertion that "several sections of the current JPA needed to be modified to comply with current rules, etc. We believe we have accomplished this in the attached revised draft..." Please note that no statute or administrative rule requires municipalities to cede budgetary authority to a WMO. Minnesota Statutes section 10313.211, ® 1(a)(5), does allow a municipality to do so, but does not mandate such concession. Further, proposed new Section V, Subdivision 3C, sets forth an appeal process that ultimately ftmnels any disputes over the Boards actions to mandatory binding arbitration. In my experience, arbitration processes such as those contained in the Uniform Arbitration Act are extraordinarily costly and too often lead to arbitrary, if not biased, results. For the foregoing reasons, I encourage the City to reject the proposed amendments to Section V. Subdivision 3, as