2011-11-04_Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

341 342 Concluding his position statement, Member Miller summarized that he didn't think the economy of scale 343 worked for an Improved GLWMO, since it wasn't big enough to bring education, as an example, to the 344 same level as one of the merger options; and questioned if a $300,000 annual budget was realistic to 345 accomplish the goals of the GLWMO, even cutting back to 3 -4 priorities. 346 347 Member Westerberg opined that, as an Improved GLWMO, the organization could target educational 348 efforts for the WMO, with economies of scale not necessarily involved, with many technical staff 349 available to provide those services. Member Westerberg advised that he was not willing to confine the 350 GLWMO to other WSD models, but preferred to focus and target things to the GLWMO and its means. 351 352 Member Barrett opined that local educational component would be the biggest advantage of staying 353 independent. 354 355 Member Von De Linde concurred, opining that it wouldn't be that expensive if the GLWMO did due 356 diligence. 357 358 Regarding local control, Member Miller opined that this was another major concern of his, in addition to 359 costs, that by staying so small there would be a lot more focus on costs as opposed to benefits. Member 360 Miller opined that benefits of the watershed could accrue to a very large area; and while hearing that the 361 GLWMO was fairly landlocked, there had been water moving out of the watershed this year, so it was not 362 always insular and landlocked. Basically, Member Miller advised that his concern in remaining so small 363 was that it focuses on perceptions or potential costs, such as the major discussion over the "No Wake 364 Zone," and causes the WMO to become beholden to those issues and lose site of bigger picture benefits. 365 366 Member Westerberg noted that the MPCA was currently doing the TMDL Study, with their charge and 367 scope to discern that for the GLWMO; and at this point he remained unconvinced, and thought it was 368 premature to say the BMP's needed to target would not be as cost - effective as those administered by 369 larger WMO's or WSD's. 370 371 Member Miller noted that the TMDL Study or "WRAPP" as it was now called for the GLWMO's nine 372 (9) square feet of watershed would include impacts on watersheds outside the GLWMO as long as water 373 moved intermittently and impacted downstream watersheds, ultimately affecting 55 -60 square miles of 374 watersheds. 375 376 As a resident of the GLWMO, Member Westerberg advised that his concern was to improve the water 377 quality of Lake Owasso, Snail Lake and Wabasso Lake — those three (3) resources — and that he didn't 378 have the same level of interest in resources outside the GLWMO. 379 380 Member Miller referred to the "No Wake Zone" issue again and how the GLWMO would be beholden to 381 costs based on the perception to select residents of the high cost to their lifestyle; and based on that 382 perception the actions of the GLWMO Board in not taking any action. In looking at it from a bigger 383 picture, it would allow residents to look at things from the broader perspective and understand the 384 potential future benefits. If something else came forward, such as the vegetation issues, and citizens in 385 turn disputed that, Member Miller opined that it would be difficult for the GLWMO Board to act as an 386 organization to face such huge opposition, when citizens only considered their personal cost, and 387 dismissed the benefit that could accrue to a larger area on a bigger scale, and failed to understand that the 388 benefits were of equal cost in the decision - making process. Based on his observations during his short 389 tenure with the GLWMO Board, Member Miller noted how the GLWMO Board could become beholden 390 to select citizens and opined that he was unsure if that made sense in good decision - making processes. 391