My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
CC_Minutes_2011_1128
Roseville
>
City Council
>
City Council Meeting Minutes
>
201x
>
2011
>
CC_Minutes_2011_1128
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
12/27/2011 1:12:47 PM
Creation date
12/27/2011 1:12:44 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Roseville City Council
Document Type
Council Minutes
Meeting Date
11/28/2011
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
19
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
Regular City Council Meeting <br /> Monday,November 28, 2011 <br /> Page 15 <br /> Councilmembers noted their consensus to address transit issues with the legisla- <br /> tive delegation during discussions; and discussion of the other points detailed in <br /> the RCA by City Manager Malinen; as well as determining the receptivity of the <br /> legislative delegation to a potential local sales tax option for Roseville. <br /> 13. Business Items—Presentations/Discussions <br /> a. Discuss Revised Joint Powers Agreement Regarding Grass Lakes Water <br /> Management Organization (GLWMO) and Funding Request <br /> Mayor Roe recognized attendance by GLWMO staff representative Tom Petersen <br /> and GLWMO Chair Karen Eckman in audience. <br /> Public Works Director Duane Schwartz summarized this item as detailed in the <br /> RCA dated November 28, 2011. Mr. Schwartz' comments included staff con- <br /> cerns with the proposed revised Joint Powers Agreement (JPA) and Implementa- <br /> tion and Budget portions of the Third Generation Water Management Plan that <br /> impacted the control of the member cities of Roseville and Shoreview on that <br /> budget. Mr. Schwartz noted that, from a staff perspective, the most significant is- <br /> sues were related to financing (line 266 in the JPA) (Attachment C); and various <br /> time frames; as well as Subd. 3.b with the cash flow advance not defined to a lev- <br /> el cities would be required to fund the GLWMO; and Subd. 4 (line 306) related to <br /> CIP projects and timeframe for cities to comment on proposed CIP projects. <br /> Mr. Schwartz briefly reviewed WMO versus WSD activities, funding and partner- <br /> ships, and management practices; current direct input of member cities under the <br /> current JPA; process utilized by Capitol Region WSD and Rice Creek WSD with <br /> their budgets not subject to City approval, but funded through taxpayers within <br /> their district. <br /> Mayor Roe noted that currently all taxpayers paying storm water fees in the City <br /> of Roseville were paying for operations of the GLWMO; with those in the geo- <br /> graphical area of the GLWMO not currently paying any additional fee on their tax <br /> bills to cover water management costs specific to the GLWMO. <br /> Councilmember McGehee opined that this was an unequal burden if the City con- <br /> tinued to fund the GLWMO in this manner, with Roseville taxpayers subsidizing <br /> residents living in the GLWMO, and indicating a need to change that funding <br /> structure. <br /> Mayor Roe noted that revising that funding structure was part of the proposal cur- <br /> rently before the City Councils of Roseville and Shoreview through a revised <br /> JPA. <br /> City Manager Malinen noted that the GLWMO proposal was to fund the <br /> GLWMO residents through the City's utility billing structure; while other WSD's <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.