My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
2012-03-22_Minutes
Roseville
>
Commissions, Watershed District and HRA
>
Grass Lake WMO
>
Minutes
>
201x
>
2012
>
2012-03-22_Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
6/21/2012 10:25:08 AM
Creation date
6/21/2012 10:24:07 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Commission/Committee
Commission/Authority Name
Grass Lake WMO
Commission/Committee - Document Type
Minutes
Commission/Committee - Meeting Date
3/22/2012
Commission/Committee - Meeting Type
Regular
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
9
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
106 NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, The Board of Commissioners of the Grass Lake <br />107 Watershed Management Organization accepts the "findings" of the cities of Roseville, Shoreview <br />108 that the Grass Lake WMO be dissolved pursuant to Section VI of the GLWMO Joint Powers <br />109 Agreement; and <br />110 <br />111 BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, The Board of Commissioners for the GLWMO accepts the <br />112 recommendation of the cities of Roseville, Shoreview, and the MN Board of Water and Soil <br />113 Resources that the geographic area currently known as the GLWMO be transferred to the <br />114 Ramsey - Washington Metro Watershed District; and <br />115 <br />116 BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, the official "sunset' date for the GLWMO shall be Thursday, June <br />117 21, 2012 at 11:59 pm. END OF Draft RESOLUTION <br />118 <br />119 Discussion <br />120 Lines 98 -101 ( Withhart) <br />121 Member Withhart noted that the City of Shoreview had yet to make a formal decision and <br />122 recommendation as to the future direction of the WMO at this time. <br />123 <br />124 Member Huffman concurred, noting that one Shoreview City Councilmember supported merger with the <br />125 Vadnais Lake Area WMO ( VLWMO), therefore, discussions had not reached a consensus to provide an <br />126 official position for the City of Shoreview. Member Huffman questioned if the BWSR didn't actually <br />127 make that final decision. <br />128 <br />129 Mr. Petersen expressed his understanding that both the Cities of Roseville and Shoreview were prepared <br />130 to petition the BWSR to enlarge the boundaries of the Ramsey - Washington Metro Watershed District <br />131 ( RWMWD) and had provided the rationale for the draft language as presented. <br />132 <br />133 Member Withhart concurred with the comments of Member Huffman; anticipating that this may be the <br />134 actual recommendation; however, he noted that at this time, there was no "official" position by the City of <br />135 Shoreview. <br />136 <br />137 Lines 108 -111 (Lewis) <br />138 Ms. Lewis noted that the DRAFT resolution indicated that position; however, since there was no formal <br />139 action for either member city at this time, suggested removal of the entire "WHEREAS" language in lines <br />140 98 -101. Ms. Lewis also suggested that the second `BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED..." language be <br />141 revised to remove any references to the member cites, but to only indicate that the GLWMO Board of <br />142 Commissioners accepts the recommendation to merge with the RWMWD. <br />143 <br />144 Mr. Maloney advised that the City of Roseville would be taking action on whether or not to accept the <br />145 finding for dissolution at their Monday, March 27, 2012 regular business meeting; and the Shoreview <br />146 City Council would be taking similar action at their regular business meeting on Monday, April 2, 2012. <br />147 Mr. Maloney advised that the structure of the existing Joint Powers Agreement (JPA) did not provide for <br />148 a linear process that was typical. <br />149 <br />150 Member Huffman noted that the staffs of both member cities concluded that the water resource initiatives <br />151 and goals of the WMO would be best met via merger with the RWMWD; and therefore, were making that <br />152 recommendation to their respective City Councils for decision - making. Member Huffman noted that the <br />153 sense of urgency for City Council action was created due to the tight timeline for the RWMWD to <br />154 incorporate the geographical area of the GLWMO on the tax rolls for residents of the GLWMO. With the <br />155 VLAWMO, their process of approval and merger would be an entirely different process due to their JPA <br />156 with their multiple partners, with that process estimated to take up to one (1) year. <br />157 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.