2012-02-16_Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

153 154 Upon reviewing the current VLAWMO JPA and their current funding, Mr. Schwartz opined that when 155 their water management plan came up for renewal, they may be faced with the same issues found by the 156 GLWMO: how to raise capital and reach agreement among their member cites. Mr. Schwartz advised 157 that currently, one concern was the number of VLAWMO capital projects were borne by member cities 158 alone versus cost - sharing among all member cities. Also, Mr. Schwartz noted that several of the water 159 bodies in the RWMWD had been removed from the impaired water body list due to their successful 160 improvement projects. 161 162 Member Von De Linde opined that the member city rationale seemed logical and practical. 163 164 Mr. Schwartz opined that, in the best interest of the GLWMO area water bodies, it looked favorable for 165 the WRAPP funding to be back in play for studies in 2013 if the dissolution process stayed on track. 166 167 Chair Miller reviewed recent meetings with staff of both the VLAMO and the RWMWD, and his 168 perception that neither WMO was necessarily excited about merging with the GLWMO, even though 169 both agencies saw some potential benefits. Chair Miller advised that he was very impressed with the 170 RWMWD staff and their comments as they even began plotting out moving forward after absorbing the 171 GLWMO and how they could incorporate the UAA into their capital improvement program in the near 172 future. 173 174 Mr. Petersen concurred, opining that he was intrigued by some of their current programs and how the 175 anticipated WRAPP could be incorporated into those programs. 176 177 Chair Miller noted that VLAWMO staff had also seen potential benefits, specifically with additional 178 funding from the GLWMO area and a broader base from which to collect fees. However, Chair Miller 179 advised that he was more impressed with the RWMWD, and shared concerns expressed by Mr. Schwartz 180 on the complexity and timing required to amend the VLAWMO's existing JPA. 181 182 Mr. Petersen concurred with the potential timing issues. 183 184 GLWMO Board recommendation for future governance entity 185 Chair Miller reiterated the decision - making and process for the GLWMO Board at this time: 186 • Motion to dissolve 187 • Petition to dissolve, preferably in the form of a resolution, and including the GLWMO preference to 188 merge with the RWMWD; 189 With a sunset date of June 21, 2012, as the final GLWMO Board meeting date prior to the BWSR 190 Board meeting date of June 27, 2012. 191 192 At the request of Mr. Petersen as to whether to draft a resolution for the March GLWMO Board meeting, 193 or further discussion at that time, Mr. Schwartz responded that from the City Council perspective for 194 member cites, it would be more palatable to them to ratify the action if they knew all parties were in 195 concert on the closure. 196 197 Member Barrett advised that he was supportive of the action, expressing his willingness to trust Mr. 198 Schwartz's judgment and analysis of the options. 199 200 Mr. Petersen expressed concern that Shoreview GLWMO Board appointees -elect would be requested to 201 take action at their first meeting, without benefit of this history, unless the GLWMO Board held a special 202 meeting earlier in March. 203 4