2011-11-17_Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

report. Even though Member Miller had tried to keep his written report, as well as intending to keep his personal comments generic during his presentation to the City Councils to represent the objective findings and recommendation of the Board, Member Miller asked the Board if they would they would prefer to have someone else present the majority report; and supported having the minority position presented to the City Councils as well. Member Westerberg noted the comments of Task Force member Steve Solomonson at the November 4, 2011 meeting regarding all the criteria being subjective, but it was how individuals viewed the criteria and ranked their importance. Member Westerberg opined that, while he anticipated Task Force member DeBenedet would attempt to overhaul the majority opinion and recommendation of the GLWMO Board with his analytical analysis, he still felt those analytical conclusions were misleading. Member Miller concurred that the Board's estimation of how important the criteria are is subjective; however, he opined that the criteria included were quantifiable. Member Barrett concurred with Mr. DeBenedet's comments that the process was rushed; however, he opined that the issues were put forward in the scoring process, and he was able to view them more subjectively than analytically during the discussions. While being unable to say how effective an Improved GLWMO will be when it has only been compared to information researched from the VLAWMO and R -WMWD websites without additional detail, Member Barrett opined that it still came down to a subjective opinion of the best estimate of that available information. Member Barrett noted that, even during the analytical discussion, the Improved GLWMO, while scoring the lowest, was still the best option at this point in time. Member Barrett thanked Member Miller for his objective report, and specifically highlighted Member Miller's footnote. Members Westerberg and Von De Linde echoed that praise to Member Miller. Member Barrett questioned the need for a majority opinion presentation to counter the minority report on November 21; opining that the report prepared by Member Miller represented the majority recommendation of the GLWMO Board. Member Miller, speaking practically, noted that the GLWMO Board had made their recommendation, but the Roseville City Council would have the final decision - making in the matter. Since there would apparently be a debate at the Council meeting, Member Miller opined that both sides should showcase their arguments, since it was a subjective decision; and further opined that it would seem appropriate to at least have something prepared to counter the arguments that Mr. DeBenedet would be making. Member Westerberg opined that the position statements of Mr. DeBenedet could not be anticipated. While concurring with Member Westerberg and recognizing that it would require more work of the GLWMO Board's majority, Member Miller suggested that the City Council may wish to hear both sides. Member Miller opined that, since he had voted against the majority recommendation, it would not be appropriate for him to defend that decision. If approved by a consensus of the Board, Chair Eckman suggested that, rather than a formal written statement, GLWMO Board member could be present with a spokesperson addressing questions as they came forward. 9