2011-11-04_Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

52 achieve GLWMO Board consensus by now weighting and ranking specific by individual Board members, 53 without the Task Force rankings. 54 55 Discussion ensued on the weighting itself, agreement with the scoring methods and their results, and if 56 the Board could now define an outcome for recommendation to member City Councils. 57 58 Vice Chair Westerberg opined that the "local control" category should be weighted much higher; with 59 Task Force member Solomonson opining that in order for the Board to get to a conclusion that validated 60 their individual and corporate feelings, it needed to have further discussion on the issues with local 61 control and how to weight it, with the Board as a whole then concurring on the results or the outcome or 62 seeking another option to reconsider. 63 64 Board Member Barrett expressed interest in briefly discussing the merits of each of the three (3) options 65 prior to scoring; with individual Board members committed to concur with the results of that outcome. 66 67 Discussion of Tabulation Results (Miller and Westerberg) 68 Board Member Miller noted that "program effectiveness" had weighted the highest by individual Board 69 members. 70 71 Discussion included Board appointments and the future role of GLWMO residents on a board if merged; 72 longevity of larger organization board members; and how to get GLWMO issues ranked higher or getting 73 more attention if merging versus retaining an Improved GLWMO. 74 75 At this point, Vice Chair Westerberg sought input from resident Len Ferrington, who had asked for time 76 on tonight's agenda. 77 78 Mr. Ferrington expressed his appreciation to Vice Chair Westerberg, and thanked the GLWMO Board for 79 its approach, integrity and process in making this decision. Mr. Ferrington opined that "finance" and 80 "governance" were two (2) separate issues. Mr. Ferrington opined that "finance" was specific to a Third 81 Generation Plan needed for the next decade, and addressed what the GLWMO Board wanted to 82 accomplish and what it would cost. Mr. Ferrington further opined that "governance" was the attempt to 83 adjust the JPA to accommodate financial needs. Mr. Ferrington noted that it had yet to be determined if it 84 had been successful, and that this should be considered prior to a future merger. Mr. Ferrington suggested 85 that the GLWMO Board step back and see where it was today, noting that the draft Plan had been 86 determined incomplete by BWSR, but that at there was some indication that the financial capabilities 87 were there for the future. While not yet knowing if the proposed revised draft Plan would be approved by 88 BWSR, once it was approved, there would then be something to base GLWMO performance on. 89 90 Mr. Ferrington expressed his appreciation to the Task Force and Board members for their research and for 91 providing a background and performance history on the organizations. Mr. Ferrington stated that this 92 would provide a prediction of what would work in the future; however, part of that prediction was based 93 on: 94 1) All WMO's and WSD's must prioritize remediation and management efforts through a Ten Year 95 Plan; and once set, work toward achieving it. When prioritizing, those items scheduled to be 96 solved first and the dollars for accomplishing them would follow that prioritization schedule. In 97 terms of considering the future of the GLWMO, Mr. Ferrington opined that the Plan had to be in 98 place to identify costs; and then if it was determined that it couldn't be done, the GLWMO Board 99 could determine which merger would be best. Mr. Ferrington noted that the Third Generation 100 Plan was intended to change the way the WMO had operated in the past, which had proven 101 ineffective, and would hopefully prove effective and not reflect on the past, even though the 2