2012-02-16_Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

102 a. The BWSR Board will order a Public Hearing to receive public comment on the petition; 103 b. The BWSR Board will then make a decision based on the petition and public comments 104 c. The BWSR Board will formally decide on the merits of the enlargement of the 105 RWMWD. 106 107 Mr. Schwartz reiterated that the entire process needed to occur before June 30, 2012 if RWMWD were to 108 have the ability to tax within GLWMO in 2013. 109 110 Ms. Lewis noted that constraints of the timeframe were based on lead time requirements for public 111 hearing and policy requirements of public notice and the BWSR Board meeting schedule. 112 113 Member Cities - Roseville and Shoreview Actions Regarding Future Governance Structure 114 Mr. Schwartz advised that necessary action of the member City Councils to ratify the GLWMO Board 115 decision and resolution of petition for dissolution to BWSR was scheduled for March 26 (Roseville) and 116 April 2 (Shoreview). 117 118 Chair Miller sought clarification on pending contracts of the GLWMO Board once the dissolution process 119 was initiated; and the future meeting schedule proscribed for the GLWMO Board through June or before. 120 121 Ms. Lewis advised that the BWSR Board's June 2012 meeting was scheduled for the fourth Wednesday 122 of the month, and the GLWMO Board could continue to meet until that meeting; at which time the 123 dissolution would be complete and the GLWMO Board no longer in existence. With the City of 124 Roseville serving as the GLWMO Board's fiscal agent, Ms. Lewis suggested, based on their City 125 Attorney's opinion and counsel, could receive a list of outstanding contracts and encumbered funds for 126 those projects to finish implementing them; or they could be forwarded to BWSR. Ms. Lewis referenced 127 language of the JPA that allowed for a reasonable buffer for pending contracts and dispersal of funds. 128 129 Mr. Petersen advised that RCD was still in the process of soliciting additional contracts for outstanding 130 BMP cost -share applications from designs already completed, with the GLWMO Board having 131 previously moved that those projects needed to be completed and invoices submitted no later than the 132 GLWMO Board's October board meeting. However, Mr. Petersen advised that the contracts and funding 133 could be turned over to the City of Roseville and Shoreview if they were willing to do so. 134 135 Mr. Schwartz advised that, in the interim, the City of Roseville — and he suspected the City of Shoreview 136 — was willing to partner on those BMP projects in process, since it was of benefit to member cities to 137 facilitate those private installations for the overall benefit in the GLWMO area. Mr. Schwartz advised 138 that member cities were willing to work with the GLWMO, as well as with the RWMWD. 139 140 Member Barrett sought additional background on how merger with the RWMWD rather than the 141 VLAWMO had been determined by the cities. 142 143 Mr. Schwartz advised that both member cities, throughout deliberations, had weighed the pros and cons 144 of both organizations. The one large obstacle found by member cities with the VLAWMO was the length 145 of time it would require to renegotiate the JPA with their current member cities totally six (6); and 146 agreement of all parties on final amendment to their JPA to accept the GLWMO's geographical area. Mr. 147 Schwartz noted that each of the City Council and their respective City Attorneys would weigh in, at 148 which point the VLAWMO would then need to determine if the GLWMO was an asset or liability to their 149 organization, creating a lot of unknowns. Mr. Schwartz advised that, in discussions with Ms. Lewis, with 150 future governance models indicating consolidation of water management activities in the metropolitan 151 area to meet the larger, long -term picture, member cites thought it seemed that it was likely that the 152 consolidation would move toward larger and fewer organizations. 3