2010-04-22_Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

1 Chair Ferrington noted the need to have interactive WMO's and watershed districts based on 2 their water connectivity. 3 4 Further discussion included the manmade improvements versus natural hydrological 5 connections; current practice of management plans and styles among and between various parties 6 by verbal agreements; political considerations in past discussions; and development of reliable 7 funding sources (i.e., stormwater utility fees) based on various models. 8 9 Ms. Lewis volunteered to research advantages and disadvantages from several other WMO's that 10 had reorganized to function better, or that had dissolved and been absorbed into a WD. 11 12 Members concurred that Ms. Lewis provide this information. 13 14 Additional discussion included the role of the Cities and the WMO as well as how the 15 constituency felt about how best to accomplish goals for water quality; and concerns expressed 16 by citizens to -date in their perceived lack of action in protecting and /or improving water quality. 17 18 Member Manzara suggested that the discussion continue following further education of the 19 Board and review of Ms. Lewis' information, and then to develop a table of options. 20 21 Further discussion included how best to integrate strategic and organizational discussions with 22 governance model discussions and whether that process should be simultaneous. 23 24 Mr. Maloney noted that the City of Shoreview's original 1983 Joint Powers Agreement (JPA) 25 had not been revisited by the Shoreview City Council since its inception, and advised that in his 26 sixteen (16) years with the City he had observed the disconnect continue to grow between the 27 transparent functioning/service delivery and the rules, based on a general lack of understanding 28 by the City of the role of the GLWMO, and as resources remain stagnant but mandates continue 29 to grow. Mr. Maloney further noted that constituents were unaware of activities unless their 30 property tax statements had a line item for those activities. 31 32 Member Eckman concurred, noting "no news is good news 33 34 Additional discussion included cost efficiencies in complying with MS4 Permit requirements; 35 various roles in education, sampling and monitoring and costs to taxpayers; mandates that don't 36 clearly show impacts other than for administrative staff; best management information for 37 permitting and available on websites; and advantages of pooling resources by MS4 communities 38 for meeting educational requirements. 39 40 Special meetings for 2011 Budget and 2011 Work Plan Chair Ferrington 41 Chair Ferrington noted the process for GLWMO members to consider and call for a special 42 meeting. 43 44 Member Manzara moved, Member Eckman seconded calling a Special Business Meeting of the 45 GLWMO for Thursday, May 27, 2010 at 5:00 p.m. at the Roseville City Hall, in a room yet to be 46 determined. 9