2011-11-04_Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

290 Task Force Member DeBenedet noted the need to be honest among Board members as well as citizens on 291 the actual cost to individual residents; aligning goals and finances in the Plan. 292 293 Task Force Member Solomonson recommended color - coding the low rankings as they determined how to 294 frame them into their recommendation. 295 296 Further discussion and consideration included frustrations with past GLWMO operations and inoperative 297 governance /finance structures; strengths /weaknesses of the past GLWMO and an Improved GLWMO as 298 part of the findings in comparison or versus the merger options, if additional funding was available; and 299 how to determine if and how an improved GLWMO would work if there was no opportunity given to 300 such an entity and how it could therefore be compared to other options. 301 302 Further discussion included making sure the matrix findings pointed out concerns over losing local 303 control; willingness of the other WMO's in working with member municipalities; how to ensure the 304 findings included a clear process to achieve an improved GLWMO as an effective option; and how to 305 document how an improved GLWMO would achieve comparable standings with the other two options, 306 clearly addressing those areas where the GLWMO scored lower; and the resources needed to make it 307 effective. 308 309 Action Step 310 Task Force Members asked that they receive a copy of the Mr. Miller's report to member City Councils. 311 312 Motion 11 -11S -3 313 Member Miller moved, and Member Von De Linde seconded acceptance of scoring as informing the 314 recommendation, not as a basis for it, but to inform the recommendation. 315 316 Ayes: 4 Nays: 0 Motion carried. 317 318 Governance Recommendation by the GLWMO Board (Westerberg) 319 Motion 11 -11S -4 320 For discussion purposes, Member Barrett moved, and Member Von De Linde seconded to recommend to 321 member Cities the option for an Improved GLWMO alternative. 322 323 Member Barrett opined that there was not a lot of separation between the two merger options; and 324 concurred with comments of Mr. Ferrington that an Improved GLWMO needed a chance to work; as well 325 as providing a more cost - effective option for residents of member cities; and having the opportunity to be 326 as equally effective under a new governance/financing opportunity. 327 328 Member Miller opined that, in going through consensus scoring it somewhat blunted the extremes; and as 329 talk on the effectiveness of a perceived future for the GLWMO as an unknown, it remained an unknown 330 as well as an extrapolation of past observations in the exercise to put together the Ten Year Plan. Mr. 331 Miller further opined that he was unsure if there was a lot of political will in member cities to make this 332 an effective organization in those member cities that would ultimately oversee the organization. If 333 remaining a JPA, currently another unknown, and based on past experience, Mr. Miller opined that there 334 was a strong potential that even an Improved GLWMO would not be effective, with the 335 educational/outreach portion achievable more readily through a merger option. 336 337 Member Westerberg opined that, if the Improved GLWMO assembled the proposed Technical Advisory 338 Committee (TAC) and Citizens Advisory Group (CAG), that educational component could then be 339 addressed and place an Improved GLWMO in a good position to promote education and outreach and 340 move forward effectively. 7