2011-11-04_Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

102 GLWMO's water quality had actually improved. Mr. Ferrington noted that the new Plan was 103 designed to make the GLWMO better in the future than it had been in the past. 104 2) Regarding future options, Mr. Ferrington opined that it was really important to look at metrics 105 associated with potential option areas and how we stack up to those other areas (e.g. ground 106 purity; TMDL; impervious surface) and cited several examples; and opined that from that metric 107 alone, the GLWMO stood out in a good position with no direct connection to Mississippi River 108 discharges, providing a quality resource for the GLWMO to manage. 109 110 Mr. Ferrington advised that his primary concern was that the GLWMO make a choice fro the future that 111 best protects our resources and water quality; and allows the GLWMO to guarantee that those resources 112 would continue to be protected and/or improved. 113 114 Mr. Ferrington, noting the three (3) choices currently outlined, cautioned that if the wrong decision was 115 made to merge at this time, sending GLWMO dollars to be spent on priority issues in other metropolitan 116 areas, the situation could not be undone. However, if the GLWMO was retained in the Ten (10) year Plan 117 with a new budget model, a merger decision could be made in the future if found necessary. Mr. 118 Ferrington opined that there was no precedent in State Statute to "undo" a merger; and if there was any 119 doubt in Board member minds as to which option was appropriate, that they take that caution into 120 consideration, noting that a merger outcome could not be revisited. 121 122 Noting Mr. Ferrington's comments, Member Von De Linde further added that the GLWMO had been 123 given three (3) years by BWSR to work on its Plan and improve it and show changes; after which time 124 the Plan could be re- evaluated, with a Major Plan Amendment in 2014 for the Plan. 125 126 Member Miller disagreed with the options before the GLWMO Board, while noting that Mr. Ferrington 127 made a good point for Board consideration as they scored options, and considering effects in terms of 128 how much change could occur in the future. As far as looking at financing, Member Miller noted that it 129 was imperative to do so at this time, since an updated JPA was a requirement of member cities to remain 130 independent, as well as in looking at merger potentials. Member Miller advised that the City of Roseville 131 would not approve a JPA until a recommendation was in place as to whether the GLWMO Board could 132 continue to operate independently; and that there could be no updated JPA without a Plan, making it a 133 political impossibility to proceed without this recommendation in place. 134 135 Mr. Ferrington reiterated that, if the GLWMO Board recommendation was to stay as an independent 136 WMO, it would provide leeway to move forward with a Plan and alternative financing. 137 138 Member Miller advised that it would depend on the member cities approving a JPA, which he could not 139 clearly predict at this time. Member. Miller clarified that the Board was not voting for a merger at this 140 time; only voting for a recommendation to present to member cities; and ultimately the decision still 141 rested with member cities; with the GLWMO Board's intent to show them the pros and cons of the three 142 (3) options, specific to the loss of local control with a merger and a greater cost in some regards, while 143 achieving better programs in some. Member Miller advised that the member cities would ultimately 144 decide if the JPA was to continue or not. 145 146 Task Force Member DeBenedet noted that Minnesota Statute allows for withdrawal of territory from a 147 WMO. 148 149 Task Force Member Moriarty expressed concern that, while some of Mr. Ferrington's ideas had merit, if 150 the GLWMO Board took them into consideration at this time, he had basically wasted his time in seeking 151 to analyze issues for the Board. Member Moriarty opined that changing criteria at this point invalidates 152 the work of the Task Force.