CC_Minutes_2011_1121 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Regular City Council Meeting Monday,November 21, 2011 Page 11 Councilmember Pust opined that water quality was regional by nature, and not re- stricted to the GLWMO's and/or City's resources alone; and that since there was no fence around Roseville, we should all care about and share responsibility for waters from a regional focus; with the overall goal to achieve better efforts for more people in a more cost-effective manner. Mr. Miller noted that, as one of the minority opinions, he was in agreement with Councilmember Pust; and suggested that one of the other Board members in the majority may be better to address that concept. Councilmember McGehee noted the potential increases in tax assessments through a merger versus an Improved GLWMO. Mr. Miller clarified that the proposed assessments for the various options were based on an average property value, with some properties paying more and some paying less. Mr. Petersen noted that current rates for a Ramsey/Washington Area WSD merger were based on at $26.00 per $100,000 in market value; with projected cost for an Improved GLWMO based at$25.00 per year, no matter the home's market value. At this time, Mayor Roe invited public comment on this issue. Public Comment Steve Barrett, a member of the GLWMO Board supportive of the majority opinion thanked Mr. Miller for his objective presentation of the majority recom- mendation. As a member of the three (3) person majority opinion, Mr. Barrett note that one major discussion among the GLWMO Board and Task Force citizen advisors was comparing known entities (R/WAWSD and VLAWMO) with what the Board envisioned for an Improved GLWMO and the difficulty in comparing those known and established entities with the goals of the Improved GLWMO. In the end, Mr. Barrett opined that this created a subjective opinion; while cost re- mained a major consideration, especially if the cost was projected to double with a merger. Mr. Barrett opined that public comment heard to-date strongly support- ed retaining local control; since this was a local WMO and monies collected were preferred not to be spent elsewhere. Also, Mr. Barrett noted that another consid- eration that had caused him to lean toward the majority recommendation for an Improved GLWMO was whether, once dissolved and found to be less effective for GLWMO constituents than originally thought, could the decision be reversed. Mr. Barrett noted that with the Third Generation Plan well established, it was the majority's hope that an Improved GLWMO would prove more effective with bet- ter results, while providing a low-cost option for taxpayers as well.