2011-11-17_Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

459 460 Member Barrett reiterated his comments from the November 0 meeting and the majority 461 recommendation to continue as an Improved GLWMO with a significant budget increase; 462 it would provide a lower cost alternative initially for the first three (3) years until the 463 Improved GLWMO had those years operating. Member Barrett further noted that a 464 merger could be contemplated down the road, perhaps after those three (3) initial years of 465 operation as an Improved GLWMO if determined ineffective or unrealistic. However, 466 Member Barrett noted the discussions held regarding how and if a merger could be 467 "undone" if it were done immediately, especially since the GLWMO had invested so 468 much time and money in developing the Third Generation Plan, and a merger would 469 negate those efforts. Member Barrett opined that the Plan needed to be given a chance, 470 and if found ineffective, it would then provide impetus for a merger in the future rather 471 than merging and losing the local control and finding it difficult or impossible to 472 backtrack. 473 474 Member Westerberg spoke in support of retaining that local control; and at the request of 475 Chair Eckman for the benefit of Member Miller, reiterated his comments about the lack 476 of consistency with state agencies in their approach to local level land controls versus 477 merging WMO's. 478 479 Member Barrett noted that he had worked with Task Force member DeBenedet on the 480 Ramsey/Washington WD merger option; and noted that Mr. DeBenedet was of the 481 opinion that the Ramsey - Washington Metro WD was still small enough for the member 482 cities to retain local control; and on that point, Member Barrett concurred with Mr. 483 DeBenedet. 484 485 Member Miller noted that the merger options were gaining political momentum, with 486 BWSR driving consolidation efforts; and opined that BWSR would probably have more 487 impact than the MPCA. 488 489 Chair Eckman noted that the WRAPP would continue whether the GLWMO remained 490 independent or merged. Chair Eckman concurred with Member Miller in the difficulty of 491 having sufficient expertise and knowledge of Board members versus FTE's; and opined 492 the question was whether to merge now or struggle for another few years, and then 493 merge; referencing other metropolitan area WMO's who had already dissolved. Chair 494 Eckman noted how small the GLWMO was from a resident cost perspective; and 495 depending on the results of the WRAPP, the GLWMO could be paying comparable costs 496 to what it would pay if merged with the Ramsey/Washington WD in the future to 497 accomplish its goals. Chair Eckman recognized the difficulty in this decision; but noted 498 the many local volunteer opportunities available whether independent or merged. 499 500 Member Westerberg opined that other jurisdictional or agency priorities would be 501 addressed first, with GLWMO concerns pushed to the background. 502 503 Member Miller noted that a broader Ramsey - Washington Metro WD would still be 504 responsible for all the lakes within its boundaries, with the GLWMO not simply being an 505 appendage, but a part of the whole group. If a lake within the GLWMO deteriorated, 506 Member Miller noted that it would be made apparent; and opined that he didn't think the 507 geographical area of the GLWMO would be sacrificed through a merger. 508 10