2011-09-22_Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

656 possible job on the Plan itself and the direction of agency comments so far. Ms. Correll noted that FOR 657 was seeking to focus on the important elements to get the Plan approved while being realistic about the 658 size of their organization, the GLWMO Board, and each of their capabilities. 659 660 One example of numerous comments was related to groundwater; BWSR guidelines for metropolitan 661 WMO's and their lack of requirements to address groundwater, even though Ms. Correll noted that this 662 was an issue that she found important from a personal perspective; however, in reality, it was exempted 663 from the WMO's list of responsibilities. During the public comment process, Ms. Correll noted that a 664 number of comments had been received related to groundwater; thus their provision of two (2) budget 665 options for the Plan. As far as cost was concerned, Ms. Correll advised that it was EOR's belief that the 666 Plan would require at least a $300,000 annual budget; She but questioned philosophically and 667 realistically if the GLWMO was a $100,000 or a $300,000 organization; noting that it was not really clear 668 with the first DRAFT of the Plan with two options proposed, opining that the comments received from 669 the agencies were most likely in response to that lack of clarity in how much money GLWMO has to 670 spend. 671 672 Mr. Petersen observed that until the Governance and Finance Task Force process was completed and a 673 recommendation received, the GLWMO wouldn't know if it was a $100,000 or a $300,000 organization, 674 or if the latter was even acceptable to member cities. 675 676 Ms. Correll opined that, if it was determined to be a $300,000/ year budget, the Plan could be approved 677 by BWSR for the first three (3) years; as long as the agencies were assured that there would be a focus on 678 a major plan amendment for the fourth year as a result of the WRPP study with the necessary budget 679 adjustments to reflect the WRPP. 680 681 Chair Eckman observed, that no matter the GLWMO annual budget, even if the GLWMO merged with 682 another entity, those tasks that were identified as "must do's" would need to be accomplished, no matter 683 whose responsibility they were; and opined that it was therefore worth doing a good job within this Plan 684 regardless of future governance structure. 685 686 Ms. Correll concluded her summary of the memorandum by advising that, prior to submitting EOR's 687 response to comments received to the GLWMO Board, she wanted to resubmit a draft of those comments 688 to the agencies and ask their opinion on those responses to provide one more level of assurance. Ms. 689 Correll advised that it was EOR's intent to get that work completed in the next month and a target date of 690 October 14, 2011 to provide those written responses for GLWMO Board review the week prior to their 691 October 20, 2011 regular meeting. 692 693 Further discussion ensued as to timing for the ongoing process, Ms. Correll advised that FOR anticipated 694 a recommendation by the Task Force by the regular November 17, 2011 GLWMO Board meeting. 695 696 Public Works Director Duane Schwartz arrived at this time; approximately 4:36 p.m. 697 698 Ms. Correll advised that Mr. Conrad had suggested the following schedule: Task Force 699 process /recommendation by November when the next DRAFT of the Plan is put together, incorporating 700 the recommendations of the Task Force for financing and governance; Public Hearing held in October, 701 allowing for one month until mid- November to make any additional edits to the Plan, in order for the 702 GLWMO Board to adopt the next DRAFT Plan at their November 17, 2011 regular meeting to proceed to 703 the final round of review. 704 14