2011-10-27_Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

138 each option based on their geographic sizes of the organizations and the water bodies involved, local 139 control, costs, staffing, board make -up and /or turnover, budgets, and public education opportunities. 140 141 Individual Board and Task Force members asked questions during the process for more clarity; with 142 general discussion following the presentations including differences in costs for each option on individual 143 residential properties; and how much each organization spent on water quality versus damage control. 144 145 At this time, Chair Eckman opened the meeting up to members of the public wishing to comment. 146 147 Public Comment 148 Jo Bester, 460 Horsehoe Drive (Lake Owasso) 149 Mr. Bester opined that, while combining with Ramsey/Washington may seem like the GLWMO would be 150 receiving substantial resources, he also noted the cost burdens that would not prove of any value to 151 citizens of the GLWMO member cities, such as ultimately paying for buildings, bonds and other items, 152 such as the interceptor trunk line water pipe outside the GLWMO area. Mr. Bester spoke in support of 153 retaining an independent WMO. 154 155 Edward Robert (Lake Owasso) 156 Mr. Roberts suggested that, as the GLWMO moved forward to City Council presentations for member 157 cities, that it dialogue further with BWSR to prioritize what makes the BLWMO better related to their 158 expectations; and the GLWMO Board's expectations from those discussion and timing for those goals 159 moving forward with the final plan for submission to BWSR. 160 161 At the request of Mr. Roberts, Chair Eckman reviewed the outstanding items for resubmission of the 162 Third Generation Plan to BWSR, identifying strategies, goals and a budget for the next three (3) years, 163 followed by a major Plan amendment in 2014. 164 165 Next Steps 166 Discussion ensued on the next steps in re- ranking the categories, those with consensus, and those 167 appearing to need more discussion to reach that consensus; noting the heavy weighting for local control, 168 and awareness from the presentations of the loss of that local control through the two (2) merger options, 169 and much more important that the actual size of the organization, but based on the people involved and 170 their passion for the GLWMO area; recognizing the first two (2) years for most board members was a 171 learning curve before they found any effectiveness as a board member, usually found only in a 6 -8 year 172 term; finding volunteers who had the time and commitment to serve, as well as their passion for water 173 quality and management; and the lack of visibility in the past of the GLWMO itself. 174 175 Discussion ensued on when the member cities needed the recommendation and information packets for 176 their City Council's (no later than November 15, 2011 for the November 21, 2011 meetings). 177 178 As Task Force /Board Member subcommittees were tasked with re-ranking and re-weighting the eleven 179 (11) categories, further discussion ensued on any additional information the Board required from Task 180 Force members to pursue their recommendation and reach consensus; with questions identified for further 181 research and analysis. Each individual was asked to come up with their score for each option, at which 182 time the scores would be compared and a composite score provided based on those scores. 183 184 After further discussion, Mr. Schwartz recommended that a preliminary meeting of member city Mayors, 185 City Managers and their City Engineers be held to further discuss the information and determine any gaps 186 prior to presentation to the member City Councils. 187 188 4